Another proposed constitutional amendment

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Then let me rephrase. While an expanded franchise is a critical factor in determining whether an election was fair or not, it is not the only factor.

We can debate in a different thread what the definition of a "fair" election is, but I don't consider one side spending more money than the other to be important. Besides, do you have any evidence that the CU decision is going to skew the money more towards one party than the other? Last time around, Obama had a lot more money to spend than McCain. Did that make the '08 election "unfair"?

Placing limits on campaign finance improves democratic processes.

You keep saying that, but what makes so sure it's true? I think the default position should be: the more speech the better unless proven otherwise. That's what freedom is about. The state doesn't get to restrict our freedom unless there is compelling reason to do so. And when it comes to speech, which is at the very core of the democratic process, that reason needs to pretty damn compelling.

Taking it for granted that by "speech" we are referring to spending, then I assume you already agree with this.

The speech I'm referring to is speech. It takes money to get your speech out there (although not so much anymore, with the internet), but the fundamental issue is speech. Saying you have free speech, but the government is going to limit your ability to speak is an oxymoron. Free speech is just that-- speech free from government control.

To challenge my assumption, do you think a person should be able to give unlimited funds to a candidate without disclosure? (Note: requiring a candidate to disclose is the same as a 'no'.) If my assumption is wrong, and you honestly believe that there should be absolutely no campaign finance laws or restrictions whatsoever, then the point of our departure is earlier than I initially believed.

I'm not averse to disclosure laws, although I have to admit I have not spent a lot of time making sure that position is in alignment with my sense of what a free people deserve from their government.

[Rhythmdvl]

So to put it more simply then:

Do you believe that there should be any campaign finance laws?

If so, then we're just haggling about the price. I believe campaign finance laws strengthen democratic processes. Hence, passing a campaign finance law has the ability to expand democracy (and by extension, freedom).

If you believe that all campaign finance laws are antithetical to the First Amendment, then our point of departure is there. I think, though, that it would be fairly easy to construct a range of scenarios in which democracy is subverted by the absence of such laws.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by John Mace

,,,, I think the default position should be: the more speech the better unless proven otherwise. That's what freedom is about.,,,.

Well, yeah, sorta kinda. But what is the purpose of more speech? Not simply to add to the cacophony of dueling voices, shirley? But that all viewpoints be heard, so that the citizen can make an informed choice. The speech itself is not what merits a secular holiness, but the purpose of the speech, informed governance by the people, for the people, and so forth. If there is no debate, no difference of opinion, freedom of speech would serve no purpose.

The purpose of free speech, then, is that all voices be heard, so far as it is practicable. It is founded upon the principle of equality, that my civil rights and the Koch Brothers civil rights are precisely identical. If we permit them the privilege to speak louder, longer, and pervasively, due only to their possession of greater wealth, then that principle of equality is buggered.

How to implement that principle is clearly a thorny question, it must be done with the same exceeding caution that guides sex amongst porcupines, gingerly, very gingerly. But saying it is difficult is much different than saying it must not be done.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

So to put it more simply then:

Do you believe that there should be any campaign finance laws?

If so, then we're just haggling about the price. I believe campaign finance laws strengthen democratic processes. Hence, passing a campaign finance law has the ability to expand democracy (and by extension, freedom).

If you believe that all campaign finance laws are antithetical to the First Amendment, then our point of departure is there. I think, though, that it would be fairly easy to construct a range of scenarios in which democracy is subverted by the absence of such laws.

I don't think the government should be controlling the source or the content of political speech. If there are regulations that don't inhibit speech (disclosure laws, I think fall in that category), then fine. If the regulations touch on libel laws, then fine.

Originally Posted by elucidator

Well, yeah, sorta kinda. But what is the purpose of more speech? Not simply to add to the cacophony of dueling voices, shirley?

I don't think the government should be in the business of decided what is good speech and what is cacophonous speech.

But that all viewpoints be heard, so that the citizen can make an informed choice.

Not really. It's up to the people who have the diverse opinions to bring them into the public sphere. All viewpoints that have a champion, yes. I don't want the government seeking out diverse viewpoints. I don't wan the government involved at all in deciding what speech is to be allowed and what is not, what speech is to be encouraged and what is not. Again, consistent with libel laws, and as long as the speech is political, hands off.

The speech itself is not what merits a secular holiness, but the purpose of the speech, informed governance by the people, for the people, and so forth. If there is no debate, no difference of opinion, freedom of speech would serve no purpose.

Agreed. I don't see that CU diminishes the debate in any way.

The purpose of free speech, then, is that all voices be heard, so far as it is practicable. It is founded upon the principle of equality, that my civil rights and the Koch Brothers civil rights are precisely identical. If we permit them the privilege to speak louder, longer, and pervasively, due only to their possession of greater wealth, then that principle of equality is buggered.

It is founded on the principle of freedom, first, but let's just say it's a close tie between freedom and equality. Equality before the law, though, not in outcome.

