Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United?

[Fenris]

The answer to the OP is "No, Montana can't".

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Iggy

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, and reversed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court.



Looks like Citizens United is here to stay.

I'm glad. It will be good to have Westerners united with Easterners now in their hatred of Citizens United. Something we can ALL get behind, except for a few ideologues and plutocrats. This may be the best thing to happen to progressives in a long, long time.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Thanks, Iggy.

Good news.

People, you can't just go violating the First Amendment because you think it's a good idea. Preventing this is the whole point of having a First Amendment.

It's good news for plutocrats, maybe. Bad for fans of democracy. Perhaps good news for progressives: perhaps this decision will do for us what Roe V. Wade did for conservatives.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Why is burning a flag speech, but using money to buy a TV ad not speech?

Because burning a flag doesn't try to force speech on people who don't want to hear it. The entire purpose of advertising is to try and make people watch your message. If it weren't, there'd be an all advertisement channel you could turn to to watch it at your leisure.

Also, burning the flag does not in any way affect elections. It's just a statement of protest that has no real message besides "I hate America."

Finally, what makes you think I'd really care if burning the flag were made illegal? I'd gladly give that up if it meant that elections couldn't be bought.

BTW, that's the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can't coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads. Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people. It wouldn't be so bad if they could just give facts.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I'm glad. It will be good to have Westerners united with Easterners now in their hatred of Citizens United. Something we can ALL get behind, except for a few ideologues and plutocrats. This may be the best thing to happen to progressives in a long, long time.

Yeah, keep making stuff up.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

It's good news for plutocrats, maybe. Bad for fans of democracy. Perhaps good news for progressives: perhaps this decision will do for us what Roe V. Wade did for conservatives.

Speech is never bad for democracy.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Speech is never bad for democracy.

But money sometimes is.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Yeah, keep making stuff up.

I'm speculating, to be sure. Something wrong with that?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by BigT

Because burning a flag doesn't try to force speech on people who don't want to hear it. The entire purpose of advertising is to try and make people watch your message. If it weren't, there'd be an all advertisement channel you could turn to to watch it at your leisure.

There is no right not to be exposed to speech.

Also, burning the flag does not in any way affect elections. It's just a statement of protest that has no real message besides "I hate America."

They're both protected speech though.

Finally, what makes you think I'd really care if burning the flag were made illegal? I'd gladly give that up if it meant that elections couldn't be bought.

So? You'd give it up. Others wouldn't. Your desires are irrelevant to the rights of others.

BTW, that's the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can't coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads.

How are people "coerced" into watching ads?

How much contempt for the intelligence of the voter can you manage to show?

If the voters are so dumb that they can't possibly ignore, or critically think about, ads, that can only mean they aren't qualified to vote anyway.

Stop the arrogance.

Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people.

Are you manipulated by ads?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I'm speculating, to be sure. Something wrong with that?

Depends - is it a valid reason for me to ban your speech? Since there seem to be so many, I'm not sure any more. Let me know.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

But money sometimes is.

Sometimes it is, yes. So?

[lance strongarm]

On behalf of corporate America, I apologize that all of you will be manipulated and brainwashed by political ads, because you're not smart enough to think about them critically or ignore them. Whichever ones you see more than those of the other side, you'll mindlessly believe. You might as well just not vote, since your vote is now meaningless since you just can't control yourselves. It's all corporate America's fault.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by BigT

BTW, that's the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can't coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads. Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people. It wouldn't be so bad if they could just give facts.

So this would mean that you want to ban ALL political ads. Right?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

However, when the Supreme Court granted a stay of a Montana state court ruling, When you combine the amazing unpopularity of this Supreme Court ruling with the legal actions that started with Montana and is apparently ending right back in the country's high court, how likely is it that the court will be willing or able to backtrack against a ruling that was made such a short time ago?

I am quite biased, although I am not alone in my bias, that Citizens United was a terrible ruling for democracy and the chilling effects of the ruling have already been felt. However, this seems like a solid foundation for a rare (but not unheard of) reversal from the High Court.

What do the legal beagles of the Dope think?

This question seems to now be definitively answered in the negative.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

On behalf of corporate America, I apologize that all of you will be manipulated and brainwashed by political ads, because you're not smart enough to think about them critically or ignore them. Whichever ones you see more than those of the other side, you'll mindlessly believe. You might as well just not vote, since your vote is now meaningless since you just can't control yourselves. It's all corporate America's fault.

