Campaign contributions are free speech?

[scotandrsn]

I will try to rephrase and expand onJohn Mace’s arguments from earlier in the thread, because this is really the point addressing the OP.

1) I have the right under the First Amendment to build a print shop and print up as many posters as I can afford saying "Vote for Candidate X!"

This is Amendment I, pure and simple.

2) If I don’t wish to build a print shop, but I make the acquaintance of someone who has one, I can pay them to print up as many posters as I can afford saying "Vote for Candidate X!"

This is how one would expect it to work most of the time in the real world.

3) A person may contact me and say, "I hear you want people to vote for Candidate X. I know a lot of other people like that, plus I know print shops we can use, as well as newspapers, radio and TV stations, and webmasters who are all looking for ad revenue. Give me the money you were going to use on your own, I’ll pool it with the money from these other people, and we’ll get the word out much more effectively."

From what I’ve read of your posts, you seem have no problem with this. What you seem to have a problem with is when we get to:

4) Candidate X or a representative of their campaign contacts me and says, "I hear you want people to vote for Candidate X. I know a lot of other people like that, plus I know print shops we can use, as well as newspapers, radio and TV stations, and webmasters who are all looking for ad revenue. Give me the money you were going to use on your own, I’ll pool it with the money from these other people, and we’ll get the word out much more effectively."

So your thrust seems to be, if we were to ban contributions in situation #3, it would be a violation of First Amendment rights to free speech, but banning them under situation #4 would not. To which we must reply, “On what grounds?” Why should Candidate X be denied the right to make the same proposition (directly or through an agent) as the the person in situation #3 just because they are Candidate X?

Your claim that the Candidate X campaign has no idea what speech I intend by my contribution is missing the point. The assumption is that, by my contribution, I simply wish to support the speech being put out by the campaign, rather than duplicating their efforts on my own, and in that case, (ready?):

The money I contribute acts in place of any speech I might have generated myself. Therefore, the money is equivalent to speech.

[marky33]

@scotandrsn

I have the right under the First Amendment to build a print shop and print up as many posters as I can afford saying “Vote for Candidate X!”

Of course, this would all be acedemic if all these interested parties trusted the voters to make up their own minds.

[BrainGlutton]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

The fact that I can reach a wide audience does not mean you cannot do the same. My ability to speak does not limit yours.

In politics, Dewey, your ability to speak certainly does limit mine – since there is only one electorate to reach and it only has so much time and attention to devote to politics. In the Texas senate election in 1990, incumbent Phil Gramm had a war chest of $6.2 million to his opponent’s $20,000. That doesn’t mean his opponent was muzzled, only that his message was drowned out by Gramm’s.

[DMC]

@scotandrsn

ISo your thrust seems to be, if we were to ban contributions in situation #3, it would be a violation of First Amendment rights to free speech, but banning them under situation #4 would not. To which we must reply, “On what grounds?” Why should Candidate X be denied the right to make the same proposition (directly or through an agent) as the the person in situation #3 just because they are Candidate X?

Actually, I don’t think that making situation #3 illegal would actually curtail one’s right to free speech, I just don’t have any problem with it being legal. I don’t believe that an organization has the same rights as an individual. So, I think 3 is fine and dandy, because I don’t have a problem with it, but it’s not due to the 1st amendment. Since I don’t think the 1st amendment protects situation #3, is it okay that I find #4 to not only not be protected by it, but also wrong?

Your claim that the Candidate X campaign has no idea what speech I intend by my contribution is missing the point. The assumption is that, by my contribution, I simply wish to support the speech being put out by the campaign, rather than duplicating their efforts on my own, and in that case, (ready?):

I don’t get this argument at all. Unless every contributor agrees on the candidate’s stance on 100% of the issues, this just doesn’t seem to be a valid argument. It’s similar to me asking “What do you like about me?”, and you answering “Yes.”

The money I contribute acts in place of any speech I might have generated myself. Therefore, the money is equivalent to speech.

Based on the above, money seems like a damned poor substitute for speech. Since no one is trying to stifle your actual speech, I see no rights being infringed.

In Buckley, the Supremes said:

@SCOTUS

A contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support. The quantity of communication by the contributor
does not increase perceptibly with the size of the contribution, since the expression rests solely on the undifferentiated, symbolic act of contributing. At most, the size of the contribution provides a very rough index of the intensity of the contributor’s support for the candidate. A limitation on the amount of money a person may give to a candidate or campaign organization thus involves little direct restraint on his political communication, for it permits the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a contribution but does not in any way infringe the contributor’s freedom to discuss candidates and issues. While contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate or
an association to present views to the voters, the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.

