That’s incoherent.
As for the more coherent second paragraph, I’d be fine with a $2500 limit on personal donations. Since half the US population can’t afford an emergency $400 bill without borrowing the money, that would still give a huge advantage to the wealthy.
Problem is, you can’t do an ad campaign with $2500, so you’re effectively making it illegal to do political advocacy on the airwaves unless you’re a politician, and thus “authorized” to speak.
I would say there is a difference between NYT running a pro Hillary story, and things like robo calls, mailers or commericals.
I’m more concerned about advertisements. You have to seek out news. Advertisements are thrust upon you. And a group of people can get together (and keep records of who donated how much) and run an ad campaign.
Commercials are the only things that are subject to limits. If you’re proposing limits on GOTV efforts, then I think you’ll find pretty broad opposition from all sides of the spectrum.
Anonymity is part of our tradition and more necessary than ever after Brandon Eich. As for ads, just get rid of them entirely on the airwaves. Make them internet only, with an option to skip after 5 seconds like Youtube does. That’s the most democratizing way to do political advocacy of all, since internet advertising costs only a fraction of what TV advertising costs.
FALSE!
In straight up, honest campaign money, the Democrats are slightly ahead or at least very close. In dark, secret, dishonest money, the Republican lead is substantial.
Read the article.
Yes, you do.
(Quoting Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), a case that invalidated a Los Angeles ordinance that forbid anonymous pamphlets from being distributed).
What cases were you thinking of that held the contrary, specifically?
Exactly. The Federal Department of the Proper Naming of Groups needs to do a better job enforcing that rule!!
Perhaps you should read the article.
It does not say which party is spending more in total. The Democrats are ahead in donations to actual campaigns and spending through “SuperPACs”; groups that lean Republican spend more in “dark money”. Which side is spending more total? That article doesn’t say, though other sources are reporting that it’s the Democrats.
And the reason for the dark money is the retaliation against Republican donors. If Republican politicians and activists targeted Democratic donors the way Democrats target Republican donors we’d be hearing cries of creeping fascism.
Haven’t heard much about Republican donors cringing in fear of the people’s justice, but it sounds like the sort of things that would give me a good dark and malicious chuckle.
So share. Pics, if you got them.
And you know that how?
If you don’t like the government that the GOP and the Democrats give you, you’re free to vote for someone other than the GOP and the Democrats.
Brandon Eich and the Koch Brothers.
What about them?
Brandon Eich was a function of the free market. No one retaliated against him because of his donations to anti-gay causes. He resigned. He wasn’t fired. The government didn’t come get him. He resigned, due to the fallout over the cause he was supporting. The first amendment does not protect anyone from the consequences of their speech. He’s entitled to support whatever causes he wants, and people are free to have opinions about him as a result of that. What is the controversy here? This is the proper functioning of a free market, and I see no outside interference, so please explain this retaliation you are referring to and how it pertains to this story.
And the Koch Brothers? What retaliation has been carried out against them? Oh, Harry Reid said some mean things about them? Boo freaking hoo. Again, the first amendment contains nothing to protect anyone from the consequences of their speech. They can spend whatever money they want to try to influence the country, and the rest of us citizens are free to have whatever opinions we wish about them. Freedom of speech does not mean that no one can think bad things about you because of something you said. Again, where is this retaliation you speak of? Saying something mean is not retaliation, no matter how badly their little fee fees might get hurt.
Regardless of where the retaliation comes from, people from all sides may have reasons to keep their advocacy anonymous. If that wasn’t the case, we don’t need a secret ballot either, now do we? Just post everyone’s vote online.
So in other words you have nothing. No answer at all about the retaliation you’re complaining about. Figured as much.
There is no constitutional protection from getting your feelings hurt by other citizens. This imaginary victim hood is getting to be too much. Politics is rough business. Don’t get involved if you aren’t willing to stand up for your beliefs, even if it means a mean Democrat might gasp insult you. Heaven forbid.
Since there is actually a 1st amendment right to advocate anonymously, your the one who has to live with the state of affairs as they are now. I was just explaining why people might choose to exercise that right.
But for now, you could practice what you preach and post your real name.
So you’re just dropping the whole ‘conservatives are retaliated against for their views’ thing then? How were Brandon Eich and the Koch Brothers retaliated against, and by whom? What rights were violated by this retaliation? Or are you just going to go with the ol’ change the subject gambit again? That does seem to be your only trick.
I was simply saying that conservatives have reason to fear retaliation and that it does occur. Not necessarily from the government, although I wouldn’t put it past Democrats to try to punish the Kochs using bills of attainder disguised as legitimate revenue bills.