Ahhh. This is a different sort of “fairness” then what I feel is fair. When you used the word ‘equity’ earlier, I suspected that was what you meant. You mean that every voter is exactly equal and that no voter is allowed to have more (or less) say than another. I don’t buy that one. Smells of socialism (or worse) to me.
If person A chooses to work 4 hours today (for free) on spreading his political beliefs, and person b wants to work 8 hours today spreading his, I think that’s fair.
And if person c wants to give 1 day of his salary towards spreading his political beliefs and persond d wants to give 1 years, I think that’s fair.
Hell, you know what I say. Campaign contributions aren’t quid pro quo? Fine–you can give all the money you want, but the politician’s not allowed to know it’s from you.
If big donors truly give money without expecting any favors in return, shouldn’t this let them have their political speech while eliminating the appearance of corruption?
And how do you keep a politician from knowing? If I wanted to go donate a million bucks to the “Abolish Dihydrogen Monoxide” movement, what’s to stop me from spending another million letting the world know that I did this? Do you advocate shutting politicians off from the world during campaigns?
I forget if it was Pepsi or Nike that donated $250,000 to a scholarship fund, and spent $500,000 promoting the donation…
Ah well, things are never going to be completely fair.
I don’t have any problem with person A having less political influence than person B today. B cared more/worked harder.
When we get to C and D there is the discrepancy of money. C could have more effect on the political landscape because they make more in a day than D makes in a year. So D worked harder/cared more and achieved less.
Well, I was AFK for a while during that last thread. I didn’t find your arguments convincing enough to merit a response after I got back. Sorry!
Yes, I know that. And people can choose not to vote for candidates who appear corrupt.
Well, Ralph Nader didn’t take “soft money” IIRC. I’m only 100% sure of two of the dozen or so people running for president last cycle that did. Voters who feel they want politicians who don’t take “bribes” can always run for office themselves if they feel the contributions are having an undue influence. Apparently from the last returns, voters don’t seem to actually care about this issue.
I don’t like it either, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Especially since I have yet to see any way to plug all the holes in any scheme that doesn’t abridge peoples rights to participate in the political process.
SPOOFE: Can’t have your democracy and eat it, too. In your opinion, are big contributors getting quid for their quo? If so, do you think this is damaging to a democratic society? If not, what harm would there be in having a contribution clearinghouse (a la my previous threads on the matter) and ensuring that there was no appearance of corruption in our campaign finance system?
jmullaney: And which of my points, pray tell, did you find unconvincing? The ones which caused you to cheerfully admit that you knew nothing about the Constitution, and therefore didn’t have an intellectual leg on which to stand in a discussion about the constitutionality of campaign finance?
'Nother point for you: 100 million Americans chose not to vote in this last presidential election. Could it be that a portion of these nonvoters abstained because they viewed both major candidates as irredeemably corrupt? Would you agree that it’s healthier for a society to have more democratic participation rather than less?
By the way, you scarpered out of my self-interest thread with similar speed–does that mean that I wasn’t convincing there, either? If so, I suggest you go back and check that thread out; it’s got more than a little to do with the topic at hand.
Yes, you did do a remarkable job of hijacking that thread from an OP regarding freedom into a composite of legal nitpicks. (I still don’t equate the restriction you have proposed to yelling fire in a crowded theatre, for example; no one has every been trampled to death trying to donate money to a political organization.) But of course, you had no other way to make your argument. I was non-plussed, yet impressed.
They obviously aren’t passionate enough about this issue to bother voting for a candidate that wasn’t taking contributions. Some very small portion? Perhaps. Their loss for not bothering to vote.
You invoked “strict constructionism” for your side. Upon inquiry, I learned that you had no idea what strict constructionism really was. Hardly “a composite of legal nitpicks,” expect insofar as the law itself is such a composite.
Eggplant Toyota cornflakes. This makes as much sense as your above sentence. Please, please, please read the text of the Buckley decision. Or at least re-read the parts I quoted in the other thread. No one’s argument has anything to do with people being metaphorically trampled to death because they’re donating money. Rather the converse, actually.
If you’d care to resurrect the other thread, I’ll gladly grind your argument into a fine ruby mist, so unimpressed am I by your claim to have backed me into a rhetorical corner.
Context is everything, toots–let’s not forget the pervasive perception in this country as regards the legitimacy of minor-party candidates.
Oh, and the logic of your last sentence applies similarly to the fact that 99% of Americans can’t afford to make giant campaign contributions meant to influence the candidates. Our loss for not having enough money, right?
Yes, well, I thought that had something to do with reading the constitution as it is written, but I continue to defer to your greater knowledge.
But I don’t care what it has to say. Really. I’m not concerned at all about the “speech” side of the issue, more the issue of property rights (and, tangentally, the right to assembly) – which I feel CFR as currently proposed severely curbs.
Hey, if a billionaire wants to rent a million billboards that say “Vote for Mr. X” who are we to say he can’t? The billionaire still only gets one vote, just like you or me. If 99% of people don’t vote for Mr. X, guess who won’t win the election?
Beg your pardon, but I didn’t make any arguments on that thread. Most everyone agreed with your OP. I did quote an author with another perspective, one I don’t agree with, to try and get a debate going, but I thought I made fairly clear I had no interest in defending his position.