Even they agree that as speech goes, it sucks.

[DMC]

@scotandrsn

IYour claim that the Candidate X campaign has no idea what speech I intend by my contribution is missing the point. The assumption is that, by my contribution, I simply wish to support the speech being put out by the campaign, rather than duplicating their efforts on my own, and in that case, (ready?):

Then what assumption would you make if a contributor gave large sums of money to both parties?

[Shodan]

I don’t understand the distinction that seems to be getting made.

What is the difference in principle between me getting together with my like-minded friends, and spending $50,000 to get Bush elected, and me and my like-minded friends sending $50,000 directly to the Bush campaign?

There was some discussion earlier that Bush would see the name on the check and feel beholden to us to do us favors in return for our contribution. Would he not equally see the name on the ads we run, and still feel just as beholden?

If it is just anonymous contributions that are OK, then corporate donations are the way to go. Much easier to read the names on a series of checks than figure out the membership list of the “Black Belts for Bush Committee”.

Regards,
Shodan

[pervert]

@DMC

Then what assumption would you make if a contributor gave large sums of money to both parties?

Isn’t this obvious? The donator agrees with substantial portions of both parties.

[marky33]

@pervert

Isn’t this obvious? The donator agrees with substantial portions of both parties.

But what would be the point of backing two opposing parties if not to curry favour?

[PatriotX]

@pervert

Isn’t this obvious? The donator agrees with substantial portions of both parties.

Careful you don’t bite your tongue. Remove it from your cheek before you try to eat.

[scotandrsn]

@DMC

Actually, I don’t think that making situation #3 illegal would actually curtail one’s right to free speech, I just don’t have any problem with it being legal. I don’t believe that an organization has the same rights as an individual.

I mentioned no organization in Example #3, I mentioned a person. Certainly an organization vould be substituted, but the organization is made up of individuals each with a right to act as I have described, either individually or collectively. I don’t see the distinction you’re trying to draw.

[DMC]

@scotandrsn

I mentioned no organization in Example #3, I mentioned a person. Certainly an organization vould be substituted, but the organization is made up of individuals each with a right to act as I have described, either individually or collectively. I don’t see the distinction you’re trying to draw.

I’ll pool it with the money from these other people, and we’ll get the word out much more effectively."

That sure sounds like an organization to me.

All individuals within an organization are indeed people, and should be protected by the First Amendment. They still have the right to say anything they want as far as I’m concerned and I don’t see them being stopped from doing so, but I do not extend that protection to the organization (even though, as I said, I have no problem with them doing the above).

[DMC]

@pervert

Isn’t this obvious? The donator agrees with substantial portions of both parties.

There was supposed to be a smiley here, right? Right?

[DMC]

@Shodan

IWhat is the difference in principle between me getting together with my like-minded friends, and spending $50,000 to get Bush elected, and me and my like-minded friends sending $50,000 directly to the Bush campaign?

This question is about whether money = free speech. I don’t think either of your examples should be protected as free speech. In both cases, the individual like-minded friends have the right to free speech. That $50K just doesn’t represent speech. Whether one is okay with one or the other is a completely separate issue, and unrelated to the First Amendment protections, in my opinion.

[Shodan]

@DMC

This question is about whether money = free speech. I don’t think either of your examples should be protected as free speech. In both cases, the individual like-minded friends have the right to free speech. That $50K just doesn’t represent speech. Whether one is okay with one or the other is a completely separate issue, and unrelated to the First Amendment protections, in my opinion.

Well, I guess I would respond that money isn’t just free speech, but freedom of association as well. And limits on the right of people to band together and “petition government for redress of grievances” or vote for a candidate are just as much a violation of Constitutional rights as limits on free speech. IMO.

But money = speech because it is used to bring about the speech. Limiting the amount you can spend on a candidate, either alone or in company, is like setting up a website advocating for a candidate but mandating that it must be shut down after a certain number of hits. What is being done is limiting the range of speech. You can write whatever you want, but only distribute a limited number of copies. You can tell a dozen people your opinion, but not a thousand.

Limits on campaign spending also limit the ability of people to make up their own minds. If a campaign is not allowed to spend money advocating a position, you are trying to ensure that not everyone gets a chance to hear the position, even if it is a perfectly valid one.

