I am not suggesting we “lay aside the First Amendment” (though I do argue that banning paid political advertising would not be incompatible with the First Amendment). I am merely pointing out that, based on international experience, the electoral/political bulwarks against abuse of government power are more important and effective than the constitutional guarantees.
So, all those threads about Bush undermining the Constitution were, in the big picture, a bunch of hot air, because we’re still a functioning democracy?
And following up our earlier discussion, I’m curious as how you can get from “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” to “that part doesn’t count if someone has to pay to get their message out.” The First Amendment doesn’t say anything about gratis speech being different from expensive speech. If paid political ads can be banned from TV, are you also saying that the government has the power to ban political ads on the radio, in newspapers, on billboards, and on bumper stickers? Candidates pay for all of those forms of speech. In fact, other than earned media (aka media outlets making the candidate part of the news) I can’t think of any common campaign activity except knocking on doors that doesn’t involve the candidate paying to get his message out. What’s to stop the government from claiming those powers to completely silence candidates?
The question you have not answered twice is what you do with non-candidate advertising. Issue ads, in fact. Who gets the right to respond to those in the free time you are requiring TV and radio stations to dish out?
If there isn’t a right to respond there, might not the money migrate from being spent by the candidates to being spent by the third parties?
I think it should apply there as well; just for TV and Radio however. Who get’s to respond? I think we could let the stations use judgement, with the re-liciensing process as a check on abuse. I thought the fairness doctrine worked well for years and that was basically how things worked.
OK - now you have to define what is political and what isn’t. Should the Sierra Club running an ad suggesting we should save the Everglades be counterbalanced by a free ad for a company that wants to pollute the Everglades?
Then you have to explain to me why indisputably political speech* (“Vote for me! I don’t solicit sex in airport bathrooms!”) which surely is the ultimate core of First Amendment protection, receives a lower status than commercial speech for example. I assume you would not require WGN to give a free ad to Chevy every time they accept a Toyota ad.
Further, do you want to have different rules for cable and broadcast TV? The law does, with far fewer controls on cable. How about for subscription radio as opposed to regular radio? Are there no First Amendment rights of a radio station owner to support a particular political viewpoint?
The purpose of these questions isn’t to be an ass or to pretend there is not a problem here. But my whole point is that the moment you start tinkering with free speech, you get unpleasant side effects, especially if you want to maintain any degree of rationality to the system. Everyone is a supporter of censorship of speech in the end, so long as they get to be the censor. It’s just every other person in the world who would be dangerous doing that job.
*I draw that distinction because I think all speech is, in the final analysis, political. I do accept there are those on all sides of the political spectrum who disagree with that view, however, and try to maintain the First Amendment only protects ‘political’ speech, however that may be defined.
In the end, any law, even in a hypothetical, libertarian utopia, will have judgement associated with it. That’s just part of life and every legal ruling has to deal with it.
I strongly disagree that this is a form of censorship. It creates more speech, not less. No one is prohibited from speaking, it just gives equal access to the most important media for those with different opinions.
And if I tell you that you can say anything you want, as long as you say it in a private booth where no one can hear you, I’m not stopping your ‘speech’ either - only the ability of other people to hear it.
If I tell you that you can say what you want, but I deny you a mass market vehicle for getting your message out, I’m still restricting your speech.
Political speech is the most important form of free speech there is. It’s political speech the founders were expressly intent on protecting. Because when tyrannies start, the first thing they do is jail the people who speak out against them.
You may think your various flavors of campaign finance reform are just and reasonable. But imagine how they might be used by a truly malevolent government. A little redefining here and there of exactly what constitutes fair access and equal time, and which groups qualify, and shazaam, you’ve shut down the opposition’s ability to mount an effective offense.
And just where in my proposal are people being denied a mass market vehicle? I propose more people having access to the airwaves, not fewer.
Do you realize that currently networks do not need to accept political ads if they don’t want to? Aids prevention ads that promoted the use of condoms were rejected by some networks and recently Ari Fleischer’s pro-Iraq War ads were not aired by NBC. As a Libertarian I imagine you do not want to force networks to air ads, yet that is a much greater case of people being denied access to a mass market outlet.
The point is that it’s dangerous when government control speech, because governments have the guns. The freedom to say what you want, to whom you want, is an offset to government power. That doesn’t mean private citizens have to provide a megaphone for you, but it does mean the government shouldn’t have a voice in stopping you.
I think we are in violent agreement. That is why I proposed a system which did not restrict speech nor limit the amount of money that can be raised or spent.
Why not just make TV advertising cheaper?
If market forces do not make TV advertising cheaper, which they have not and will not, that would require government regulation of the price of TV advertising, which from the POV of market-conservative shitbags would be just as bad as outlawing it entirely.
But it would create more & freer speech, which serves the marketplace of ideas, which the Buckley faction consider a good. First Amendment trumps capitalist liberty.
Many TV stations are operating on a shoestring already. Their product is free–the only income they have is from advertising. Cut the price of the advertising, the station dies.
TV stations have suffered massive viewership losses due to national networks, satellite channels, and so forth.
You want free speech? Try YouTube. It certainly works for Ron Paul.
When I read the thread title, the first three words I thought of were;
KILL THE BASTARDS!
Wouldn’t work very well but it sure feels good to dream! 
CedricR.