Please, please, please resurrect the other thread. evil grin
Willful ignorance is my most favoritest thing in the world.
And if a billionaire wants to pay a policeman to let him off the hook for a speeding ticket, who are we to say he can’t? Here we go again. You spin me round round like a record baby…
Hoo boy. Weekend reading assignment, Joel: Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann.
(And by the way, you’re tossing out securely moored constitutional concepts like “property rights” and “freedom of assembly.” Do you have any idea what they mean and whether or not they actually relate to the contribution of money towards campaigns? I wouldn’t ask, except your prior posts have shown you to be such a stellar legal historian…)
I just don’t think it has any relevance to my position. No need to read War and Peace to figure out how to cook lentil soup.
Crap, yes. Here we go again. There is nothing illegal about painting words on a billboard. That isn’t the same as bribing a cop. You say, OK, putting up a billboard advocating a political view should be illegal. So I can’t even put a sign on my lawn saying “Vote for X” because that is equivalent to bribing a cop, right? What about starting a thread that says “Vote for X” – I guess you don’t think I should be able to do that either. You are the one who wants to start drawing lines. I just don’t get where you want them to be, and what your justification is for putting them where you want them to be.
Let me guess: it says that the 99% of people that, though they don’t like candidate X, many of whom know (presuming the media, doing its job, tells them) some billionaire put up all those ads, will upon seeing all these billboards as they drive down the road get brainwashed into voting for X like the mindless lemmings they are. Right? Their consent has thus been manufactured? Is that your point?
I know the day I can’t decorate my property in a way that expresses my political views, and the day people of similar political views are forbidden to freely work together, is the day our republic is dead.
Dead, no. Ailing, yes. Good thing none of that stuff is happening, then, isn’t it?
(Oh, and by the way–when having a discussion about the constitutionality of campaign finance reform, it’s generally accepted that the leading Supreme Court opinion on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform is fairly relevant. No need for your lentils to taste like Tolstoy.)
I’m not even getting into the bribery stuff. I pointed out–at length–the flaws in your reasoning on the other thread, and now I’ve got to go to lunch.
Well, that seems to be the proposition at hand as best I can tell. Cloaked in a bit of class warfare demogoguery, of course, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
So you keep claiming. I regret to inform you shortly I’ll be AFK again until early January, but we’ll have plenty of time to tango (and, resultantly, solve all the worlds problems no doubt) in the new year. Happy Holidays!
Well, Gad’s posts have made it nearly impossible to add much here except perhaps to try to simplify it for jmullaney.
You dislike CFR because you ( correctly ) understand that it will curtail some freedoms. People will no longer be able to do certain things. You ( incorrectly ) see this as detrimental to rights. If you were willing to listen to the argument that CFR strengthens our right to be fairly governed, you might see that it is not a lessening but a balance of rights.
( Please let me know if I have made incorrect assumptions. )
jmullaney, I haven’t read the linked thread but did read the whole of this one and have read a fair bit on this subject.
I find your arguments on corruption extremely naive. At a point when corporations and other rich donors regularly give money to both sides of a campaign, the question is no longer limited to the influence thereby wielded on the popular vote. The issue, rather, is the compromise of an entire system that forces all candidates to capitulate at some level.
Surely you can see that there is no reason to give money both to Democrats and Republicans unless one’s main purpose is to make sure one has influence over any and every elected official.
At the same time, the hand-in-the-cookie-jar moments that you are looking for are all over the place. They are especially evident in the media where (to name just one obvious irregularity) the senator who chairs the committee on Telecommunications is the father of one of the broadcasting industry’s lobbyists.
Media is perhaps the most egregious example of where corporate influence has the political system so tightly locked up that popular sentiment is all but irrelvant. The majority of people thought that the new digital spectrum (worth about $80 billion) shouldn’t be handed over to the six or seven companies that control the existing spectrum. Key Republicans and Democrats opposed this move. But, guess what? It happened. The majority of people thought that, at the very least, public interest programming should be mandated in exchange. But public interest programming would have hurt the bottom line so–guess what?–there won’t be any. Low-power radio for community-based broadcasting was just written out of existence in a rider attached to the budget a few days ago. Guess why this measure was killed? Big corporations don’t actually like competition.
If you can’t see how this marriage between politicians and powerful interests compromises democracy you are closing your eyes. Worse still, you’re the dupe of the same system that’s shutting you out.
Here, FWIW, is another suggestion for reading: Robert McChesney’s Rich Media, Poor Democracy (1999). He details at length the multiple ways in which the media oligopoly (who vehemently oppose public campaign financing b/c they fear it will cost them some of the $500 million they get every election year) have compromised democracy at every level. He also has a very interesting chapter on First Amendment arguments.
Seriously, jmullaney. I mean you no disrespect. But until you begin to read these kind of challenges to the arguments you are making so that you can offer informed replies, you’re like a third-grader arguing with college students.
Well, jmullaney, just to add to your reading list a bit, here is a link to the article in The Nation that I mentioned in a previous post in this thread a few days ago: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001009&s=neuborne. I’ll give you the last paragraph which is a good summary of his views:
This is a short article so there is not as much detail on the subject as some of the other things you have been directed to, but it has the advantage of being short!