Certainly there are abuses in the current system, as there would be in any system. But George Will said (IIRC about the 1996 campaign cycle) that we spent on political campaigns roughly what we spend on frozen yogurt. And I don’t see the overwhelming advantage of trying to prevent the spread of opinions thru the marketplace of ideas.

Do I understand you as saying that you don’t believe there is any right at all to spend money advocating a position or a candidate? Or are you arguing hard money vs. soft money vs. PACs vs. 527s?

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr2001]

@Shodan

Well, I guess I would respond that money isn’t just free speech, but freedom of association as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, freedom of association already has a definition, and it has nothing to do with money.

Limits on campaign spending also limit the ability of people to make up their own minds. If a campaign is not allowed to spend money advocating a position, you are trying to ensure that not everyone gets a chance to hear the position, even if it is a perfectly valid one.

That would be true if no one were allowed to campaign at all. But not if, for example, campaigns were publically financed, and all parties were allowed to spend the same amount to advocate their positions. Everyone would get the same chance to hear each position equally.

And I don’t see the overwhelming advantage of trying to prevent the spread of opinions thru the marketplace of ideas.

CFR isn’t about preventing the spread of opinions. It’s about giving them all an equal opportunity to spread.

[DMC]

@Shodan

But money = speech because it is used to bring about the speech.

You are free to speak without a dime. I don’t even have a problem if you use a dime to spread it further. I’m just saying that without the dime, you still have freedom of speech.

Do I understand you as saying that you don’t believe there is any right at all to spend money advocating a position or a candidate? Or are you arguing hard money vs. soft money vs. PACs vs. 527s?

The only thing I was hoping to address in the OP is that giving money to a politician <> free speech. That’s it. We have a perfectly good thread talking about CFR, and all the pros and cons of it. Admittedly, this one keeps leaning that way, but I’m trying to keep the focus on this single topic.

[Shodan]

@DMC

You are free to speak without a dime. I don’t even have a problem if you use a dime to spread it further. I’m just saying that without the dime, you still have freedom of speech.

Well, no. If you are prevented by law from spending your dime on propagating your speech, then you have less freedom to reach a wide audience.

@DMC

The only thing I was hoping to address in the OP is that giving money to a politician <> free speech. That’s it.

Then I see the situation as free speech = advocacy of positions and candidates = spending money to advocate positions and candidates. Therefore giving money to a politician = spending it yourself = free speech, because you are using the money to advocate for positions and candidates.

Spending money to propagate a position is no different in principle than spending any other kind of resources - time, energy, use of a car, etc. If I spend my money on a campaign bus going cross-country giving speeches on behalf of National Arbor Day, then restrictions on use of a bus for campaigning are the same as restrictions on the number of times I can give a speech in my own home town. I have the desire and the resources to exercise my right of free speech, but the state is preventing me from doing so. It would be the same as if I owned a newspaper, but the government put limits on the number of editorials I could run.

@Mr2001

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it, freedom of association already has a definition, and it has nothing to do with money.

Maybe I misspoke. The right of freedom of association I spoke about was the right to organize to advocate for positions or candidates. That would include fund-raising on their behalf. And therefore governmental limits on the right to organize and pool contributions together would be a violation of the right of freedom of association.

@Mr2001

That would be true if no one were allowed to campaign at all. But not if, for example, campaigns were publically financed, and all parties were allowed to spend the same amount to advocate their positions. Everyone would get the same chance to hear each position equally.

Everyone would have the same chance to hear, but not everyone would be allowed to speak equally.

I am assuming you are describing some system in which every candidate gets a certain amount of tax money, and is forbidden to spend any more than that. Leaving aside for the moment the undoubted fact that contributions would instantly change from money to donations in kind (free use of the corporate jet, franking privileges, whatever the fertile mind can come up with), I have a couple of issues with a system of this kind.

The first problem, of course, is that I am being forced to subsidize ideas and candidates with whom I disagree. I emphatically do not want to contribute my money to the Socialist Workers Party or the America First! party or to advocate against free trade or whatever. Under our current system, I get to choose. Under a publicly subsidized system, I have no choice on whether or not to pay my taxes, and therefore I have no choice whether to donate (indirectly) to candidates I would rather not see elected. When the Kerry for President worker came up to me last Sunday at the farmer’s market asking for a donation, I can say “No thanks”. When the IRS makes the same request, I can’t.

The other problem is that there are limits (I presume) on how much a campaign can spend. Therefore, if 10,000 friends and I want to contribute $200 apiece to the Transcendental Meditation Party for Peace and Good Vibes, and the limits on spending are a million dollars, half of us are prevented from advocating our position that twenty minutes of TM daily will bring about cosmic harmony and grooviness.

