So if I give a politician a million bucks for his campaign and he wins and I ask him to draft a law giving me an advantage over my competitors, if he does is that influence? Corruption? Bribery? or just free speech?
State legislatures, unprecedented, Article V.
See, thing is, I don’t think Rachel Maddow would do it.
“Here you go, Rachel, total power to crush your political opponents and drown them in a giant hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up…” She wouldn’t do it.
Nancy Grace, Megyn Kelly? Send the Mauve Shirts to my door, haul me off to the Camp for the Chronically Groovy in a New York minute.
When one of this boards most thoughtful liberals, and a lawyer to boot, sides with the court, I would hope that the other liberals would pause and reconsider their position. And if they still think they are correct (nothing wrong with that), I would hope they would at least back off from the position that this is something only an “ultra conservative” could support.
From the GD/Elections thread on this subject:
There is much more in that thread. If I have mistaken RP’s position, it’s certainly true that he sees this as a reasonable decision, and not some crazy, cook-up ultra-conservative piece of nonsense.
Well, of course it is, its a bunch of lawyers!
A perfectly reasonable case can be made to prevent the ghastly hindrance of the speech rights of a despised minority, rich folks. Another perfectly reasonable case can be made that minor hindrances can be imposed for the good of the Republic, and to ensure that our citizens have equality in the electoral commons. I don’t want to send the Koch Brothers to The Wall, I simply don’t think its right for them to have a million times more political power than me because they have a million times more money, and that some acceptable accommodation can, and should! be made. One navel, one vote, works for me.
Then again, I’m a hippy, not a lawyer. Thank you, Jesus!
And Jesus was a lawyer, not a hippy. I could cite Scripture on the poiint, but as Jesus’ counsel I’ll save that for court. [serves elucidator with defamation lawsuit o/b/o Yeshua bar Yusuf a/k/a Jesus Christ]
And the Sermon on the Mount was one of those “motivational” programs the boss sends the sales team to, out on Highway 9 at the Holiday Inn Banquet Room…
No, Jesus wasn’t a hippy, but his agenda was a lot closer to mine than to Calvin Coolidge. Not as deep as a well nor as wide as a church door, but tis enough, it will suffice…
Oh, and this crap about “corruption” of our system being only quim pro quo as in bribery is the dumbest shit I’ve heard until the next time. Look, guys, sticking your head in the sand makes your ass vulnerable to, ah, “unintended consequences”! Just sayin’, is all…
So, the thing is, free speech is for everybody. And the rich guy just has more of it than I do, but that’s ok because we both have free speech. Because that makes us equal, even if it makes me more equal than him. Its OK if he owns Lake Superior, long as I have a Dixie cup full of water, we are equal!
Don’t know what these guys are smoking, but I’d like to try some! On second thought, no, no, I wouldn’t.
You sure? Might make it easier to live with certain things.
How do they smoke Republican weed? In a bong made from the bones and blood of the working class! (bumpa-ting!)
OK, that’s gonna need some work.
Behind closed and guarded doors with coke-crusted C-notes for rolling papers! DUH!
Since common sense evidently doesn’t count…
This article came out in October, 2013 - before the ruling, incidentally.
Well, the thing is, it appears he hasn’t yet made an argument that convinces liberals on what negative consequences declaring that money isn’t speech would have. Then again, that’s the point of Great Debates.
So Mariette Hartley can conceivably get two votes?
And Kyle XY (and my neighbor who lost a navel to abdominal surgery) are disqualified?
Although I concede that checking for navels would be a lot easier than checking for voter ID. For most people.
There are two points made by your cite, both of which can be easily addressed:
- Candidates spend too much time fundraising. Yes, this is an issue. I’d rather have them doing their jobs than fundraising. However, this is a problem made worse by the laws limiting donations, not better.
If candidates could get higher dollar amounts from a smaller number of donors, they wouldn’t need to spend as much time doing rubber chicken dinners.
- Candidates who win usually have more money. Of course this is true. But it doesn’t mean that the money caused them to win. Campaign contributors prefer to spend money on winners, so the money follows the leader in the polls.
When the money comes from the candidate themselves, like with Meg Whitman in CA, it doesn’t guarantee victory.
What a unique spin, having nothing to do with reality.
Snark aside, of course this is true. Why wouldn’t it be?
You also have freedom to interstate travel. Are you less free in this regard because you can’t buy a private jet and the rich can?
You have freedom to own a gun. But you still need to buy it. Plus the rich can afford nicer guns than you can.
You have the right to an attorney, but you get what you pay for.
This is true of every single right that you have. What makes free speech so special that we must make a foolish (and doomed to failure) attempt at leveling the playing field?
Because buying a private jet does not affect the composition of our government.