How many times, and in how many different ways, must it be explained that “money is/is not speech” is an oversimplification that leads to people strawmanning the shit out of that phrase?
adaher phrased the issue perfectly clearly, but let me do it a slightly different way: Money is money. Speech is speech. If a law would have the effect of limiting speech by limiting the money that would be necessary for that speech to be communicated, the law will have to pass a very high constitutional barrier.
However, one we establish the reasons for the Constitutional barriers, getting public support to stay at its current level for such an amendment is going to be tough.
Not to mention the polls on the subject centered around the Citizens United decision. The public is quite prepared to place limits on corporate political speech. Not so much individuals.
But establishing the reasons for constitutional barriers is a wonkish endeavor. Getting the voting public up to speed is going to take time and in the meantime people can see elections awash in more and more money. And when people do see your point about the problems with how your opponents want to address the problem they are going to want to know what your solution is. And you don’t have one. It’s not enough to point out the problems with other people’s ideas if you don’t have something to offer in return. Better a flawed plan than no plan at all.
The American public tends to have a bias towards freedom. As we saw with the gun control debate, even the most sensible reforms involve wide resistance, because at our core, we are suspicious of government’s intentions. On this issue especially, it’s going to be ridiculously easy to paint politicians as self-interested here.
And again, remember that the preponderance of advertising on this amendment will be against it, even from many liberal groups. There is one real advantage that comes with money: you can actually address a lot of sides of the issue in a way that penetrates the public mind. When you’ve got money, you don’t necessarily need a one-sentence slogan. The ACLU can address the issue from one side, the Chamber of Commerce from another.
Again, I think part of the problem is that this amendment is too broad. If they limit themselves to time, place, and manner of electioneering, and only by corporations, then it would be exactly the wedge issue you want it to be. The public was aghast at the Citizens United decision. Not so much the Buckley decision, because the issue at stake in Buckley had nothing to do with corruption. And this amendment goes way beyond even overturning Buckley. It’s a blank check.
Here’s something I imagine we’d agree on: Americans for Prosperity is going to spend $125 million in the 2014 elections. We have no idea where that money is coming from. I do not support these groups being required to report individual donors, because that can be used for intimidation or retaliation purposes. But I’d be all for requiring them to report corporate donors. How about a modified version of DISCLOSE that limits itself to corporate donors to these organizations?
Liberty is a bias I share and I think it’s a healthy thing. We only support restrictions when we think they are warranted and that’s how it shoud be. The thing about gun control is that whites who tend to live in safe rural and suburban areas aren’t big supporters of gun control but support among blacks is significantly higher. Since the governments we see being bought and sold are supposed to belong to everyone I wouldn’t count on gun control being a reliable model for how this issue will play out.
You’ve used that “ridiculously easy” line before and I think you’re whistling past the graveyard. Maybe your side can get people to pay attention long enough to convince them you have a point but it’s not like it will be easy.
Why would liberal groups come out against it? Their ability to spend for their causes is outside the scope of the amendment. It only applies to elections. Nor do I see that a lot of direct advertising would be done in favor of it. More like, “Vote for Steve Scrupulous. He supports the Campaign Finance Amendment. Politicians should work for everyone and not just the highest bidder.”
You can try to attack it based on what you fear it might allow but our side can argue that whatever scary scenario you come up with just can’t happen because it doesn’t fall within the purview of electioneering which is the only activity to be regulated under the amendment. Since the amendment isn’t the actual legislation laying out the details neither side can make a completely compelling case. Which means what people will believe will depend a lot on their preconceived notions. Which doesn’t favor the opponents of reform.
We can agree that it would be a good thing, sure. But it doesn’t fix the problem. The Republicans are doomed to lose the campaign finance argument just like they lost the Obamacare argument because they don’t have a viable alternative. You can’t beat something with nothing. That’s not to say that a campaign finance constitutional amendment will ever be ratified. That’s a pretty big hurdle to clear. But the issue will continue to be an albatross around the GOP neck so long as the Democrats stay united in favor.
Let’s take term limits. Say there is an election going on that pits Smith who is in favor of term limits against Jones who opposes them.
So, under your proposal, I can spend $1 billion on ads in favor of term limits, but I can’t tell people to vote for Smith or against Jones. May I mention that Smith is also in favor of term limits? May I mention that Jones is opposed to them? May I mention that there is an election upcoming? May I tell people where they can get more information about the candidates’ positions on term limits?
I agree with your regulation argument but not as applied to this. Political speech and candidate endorsements are at the heart of the first amendment. It’s absurd to say that pornography, for example, would be protected speech, yet endorsing Smith for Congress could be banned.
It would be like banning ammunition and saying that my 2nd amendment rights are intact because I can carry unloaded weapons, or saying that even though the victim’s family makes up the jury, my right to a jury trial is still preserved because we go through the formalities of having one.