My overall point is that, in my opinion, all positions are not equal. Some are correct, and some are stupid. I want to be able to support the correct ones and let the stupid ones wither away for lack of attention. CFR in its usual proposed incarnations generally removes that choice from me, and hands it over to the government. Any crackpot with enough names on a petition to get recognized can force me to give him money to spread his crackpot notions.

The government, in other words, should not (IMO) be in the business of deciding how much advocacy is too much. People, in general, ought to be allowed to spend their money advocating their notions, if they want to.

The First Amendment does not say, “Congress shall make no law regarding freedom of speech, unless the government decides its citizens are getting carried away and spend too much money on it.” Freedom of speech almost necessarily implies the freedom to spend your own money on the media of campaigning.

Regards,
Shodan

[DMC]

@Shodan

Well, no. If you are prevented by law from spending your dime on propagating your speech, then you have less freedom to reach a wide audience.

You’re not prevented from spending your dime to propagate your speech. What I’m saying is that spending your dime to propagate their speech is not free speech for you. Whether it is legal is a different issue. I’m just saying it’s not the same thing.

Then I see the situation as free speech = advocacy of positions and candidates = spending money to advocate positions and candidates. Therefore giving money to a politician = spending it yourself = free speech, because you are using the money to advocate for positions and candidates.

You’re stretching really really far with that. Killing someone = getting your message across = free speech.

Spending money to propagate a position is no different in principle than spending any other kind of resources - time, energy, use of a car, etc. If I spend my money on a campaign bus going cross-country giving speeches on behalf of National Arbor Day, then restrictions on use of a bus for campaigning are the same as restrictions on the number of times I can give a speech in my own home town. I have the desire and the resources to exercise my right of free speech, but the state is preventing me from doing so. It would be the same as if I owned a newspaper, but the government put limits on the number of editorials I could run.

There’s a huge difference. If you spend money giving speeches on behalf of Arbor Day at your expense, you are indeed speaking, and should be protected. If you give money to someone else for them to give speeches on behalf of Arbor Day, that’s not your speech, but their’s. Whether they agree with you or not is not the point, it’s still their speech. I agree with John Kerry on many things, but not all. When he opens his mouth, it is never me speaking, no matter how much money I send him. Me sending him money also isn’t speaking, as he has no clue what it is I’m saying.

[Mr2001]

@Shodan

Maybe I misspoke. The right of freedom of association I spoke about was the right to organize to advocate for positions or candidates. That would include fund-raising on their behalf. And therefore governmental limits on the right to organize and pool contributions together would be a violation of the right of freedom of association.

I agree that organizing to advocate for positions or candidates is freedom of association, but I can’t agree that fundraising is a necessary part of it.

Everyone would have the same chance to hear, but not everyone would be allowed to speak equally.

Sure they would. All parties would have the same budget to use to convey their message.

The first problem, of course, is that I am being forced to subsidize ideas and candidates with whom I disagree. I emphatically do not want to contribute my money to the Socialist Workers Party or the America First! party or to advocate against free trade or whatever.

::shrug:: I don’t mind contributing some fraction of my taxes to the GOP or SWP or any other kooky party if it means all parties will have a level playing field.

The other problem is that there are limits (I presume) on how much a campaign can spend. Therefore, if 10,000 friends and I want to contribute $200 apiece to the Transcendental Meditation Party for Peace and Good Vibes, and the limits on spending are a million dollars, half of us are prevented from advocating our position that twenty minutes of TM daily will bring about cosmic harmony and grooviness.

No, you’re still free to advocate your position. You’ll just have to use your own mouth or press to do it.

My overall point is that, in my opinion, all positions are not equal. Some are correct, and some are stupid. I want to be able to support the correct ones and let the stupid ones wither away for lack of attention.

And let me guess, the “stupid” ones just happen to be the ones that don’t have millions of dollars backing them today?

[Anaamika]

(timidly steps into Great Debates)

Um, one point that I don’t see being addressed here is this is extremely useful for the local politician who doesn’t have bags and bags of money. If you’re a small-time politician in a small town, you’re going to want campaign contributions just to get by.

Staring Frog Man (I can’t remember who posted it) touched on this but went on to say the money could then be given to a major presidential candidate.

Also, as far as I know our Pres candidates have all had money, but this is supposed to ensure even middle-class and poor people get a chance at being Pres.

It’s unfairly implemented but to get rid of it would hurt more, I think.