How to implement that principle is clearly a thorny question, it must be done with the same exceeding caution that guides sex amongst porcupines, gingerly, very gingerly. But saying it is difficult is much different than saying it must not be done.

I guess I just trust the people more than you do. I don't feel any need to protect them from any amount of political speech, not matter what its content. History has shown us that rich people come in all shapes, sizes and political philosophies. And the people have shown a remarkable ability to organize, raise money, and press for political change.

Let the people know who is paying for what, and then let them decide what they want to do. Technology makes it easier and cheaper not only to get your message out there, but to disseminate the information the people need to know about the source.

[Rhythmdvl]

First off, trying to frame it in terms of "I guess I just trust the people more than you do. I don't feel any need to protect them from any amount of political speech, not matter what its content." is just another appeal to emotion and similarly empty. Things like that and generic flag-wrapping don't advance any sort of argument.

You cannot say that on the one hand I am free to anonymously give unlimited amounts to the person of my choice if that person must turn around and disclose the donation. You can't have it both ways: mandated disclosure negates anonymity. Either you believe that any and all campaign finance laws are per se wrong, or you must confront the notion that much of your arguments fall away at your acceptance that some degree of regulation regarding monies spent and transferred to influence an election is acceptable.

As far as an imbalance between parties, first, an imbalance doesn't have to exist to claim that unlimited spending subverts democracy. It's basic two wrongs don't make a right. Second, you seem to suggest that if there was an imbalance, that would carry some import. Were it shown that tens of millions flowed from an extraordinarily small percentage of the population to one party, that just compounds the overall problem.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

First off, trying to frame it in terms of "I guess I just trust the people more than you do. I don't feel any need to protect them from any amount of political speech, not matter what its content." is just another appeal to emotion and similarly empty. Things like that and generic flag-wrapping don't advance any sort of argument.

No, it's a direct response to what elucidator posted.

You cannot say that on the one hand I am free to anonymously give unlimited amounts to the person of my choice if that person must turn around and disclose the donation. You can't have it both ways: mandated disclosure negates anonymity. Either you believe that any and all campaign finance laws are per se wrong, or you must confront the notion that much of your arguments fall away at your acceptance that some degree of regulation regarding monies spent and transferred to influence an election is acceptable.

No. As I said, as long as disclosure laws don't inhibit speech, then I see no problem with them. If there is objective evidence that they do, then out the go. I'm not aware of any such evidence, though, and so I'm OK with them.

As far as an imbalance between parties, first, an imbalance doesn't have to exist to claim that unlimited spending subverts democracy. It's basic two wrongs don't make a right.

What type of political speech is "wrong"?

Second, you seem to suggest that if there was an imbalance, that would carry some import. Were it shown that tens of millions flowed from an extraordinarily small percentage of the population to one party, that just compounds the overall problem.

Again, you miss that I am responding to another poster's concern about imbalance. I didn't bring it up. I'm simply pointing out that claims of imbalance don't stand up to the facts. But it wouldn't bother me, legally, if there was an imbalance.

[Rhythmdvl]

Sorry, there are a lot of related issues--you'd said "Besides, do you have any evidence that the CU decision is going to skew the money more towards one party than the other?" I was responding to that.


Again, you cannot have it both ways. Disclosure laws negate anonymity. Full stop. If a corporation or private individual is free to pay any amount they desire to a candidate anonymously, then end-running around that anonymity by requiring a candidate to disclose negates that so-called freedom.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Disclosure laws negate anonymity. Full stop. If a corporation or private individual is free to pay any amount they desire to a candidate anonymously, then end-running around that anonymity by requiring a candidate to disclose negates that so-called freedom.

I honestly don't know why you're making such a big deal about this. Congress can't abridge free [political] speech. Does requiring disclosure abridge free speech? I think not, and so I'm OK with disclosure laws. If you have evidence that they do, then bring it. I'm happy to change my mind if the data is there. Disclosure laws, to me, are a peripheral issue.

[Rhythmdvl]

Can I, within your definition of free speech, anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to a candidate? (Either for the case that anonymity extends only to the general public or to the candidate as well.)

[John Mace]

I think I've made my position crystal clear, and I don't understand why you think that question needs to be asked.

[elucidator]

An abridge too far, was it?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Voter fraud, rigged elections, and stolen votes have an impact on "democracy". Speech doesn't. It doesn't prevent anyone from voting.

This isn't about "speech", it's about money. Money makes voting irrelevant. If 200 million people vote for X and the money demands Y, then Y is what happens. America is pretty much at this point a plutocracy with a "democratic" facade to make it look semi-legitimate & placate the populace.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

This isn't about "speech", it's about money. Money makes voting irrelevant. If 200 million people vote for X and the money demands Y, then Y is what happens. America is pretty much at this point a plutocracy with a "democratic" facade to make it look semi-legitimate & placate the populace.

Ever the Pollyanna, you!