I know you are having fun with your strawman there, but you DO know what the alternative to ballots is, don't you?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I know you are having fun with your strawman there, but you DO know what the alternative to ballots is, don't you?

It's not a strawman. Not at all.

Did you mention ballots? The things that the people have when they vote, and therefore have 100% control of election outcomes?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Terr

It is Congress that is not allowed to abridge the speech.

By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so.

Originally Posted by Buckley

contribution restrictions could have a severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy

Which is a fine standard for determining whether expenditure on speech is warranted: a point where one side cannot advocate effectively. Shouldn't be hard establishing a ratio, eh? Unless we are determined that any restriction on speech is unwarranted and that limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a candidate is as bad as limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a TV station. After all, outlawing the printing paper is as bad as outlawing the sign, right?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Great argumentum ad consequentiam there. As it turns out, the big bucks roll out for the Democrats.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Congress either has the power to limit speech however it wants, or it has none at all.

Yeah, as in the case of Free Speech Zones, limits on commercial speech, libel and bribery.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so.

No, they don't. As the left keeps saying (correctly) money isn't speech. But speech is speech, even if it takes money to express it. So - giving money to someone isn't speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. Hope this makes it clearer for you.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's not a strawman. Not at all.

Did you mention ballots? The things that the people have when they vote, and therefore have 100% control of election outcomes?

Well Lance, you seem determined not to hear my arguments. And I think I have made them thoroughly enough that readers not so invested in one side or other of the argument can evaluate their worth. So I see no further point to this discussion.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Terr

No, they don't. As the left keeps saying (correctly) money isn't speech. But speech is speech, even if it takes money to express it. So - giving money to someone isn't speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. Hope this makes it clearer for you.

No, using money to buy political ads doesnt magically turn money into speech. It's still just a medium for exchange.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No, using money to buy political ads doesnt magically turn money into speech. It's still just a medium for exchange.

It doesn't turn money into speech. It is producing speech, directly. You cannot separate paying for the ad from the act of publishing the ad - no one gives you ad space for free, the only way you can put up an ad is to pay for it.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Terr

So - giving money to someone isn't speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is.

In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. Banning the expenditure of money on the former for a period of time is a restriction on free speech, but not the latter? I see no functional difference other than the "capacity for advocacy" test lance strongarm posted, which seems like a special plea.

Why not rewrite the law stating that people can spend a certain amount on electioneering communications, just as there's a cap on campaign contributions subject to capacity for advocacy?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Well Lance, you seem determined not to hear my arguments. And I think I have made them thoroughly enough that readers not so invested in one side or other of the argument can evaluate their worth. So I see no further point to this discussion.

I hear them fine. I reject them.

Funny how you are the one who thinks certain arguments should be censored though.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Terr

It doesn't turn money into speech. It is producing speech, directly. You cannot separate paying for the ad from the act of publishing the ad - no one gives you ad space for free, the only way you can put up an ad is to pay for it.

Okay, Terr, if the government can't abridge a right, but it CAN ban spending money on that right, please tell me if you agree with these hypotheticals too:

1. The government can ban any spending of money on religion. Bible or other religious text sales or buying? Banned. Collecting and spending money to build a church? Banned.

2. The government can ban accused criminals from paying a lawyer. They have a right to representation by a lawyer, but they just can't pay him for his services, nor can anyone else.

3. The government may ban paying a doctor for an abortion, or anyone else. Abortion is still a right, so this doesn't violate Roe v. Wade, but the doctors may not get paid for abortions, they must do them for free.

4. All spending on the media - TV, radio, newspapers - is banned. You can print or broadcast all you want, but you may not spend money on it. No buying paper and ink, no paying reporters.

Please give a simple yes or no with a justification. Thanks. Same goes for anyone else who wants to wade into this.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. Banning the expenditure of money on the former for a period of time is a restriction on free speech, but not the latter? I see no functional difference

Um, you realize that this dissolves your argument against spending limits, right?

other than the "capacity for advocacy" test lance strongarm posted, which seems like a special plea.

(I don't think I posted that).

Why not rewrite the law stating that people can spend a certain amount on electioneering communications, just as there's a cap on campaign contributions subject to capacity for advocacy?

Because spending and donations are two different things. And it matters who you are donating too.

Donations to a candidate are vastly different from donations to an independent group engaged in speech. The latter is pretty much indistinguishable from simply spending the money on speech yourself. That's why one is limited and the other isn't.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so.

Well, no, and Buckley explained this.

