Comprehesive Campaign Reform - in 3 words

[DanBlather]

Here is my proposal: anytime a political ad is purchased on radio or TV the station must make a similar amount of time available to the opponent(s) for free. Stations could decide to accept no ads or double the price of political ads, so it would not hurt them.

If Daddy Warbucks decides to try and buy an election he can be sure that a less well off candidate will get just as much airtime. The voters can then choose who has the better message.

[Will_Repair]

My three words: Corporations aren’t people.
More words - Free speech is for people not corporations, silly Supreme Court.

[E-Sabbath]

BrainGlutton. You’re wrong. You’re simply dead wrong. The Founding Fathers purchased votes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/history2.html

The practice of financing public elections with private money is older than our nation itself. In 1757, for example, George Washington was charged with a kind of campaign spending irregularity in his race for a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses. With only 391 voters in his district, Washington is said to have purchased and distributed during his campaign more than a quart and a half of rum, wine, beer, and hard cider per person.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_19_56/ai_n14702742

In 1758, young George Washington decided to seek a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses. He had been stymied in an earlier bid, he believed, by one crucial error: he had not “treated” the voters properly–which is to say, he had not provided them with sufficient alcoholic refreshment.

This time, determined to correct his ways, he purchased some 144 gallons of wine, rum, hard cider, punch and beer for distribution to supporters. At more than two votes per gallon, Washington’s effort proved successful, launching a rather distinguished career in American politics.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Will Repair

My three words: Corporations aren’t people.
More words - Free speech is for people not corporations, silly Supreme Court.

That’s a nice populist sentiment, but does that mean The Chicago Reader, inc. could be shut down at government whim?

[villa]

@BrainGlutton

I’m not sure, but I believe pamphlets like Paine’s Common Sense were sold cheap in the streets, like newspapers. Political columns like The Federalist were printed in newspapers without any money changing hands, like letters to the editor now. And, again, I’m not sure, but I don’t think newspapers started selling non-classified advertising space until decades later.

So to claim what the FFs considered to be free speech wasn’t paid for is not really correct, is it? They knew from the outset it would cost money to propagate one’s views. It wasn’t all standing up on (free) soap boxes.

[villa]

@DanBlather

Here is my proposal: anytime a political ad is purchased on radio or TV the station must make a similar amount of time available to the opponent(s) for free. Stations could decide to accept no ads or double the price of political ads, so it would not hurt them.

So in order to exercise my constitutional right to free speech, I have to fund the speech of others that I may find abhorrent?

If I want to go to Temple on Saturday, do I have to turn up to a Mosque on Friday, and Church on Sunday?

[Will_Repair]

@Bryan Ekers

That’s a nice populist sentiment, but does that mean The Chicago Reader, inc. could be shut down at government whim?

What? How do you get from not treating a corporation as an individual with constitutional rights with shutting it down at governmental whim?

[Gary_Robson]

@Will Repair

My three words: Corporations aren’t people.

More words - Free speech is for people not corporations, silly Supreme Court.

Two problems with your three words:

(1) Corporations are made up of people, and those people have the right to exercise free speech.

(2) Within the bounds of truthfulness in advertising, corporations do have the right to publish what they choose. Can you come up with an example where a corporation has been censored and the reason wasn’t false advertising (or issues that apply equally well to individuals, such as libel, slander, or state secrets)?

[villa]

@InvisibleWombat

(2) Within the bounds of truthfulness in advertising, corporations do have the right to publish what they choose. Can you come up with an example where a corporation has been censored and the reason wasn’t false advertising (or issues that apply equally well to individuals, such as libel, slander, or state secrets)?

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986).

It’s a (horribly written) opinion by Rhenquist, dismissing the first amendment claims of casinos in PR who were prohibited by law from advertising to PR residents, though they could advertise to tourists.

There’s a lot of change going on within commercial speech law at the moment, but it isn’t true that false advertising is the only restriction on commercial speech.

[Liberal]

Tobacco companies.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ravenman

Stop dancing around the point and explain why you think the First Amendment doesn’t protect political speech.

It does protect political speech; it does not guarantee your right to spend money to propagate it. I agree entirely with Lind’s argument on that point, repeated here:

. . .The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

Put more succinctly: Money != speech.

[BrainGlutton]

@villa

So to claim what the FFs considered to be free speech wasn’t paid for is not really correct, is it? They knew from the outset it would cost money to propagate one’s views. It wasn’t all standing up on (free) soap boxes.

If a candidate wants to sell his ads to the public like Paine sold his pamphlets, let him try. I doubt he’ll find many buyers, and those few would have voted for him/her anyway.

[Liberal]

@BrainGlutton

If a candidate wants to sell his ads to the public like Paine sold his pamphlets, let him try. I doubt he’ll find many buyers, and those few would have voted for him/her anyway.

But that’s exactly what they do. They sell their ideas to people who form PACs, who then turn around and put them on air.

[BrainGlutton]

@E-Sabbath

BrainGlutton. You’re wrong. You’re simply dead wrong. The Founding Fathers purchased votes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/history/history2.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_19_56/ai_n14702742

That’s not about buying ad time/space, it’s about straight-out bribing the voters. A pointless practice, since the secret ballot was introduced – and certainly not a practice the First Amendment was intended to protect.

[BrainGlutton]

@Liberal

But that’s exactly what they do. They sell their ideas to people who form PACs, who then turn around and put them on air.

I think they mostly give their ideas to people who form PACs.

[villa]

@BrainGlutton

If a candidate wants to sell his ads to the public like Paine sold his pamphlets, let him try. I doubt he’ll find many buyers, and those few would have voted for him/her anyway.

So you are happy with someone selling their pamphlets, but prevent them from paying to print them and giving them away. Are you going to put a minimum price on this? Does it also apply to religious speech? I think the Gideons might be a little bit miffed at your suggestion.

I assume you would also ban all political posters/placards unless they are sold to the people who put them in their front yards/windows. I guess we have to charge an entry fee to a campaign rally to cover the cost of room rental, security and other expenses now. After all, we can’t have a politician spending his or her own money to bring the message to the people.

[Ravenman]

@BrainGlutton

It does protect political speech; it does not guarantee your right to spend money to propagate it. I agree entirely with Lind’s argument on that point, repeated here: (snip)
Put more succinctly: Money != speech.

A TV commercial isn’t money.

[DanBlather]

On edit: never mind

[Liberal]

@BrainGlutton

I think they mostly give their ideas to people who form PACs.

I’m afraid that betrays a bit of political naivite. Your public servants are not the angels you may think they are. It’s all about the money.

[DanBlather]

@villa

So in order to exercise my constitutional right to free speech, I have to fund the speech of others that I may find abhorrent?

If I want to go to Temple on Saturday, do I have to turn up to a Mosque on Friday, and Church on Sunday?

No, the regulation does not apply to you, it applies to the media outlets. You can “speak” as much as you want. The stations just need to give those you find abhorrent equal time.

And no, you don’t need to go the mosque. You can just send your strawman in your place.