Well, mostly, but Democrats do it too - sometimes.
What burns me up is that in spite of the tax code, these organizations retain their tax free status. Based on their activity, they might as well be PACs, but that legitimate tax free method requires disclose which these guys apparently dislike.
Not coordinated?
Government by and for corporations and billionaires.
The current state of American Politics reminds me of one of my favorite Douglas Admas quotes
[QUOTE= Hithchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy]
… most of the people living on [the earth] were unhappy for pretty much all of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me the the Supreme court has basically decided that this is incorrect, and that it is in fact the small green pieces of paper that are unhappy, and whose rights need to be respected. Of course it seems that the main desire of the small green pieces of paper is to be joined together with as many others of their kind as possible.
I’d be concerned if money bought elections. The Democrats are substantially outspending Republicans. It won’t save them.
And let’s be clear, it’s not the money anyone is really concerned about. It’s the ads. You don’t want these ads to be run. Unfortunately, we do have a 1st amendment, and trying to get rid of the ads by attacking the funding source doesn’t fly.
Finally, we’ve established that people have a right to anonymity in political speech. That tradition goes all the way back to the Revolution. I realize Democrats want to know their names so they can harass their children on their way to school and defecate on their property and if possible, even cost them their jobs, but no.
That entire post was a web of intermeshing nonsense.
Money doesn’t buy elections, but it can make the difference in marginal cases. And it should be obvious to anyone that thinks dispassionately about the issue that giving monied interests a disproportionate weight in elections is a bad thing for democracy.
You may scream about the 1st amendment, but the first amendment is enforced by the government, making the government salable to the highest bidder, undercuts the amendment much, much more than limiting campaign contributions.
Also consider that your first amendment rights are already limited. You can’t yell, “Fire” in a theater. You can’t talk to your cousin in China about military secrets. And the idea that the very democratic validity of the country itself is less important than that is goofy.
Since we acknowledge that ads play a big role in elections, and the solution is… give politicians a monopoly on running them?
The 1st amendment doesn’t need enforcing. It prevents enforcement. We saw what happened the last time Congress tried to limit 1st amendment rights: they put in an exemption for the NRA. THat’s what money influencing enforcement looks like. What we have now is anything goes, which is far preferable to politicians deciding who is a favored speaker and who is a disfavored speaker.
False on all counts, actually. I can yell fire in a theater, I’m just responsible if doing that leads to injuries or death. if I yell fire and nothing happens, nothing will happen to me. Are unregulated dark money ads causing death and destruction necessitating government intervention?
I can talk to my cousin in CHina about military secrets all I want given that my level of knowledge is only what can be found on public websites and books. So not exactly secrets. But even if I did have secrets, I’m not being punished for speech, per se, I’m being punished for espionage, for doing direct harm to my country’s security.
When you can point to real, direct harm caused by these ads, then you can make case for getting rid of them.
False. If you yell fire in a move theater and nothing happens, you can still be arrested for disorderly conduct.
Perhaps. Depends on the situation. It’s still not being arrested for speech, however, and most importantly, it is not distinguishing between speakers. A professional politician, a journalist, and a corporate executive will all be treated the same if they yell fire in a crowded theater. However, campaign finance reformers want the government to discriminate between the three when it comes to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. The politician and journalist may spend as much as they like towards that end, but the corporate executive is restricted. This despite there being no particular difference in each group’s ability to get their message out.
If you don’t like campaign ads, you can advocate for getting rid of campaign ads. But there is no way under the 1st amendment that you can favor some campaign ads while getting rid of others.
And contrary to popular belief, it has never actually been legal to so discriminate, not even before Citizens United. Citizens United merely struck down the law after it was applied in the discriminatory fashion that was predicted.
It’s being arrested for speech. Period.
It’s being arrested for trying to cause a panic that could result in loss of life.
Using the “fire” example as a justification to restrict any speech a person deems problematic has been around for quite some time. Heck, that’s how it got started. Fortunately, the courts don’t actually buy it and never have. If you want to arrest people for saying things, then you need to prove that what they say does real provable damage. “It corrupts our political process” is about as valid as “It gives aid and comfort to our enemies”
The “yelling fire in a movie theater” thing is a red herring. We explicitly differentiate between political and non-political speech when it comes to the 1st amendment, and yelling fire in a movie theater isn’t political speech.
Just wanted to appreciate the way this post contributes to elevated political discourse.
Money doesn’t buy elections. These donors are running charities. Such magnanimity warms the heart.
After the example of Brendan Eich I can understand donors that prefer undisclosed methods of donating. I haven’t seen anything of that magnitude or effect being done against those who contribute to typically Democratic supporting PACs. It simply makes sense that more of the money going the other way is dark.
I’d prefer we come up with ways to take some of the money/fundraising out of politics. It’s rare I see either Party do more than point at parts of the problem… parts that help the other party more than them… while studiously playing “See no evil” for the parts where they dominate.
Real life house of cards
Is sedition political speech?
Also, my point is, that your speech can be curtailed, if the reason is strong enough. And keeping the government from working for a few monied interests is a pretty strong reason. Everything else stems from the government.
There are other governments in the world who have as much freedom as we do, yet have campaign finance laws. It’s not like campaign finance laws are something sinister.
Not the issue. The purpose of Citizens United was to allow corporate entities to donate as private citizens. It was expressly NOT the intent of this ruling to allow individuals to hide behind shadow and 3rd party donor organizations. In the words of Justice Kennedy:
Patently disingenuous, as the loopholes in disclosure laws allow exactly that. By the way, ads are paid for with money. Your last paragraph is, I’m sure, a whoosh. But just in case it’s not, please provide cites of this happening.
Yeah, lets harass and fire the Koch Brothers! Now, there’s a plan!
Oh, but there is a difference: the politician and the media have multiple ways of getting their messages out. Limitations on campaigning favor incumbents, and even if you were to pass some kind of law prohibiting journalists and other media types from expressing political opinions during a campaign, there will always be plenty of subtle ways of doing it while maintaining plausible deniability.
For private citizens, spending money to buy media time is simplest and easiest way to reach a mass audience … which is why so many of those who already control the narrative wish to restrict it.
I’m always fascinated by the use of that oh-so-revealing phrase “outside groups,” and the way nobody thinks to ask “outside of what?”
I mean, unless someone is suggesting that this money is coming from foreign interests, this money is coming American citizens seeking to influence American elections. They aren’t “outsiders” unless you’re operating with some kind of premise that only certain approved persons are supposed to be involved in politics.
Generally, when I’ve heard the expression “outside groups”, they are usually referring to groups from outside the local political entity - like someone running in Iowa getting lots of money from someone who lives in New York.
Yes, but politicians and the media reveal who is doing the messaging (politicians by law - media due to the nature of the medium). Why can’t these groups simply say who’s doing the messaging and why can’t we require that?