But if you insist - fine, we must abolish all donation limits to candidates too. Be careful what you wish for.

Which is a fine standard for determining whether expenditure on speech is warranted: a point where one side cannot advocate effectively. Shouldn't be hard establishing a ratio, eh? Unless we are determined that any restriction on speech is unwarranted and that limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a candidate is as bad as limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a TV station. After all, outlawing the printing paper is as bad as outlawing the sign, right?

You have it backwards. If a campaign or group has difficulty expressing itself due to restrictions on donations, you have to loosen or abolish those, not tighten them on others.

Great argumentum ad consequentiam there.

Wow. That's exactly what you're doing. Not me.

As it turns out, the big bucks roll out for the Democrats.

So?

Yeah, as in the case of Free Speech Zones, limits on commercial speech, libel and bribery.

Yep, narrow, logical expections that don't even come close to justifying your ridiculous massive ones. Stop this nonsense.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication.

To elaborate -

This means you should reject SPENDING limits on either.

Do you?

Once we clarify that, you can talk about your proposed limit on donations.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication.

Because in the second case you're not "pooling money" for political speech. You're donating to the candidate, which can go for any kind of expenditure, like his meals on campaign trail, paying for his transportation costs, paying the massive campaign staff, etc. etc. - all of which are not political speech. If there was a way to earmark the donation (and enforce the earmark) to say "this donation is strictly for political speech" then I would agree it's the same thing. But there isn't.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Okay, Terr, if the government can't abridge a right, but it CAN ban spending money on that right, please tell me if you agree with these hypotheticals too:

You misunderstood what I wrote. I say it cannot band spending money on that right.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Terr

You misunderstood what I wrote. I say it cannot band spending money on that right.

So you would answer no to all those questions? The government cannot ban spending money on those rights?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Speech is never bad for democracy.

Sometimes you have a crowding out effect. I'm not saying that the Democratic or Republican message are getting crowded out but almost every third party message is getting crowded out and the message of moneied interests get more exposure than is good for a democracy.

Originally Posted by Terr

No, they don't. As the left keeps saying (correctly) money isn't speech. But speech is speech, even if it takes money to express it. So - giving money to someone isn't speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. Hope this makes it clearer for you.

So giving money to a SuperPAC isn't speech so we should be able to limit donations to superPACs.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Because spending and donations are two different things. And it matters who you are donating too.

Donations to a candidate are vastly different from donations to an independent group engaged in speech. The latter is pretty much indistinguishable from simply spending the money on speech yourself. That's why one is limited and the other isn't.

I disagree. Giving your money to Carl Rove's superPAC is not indistinguishable from spending the money on speech yourself, you are funding Carl Rove's speech (and expense account).

Originally Posted by Terr

Because in the second case you're not "pooling money" for political speech. You're donating to the candidate, which can go for any kind of expenditure, like his meals on campaign trail, paying for his transportation costs, paying the massive campaign staff, etc. etc. - all of which are not political speech. If there was a way to earmark the donation (and enforce the earmark) to say "this donation is strictly for political speech" then I would agree it's the same thing. But there isn't.

And money you donate to a SuperPAC is earmarked for speech? I am pretty sure Carl Rove can use the money for meals, transportation costs, massive staff, etc.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I disagree. Giving your money to Carl Rove's superPAC is not indistinguishable from spending the money on speech yourself, you are funding Carl Rove's speech (and expense account).

Carl Rove is not a politician or legislator. There is cannot be any conflict of interest or bribery issue with money he or his PAC receives.

And money you donate to a SuperPAC is earmarked for speech? I am pretty sure Carl Rove can use the money for meals, transportation costs, massive staff, etc.

Carl Rove is not a politician or legislator. There is cannot be any conflict of interest or bribery issue with money he or his PAC receives.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Sometimes you have a crowding out effect. I'm not saying that the Democratic or Republican message are getting crowded out but almost every third party message is getting crowded out and the message of moneied interests get more exposure than is good for a democracy.

How is anyone "crowded out"? Describe exactly what is happening in that scenario. (Not that this is a valid reason to censor speech either, but I want to hear it).

I disagree. Giving your money to Carl Rove's superPAC is not indistinguishable from spending the money on speech yourself, you are funding Carl Rove's speech (and expense account).

How is it different? Karl says what you want to say with your money. It's no different from sending money to the TV station to buy the ad yourself. If you send it to an ad agency or media buyer first, is that also going to be illegal because you don't buy the ad directly? It's a meaningless distinction.