[elucidator]

Der, you exaggerate. I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. There's a major chunk of truth to what you say. But you exaggerate.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

This isn't about "speech", it's about money. Money makes voting irrelevant. If 200 million people vote for X and the money demands Y, then Y is what happens. America is pretty much at this point a plutocracy with a "democratic" facade to make it look semi-legitimate & placate the populace.

As has been pointed out in this thread, speech requires money. Unless you believe that freedom of speech is only limited to shouting in the public square (and even then it cost money to eat the food that your body converted into energy to allow the speech) then it costs money to speak.

Would you put similar "money does not equal the right" limitations on the other rights in the first ten amendments? Can I go to church so long as I don't buy gas, pay a bus fare, or put a donation in the collection plate? Can I keep and bear arms, so long as they are given to me for free? Is my property secure from unreasonable searches and seizures provided I didn't pay anything for it? Can I be represented by an attorney, but I can't pay out of pocket for one?

So wealthy people can afford better speech. They can also afford nicer homes, better cars, better health care, and nicer vacations. What a surprise. I'm failing to see the outrage.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by jtgain

As has been pointed out in this thread, speech requires money. Unless you believe that freedom of speech is only limited to shouting in the public square (and even then it cost money to eat the food that your body converted into energy to allow the speech) then it costs money to speak.

Would you put similar "money does not equal the right" limitations on the other rights in the first ten amendments? Can I go to church so long as I don't buy gas, pay a bus fare, or put a donation in the collection plate? Can I keep and bear arms, so long as they are given to me for free? Is my property secure from unreasonable searches and seizures provided I didn't pay anything for it? Can I be represented by an attorney, but I can't pay out of pocket for one?

So wealthy people can afford better speech. They can also afford nicer homes, better cars, better health care, and nicer vacations. What a surprise. I'm failing to see the outrage.

Don't forget that it's freedom of the press, as well as freedom of speech. While there might be some scintilla of an argument, still bogus, that speech doesn't require money, no one can claim that "the press" doesn't. Virtually every newspaper in the country is a corporation that routinely endorses (and shills for) political candidates. That's the freedom spelled out in the 1st Amendment, and I've never heard anyone on this MB complain about it (except when Fox does it).

[elucidator]

...So wealthy people can afford better speech. They can also afford nicer homes, better cars, better health care, and nicer vacations. What a surprise. I'm failing to see the outrage.

"Failing" to see the outrage? Just so. Well put.

[John Mace]

I got a "D" in outrage, myself. Barely passed.

[elucidator]

I refused to have my outrage judged and graded by bourgeois lackeys of the ruling class.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by jtgain

This. It would turn the whole idea of free speech on its head. No free political speech (which was what was meant to be protected) but free pornography speech and other such things.

You might as well say that we have a freedom of the press, but that no money can be spent producing the newspaper, or that we have a freedom of religion but you can't spend gas money driving to church.

The grumbling over Citizens isn't about how money is spent; it's about how it is collected. To that extent, I think the OP's suggestion is silly.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The grumbling over Citizens isn't about how money is spent; it's about how it is collected.

Can you explain? I honestly don't understand what you mean by the grumbling about how the money is collected.

[Buck Godot]

There seems to be two issues here, one it the ideals of Democracy and the other is the ideals of the constitution. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the the two are necessarily compatible. It is entirely possible that the constitution as it is written and the world as it stands lead inevitably to the failure of democracy. In the same way that if concealable nuclear weapons were available we would have to choose between 2nd amendment rights and survival as a nation.

The procedure of constitutional amendment was designed to take care of such circumstances. Certainly there should be a way to write such an amendment that fixes what needs to be fixed without throwing out the good parts.


On another note
Would it be constitutional to have a graduated tax on campaign contributions such that extremely large donations become prohibitively expensive? Say a marginal tax rate of (1-0.5^(N/50000)) where N is the amount of the donation.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

There seems to be two issues here, one it the ideals of Democracy and the other is the ideals of the constitution. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the the two are necessarily compatible. It is entirely possible that the constitution as it is written and the world as it stands lead inevitably to the failure of democracy. In the same way that if concealable nuclear weapons were available we would have to choose between 2nd amendment rights and survival as a nation.

The procedure of constitutional amendment was designed to take care of such circumstances. Certainly there should be a way to write such an amendment that fixes what needs to be fixed without throwing out the good parts.

True and good points. Keep in mind that much of this thread has devolved into a discussion about the constitutionality of the Citizens United case, and not about the proposed amendment.

On another note
Would it be constitutional to have a graduated tax on campaign contributions such that extremely large donations become prohibitively expensive? Say a marginal tax rate of (1-0.5^(N/50000)) where N is the amount of the donation.

The CU case did not affect campaign contributions-- ie, contributions to candidates. It addressed whether corporations (or other groups) had the constitutional right to run ads on their own.

From my perspective, I wouldn't like your proposal. Forbidding a person to do something and making it impossibly expensive to do something are the same thing.