[Randvek]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

How is it different? Karl says what you want to say with your money. It's no different from sending money to the TV station to buy the ad yourself. If you send it to an ad agency or media buyer first, is that also going to be illegal because you don't buy the ad directly? It's a meaningless distinction.

How is organized price fixing different than letting the market settle at a certain number and everyone follows suit? They still result in everyone having essentially the same prices. And yet, there is a world of difference if you look beyond that superficial distinction, isn't there?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's not a strawman. Not at all.

Did you mention ballots? The things that the people have when they vote, and therefore have 100% control of election outcomes?

you can cast a ballot and have it be meaningless. Because I live in a metro Atlanta suburban county, my ballot on national elections rarely has any meaning at all. That's OK ... other people in the area are outvoting me, fair and square. But with billionaires writing checks to give their favored candidates (Democratic or Republican, I don't really care WHICH party they control, the billionaires' candidates are going to have a lot more ability to communicate their message than others. The billionaires win. The people lose. You are either being extremely naive or disingenuous in ignoring these facts.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

you can cast a ballot and have it be meaningless. Because I live in a metro Atlanta suburban county, my ballot on national elections rarely has any meaning at all. That's OK ... other people in the area are outvoting me, fair and square. But with billionaires writing checks to give their favored candidates (Democratic or Republican, I don't really care WHICH party they control, the billionaires' candidates are going to have a lot more ability to communicate their message than others. The billionaires win. The people lose. You are either being extremely naive or disingenuous in ignoring these facts.

Um, no.

In the case of the billioniares, the voters CHOOSE to listen to them, and they CHOOSE to vote a certain way. It's still entirely their CHOICE. The scenario is exactly the same as the first one - a majority of voters outvote you. The reasons why are irrelevant. They can vote for any reason they want, including because billionaires ran ads imploring them to vote a certain way. Or they can choose not to. Nothing stopping them from voting against the billionaires.

The idea that "the people lose" because they go to the polls and choose a candidate is beyond absurd.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Randvek

How is organized price fixing different than letting the market settle at a certain number and everyone follows suit? They still result in everyone having essentially the same prices. And yet, there is a world of difference if you look beyond that superficial distinction, isn't there?

I'm going to need more detail to understand your point. I don't think that analogy works at all.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

you can cast a ballot and have it be meaningless. Because I live in a metro Atlanta suburban county, my ballot on national elections rarely has any meaning at all. That's OK ... other people in the area are outvoting me, fair and square. But with billionaires writing checks to give their favored candidates (Democratic or Republican, I don't really care WHICH party they control, the billionaires' candidates are going to have a lot more ability to communicate their message than others. The billionaires win. The people lose. You are either being extremely naive or disingenuous in ignoring these facts.

I have to come back to this.

You're actually saying that the people, after going to the polls and freely and voluntarily making their choices on who to vote for, "lose" because of the choices THEY made.

That's just truly bizarre. It really does go to the heart of this absolutely ricidulous premise that somehow money or speech can control what people do or think. The voters are making the choice of who is elected! Did you forget that obvious and undeniable fact?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

(I don't think I posted that).

#250

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Because spending and donations are two different things. And it matters who you are donating too.

Donations to broadcasting companies.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The reasons why are irrelevant.

Not so. If someone is paid to vote a certain way, for instance, that's highly relevant.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

#250

Ah, you're referring to the Buckley quote?

Donations to broadcasting companies.

Sigh.

Now payments for services are political donations?

When you buy an Obama T-shirt from some guy who has no connection with the Obama campaign, and is just making a buck, is that a "donation" too?

You keep making absurd statements.

Not so. If someone is paid to vote a certain way, for instance, that's highly relevant.

Nobody is being paid to vote a certain way though.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Ah, you're referring to the Buckley quote?

Yes, which you posted.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

When you buy an Obama T-shirt from some guy who has no connection with the Obama campaign, and is just making a buck, is that a "donation" too?

Does producing shirts form the majority of a candidate's political expenditure?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Nobody is being paid to vote a certain way though.

Doesn't mean that the reasons why people vote are irrelevant.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Does producing shirts form the majority of a candidate's political expenditure?

Oh, so now that matters. You've never once mentioned that before. So now you think a First Amendment exception is justified based on how much money is being spent by a third party relative to how much candidate is spending.

Your desperation is getting complicated.

Doesn't mean that the reasons why people vote are irrelevant.

They are none of your damn business, so yeah, they are irrelevant. Deciding that you don't like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights. See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters' minds.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Oh, so now that matters. You've never once mentioned that before. So now you think a First Amendment exception is justified based on how much money is being spent by a third party relative to how much candidate is spending.

Your desperation is getting complicated.



They are none of your damn business, so yeah, they are irrelevant. Deciding that you don't like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights. See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters' minds.

Your view is based on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn't work. Swaying elections with unlimited money isn't what democracy is about. If you want to live in a plutocracy, just say so. But I think you'd find the gilded age wasn't good for most Americans.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Your view is based on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn't work.

False. I have said so many times - of course it works.

YOUR view is based on the arrogant notion that the fact that advertising works means the people are stupid and need the government to control what they see and here.

Swaying elections with unlimited money isn't what democracy is about.

You don't get to say what democracy is all about. The voters do. They can vote for whoever they want for any reason they want. Get your nose out of their business.

If you want to live in a plutocracy, just say so. But I think you'd find the gilded age wasn't good for most Americans.

You don't get to decide that the voters are too stupid to decide for themselves that they don't want to live in a plutocracy. They decide, not you.

Stop your arrogant nonsense.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Your view is based on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn't work.

So you're saying you're too stupid to think about ads critically? You see 10 Obama ads and 15 Romney ads and you're going out to vote for Romney?

Yes or no?

Or is it not you, because you're sooooooo smart, but the rest of us voters who are too stupid to handle ads and need the government to protect us from them?

On behalf of the millions of voters you're insulting: stuff it, you arrogant jerk.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So you're saying you're too stupid. . .
. . .
On behalf of the millions of voters you're insulting: stuff it, you arrogant jerk.

Name calling and personal insults are not permitted outside The BBQ Pit.

This is a Warning to refrain from such posts in the future.

[ /Moderating ]

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Name calling and personal insults are not permitted outside The BBQ Pit.

This is a Warning to refrain from such posts in the future.

[ /Moderating ]

I apologize. I should have said it a different way.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You've never once mentioned that before.

?

I've linked this too in one thread or another.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

They are none of your damn business, so yeah, they are irrelevant. Deciding that you don't like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights. See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters' minds.

My paying someone to vote the way I want is none of your damn business. Deciding that you don't like why someone votes the way they do is not an excuse for violating the Bill of Rights (since paying for something is functionally the same as saying it). See why your view is so fundamentally arrogant and disrespectful of democracy? Stay the hell out of the voters' minds.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

They can vote for whoever they want for any reason they want. Get your nose out of their business.

Unless they vote for candidates wanting to limit the influence of money on voters, in which five people can determine they're not allowed to do that.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

My paying someone to vote the way I want is none of your damn business.

Huh? Nobody is paying anyone to vote here. That's illegal already.

Unless they vote for candidates wanting to limit the influence of money on voters, in which five people can determine they're not allowed to do that.

Wow.

So your argument is that the voters didn't want their votes to be influenced by certain speech - so they VOTED not to be?

Since you're the one actually saying this, with a straight face, I guess I'll have to be very explicit in explaining the silliness in that:

1. It means the voters declared that they are just too weak-minded to simply ignore, or think critically about, certain speech.

2. It means the voters were capable of thinking critically about the speech, by voting to ban it.

In short, voters are smart enough to know how dumb they are. That's your argument.

No, here's what really happened: SOME voters were sore losers and didn't like the fact that other voters voted a certain way, so they decided those voters are stupid and need to be shielded from certain speech. Then the courts said no. In other words, the First Amendment worked just an intended.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So you're saying you're too stupid to think about ads critically? You see 10 Obama ads and 15 Romney ads and you're going out to vote for Romney?

No. But I'm uncommonly informed. In fact I think I heard today that over 40% of people didn't know the SCOTUS had ruled on Obamacare.

Being misinformed doesn't mean you're stupid. It means that you base your choices on the information you have. And a monolithic wall of advertising can sway a lot of people.

Yes or no?

Answered.

Or is it not you, because you're sooooooo smart, but the rest of us voters who are too stupid to handle ads and need the government to protect us from them?

On behalf of the millions of voters you're insulting: stuff it, you arrogant jerk.

I'm not insulting anyone. I just think that unlimited donations allow the rich to have the donating power of millions of Americans.

If someone is going to blanket the airways with ads, I'd prefer it to be with money from millions of donors, not with money from one or two big money guys who have very specific desires for the rules and regulations that we live by.