# Convicted of a crime? Sold into chattel slavery **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 31, 2021, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829 "2021-08-31T14:18:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/102 "2021-09-09T08:57:43Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So let’s say a state has a law that if you jaywalk, you are sold into chattel slavery. Constitutional? If that is too absurd (maybe you take the Kennedy/O’ Connor version of the Eighth Amendment) then how about for a serious felony like burglary or armed robbery. The punishment is literally that you are sold to another citizen as chattel. Does this wording allow the punishment? Maybe. I don’t think being “sold to another citizen as chattel” is what was envisioned in the 13th Amendment but it doesn’t seem the wording specifically precludes that. Note: 1. My ability to effectively interpret legalese is maybe a bit better than the average layperson but I’m no lawyer 2. I’m no Constitutional scholar, either OK. So what, IMO, _is_ envisioned in the 13th? I would think the right to use convicted criminals as slave labor would be allowed only by the state and never by a private citizen. This is similar to how in US law only the state is allowed to take the life of a person as punishment. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/103 "2021-09-09T09:22:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > […] If the court system ruled that being flayed alive wasn’t cruel and unusual, then flaying would not be a violation of the eight amendment. > [@UltraVires](#): > > No, but that would be a clearly wrong opinion and we could come on here and say how wrong it is. Maybe _you_ would but I’m not getting flayed alive, no thank you. 😬 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/104 "2021-09-09T12:17:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But it simply is. How do you counter the basic argument? That “basic argument” can be countered with the basic counter-argument “nuh uh.” Or it could be countered [something like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo#Dissents): > [@Justice White](#): > > I also disagree with the Court’s judgment that § 608(a), which limits the amount of money that a candidate or his family may spend on his campaign, violates the Constitution. Although it is true that this provision does not promote any interest in preventing the corruption of candidates, the provision does, nevertheless, serve salutary purposes related to the integrity of federal campaigns. By limiting the importance of personal wealth, § 608(a) helps to assure that only individuals with a modicum of support from others will be viable candidates. This in turn would tend to discourage any notion that the outcome of elections is primarily a function of money. Similarly, § 608(a) tends to equalize access to the political arena, encouraging the less wealthy, unable to bankroll their own campaigns, to run for political office. > > Since the contribution and expenditure limitations are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech of particular candidates or of political speech in general, this case depends on whether the nonspeech interests of the Federal Government in regulating the use of money in political campaigns are sufficiently urgent to justify the incidental effects that the limitations visit upon the First Amendment interests of candidates and their supporters. Or, more simply, there’s a “yes, but” counterargument: yes, in some sense it’s a limit on free speech; but, we allow limits in cases where the limit is tailored to prevent a massive harm. Threats, and fraud, and incitements to violence, and child porn, and various other sorts of free speech are limited, because of the harm it does. Is there a harm that is prevented by limiting the expenditure of money in campaigns, sufficient to justify the limit? > [@Justice Marshall](#): > > One of the points on which all Members of the Court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign. It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant “headstart.” Of course, the less wealthy candidate can potentially overcome the disparity in resources through contributions from others. But ability to generate contributions may itself depend upon a showing of a financial base for the campaign or some demonstration of preexisting support, which, in turn, is facilitated by expenditures of substantial personal sums. Thus, the wealthy candidate’s immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not only discourage potential candidates without significant personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/105 "2021-09-09T12:34:10Z")
what about prisoner chain gangs? I know there was a kerfuffle a decade or two ago about how some places were trying to bring them back … ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/106 "2021-09-09T15:22:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m saying it is hand in glove. Sure, if you say “I dislike Joe Manchin” that is a form of free speech, but if you pay money to start a website that has a goal of outlawing assault weapons, for example, that is also free speech, and for the government to say that you can only pay so much money for that purpose, it is effectively saying that you can only speak so loudly against assault weapons. Why do you keep avoiding the actual issue? This isn’t about setting up a website. If you think assault weapons should be illegal: - You can tell people you think assault weapons should be illegal. That’s free speech. - You can post on the SDMB that you think assault weapons should be illegal. That’s free speech. - You can start your own website explaining why you think assault weapons should be illegal. That’s free speech. - You can offer a Senator fifty thousand dollars to introduce a law that would ban assault weapons. That’s not free speech. That’s bribing a public official. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/107 "2021-09-09T17:20:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > - You can offer a Senator fifty thousand dollars to introduce a law that would ban assault weapons. That’s not free speech. That’s bribing a public official. Yes it would. But how about I give the Senator $50k so that he gets elected instead of that NRA gun nut? Why is that some sort of evil? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/108 "2021-09-09T17:57:44Z")
But I think the basic point is sinking in for me. I can pay money for a website. That is speech…go down the line, it is speech. But even if it is completely benign, paying money to get a guy elected who will implement my idea seems like not speech, but me using my largesse to get my preferred political position enacted into law. Point is well taken and I will think on it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/109 "2021-09-09T21:02:52Z")
And as I am thinking more about it, your position is that the guy next door doesn’t have $50k to spend to elect his preferred candidate. Even though my position on the assault weapons bill was because I watched one political television show or one political website, but that dude next door did a lot of research. Say historical research, read tons of articles and books and arrived at an opinion much more educated than mine. But I get outsized influence because I have extra money. Is that a fair statement of your position? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2021, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/110 "2021-09-09T21:06:52Z")
Sorry for the quadruple post, but it seems that it is not that I am bribing the guy, but even if I am just helping to elect the guy who already agrees with me, money shouldn’t influence who gets elected. Very telling and a very good point. I must think on this more. ETA: I have $50k extra money. You have 50 cents extra. Our voices should be equally valuable. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/111 "2021-09-10T02:48:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But I get outsized influence because I have extra money. Is that a fair statement of your position? > [@UltraVires](#): > > Sorry for the quadruple post, but it seems that it is not that I am bribing the guy, but even if I am just helping to elect the guy who already agrees with me, money shouldn’t influence who gets elected. These are my two main points. First, that when money enters politics, it gives wealthy people undue influence over the government and makes elected officials beholden to wealthy people. Second, we can call it campaign contributions but once the money is in the politician’s hands, there is very little oversight on how it’s spent. Get re-elected? Sure, that’s a good idea. Buy a new house? That would be nice. Pay off a mistress? You gotta due what you gotta do. And my other point is that it’s embarrassing for the nation to have bribery as a constitutional right. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/112 "2021-09-10T03:00:08Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Yes it would. But how about I give the Senator $50k so that he gets elected instead of that NRA gun nut? Why is that some sort of evil? What happens when you give money to both candidates (which many wealthy people and corporations do)? Let’s say I’m the head of the beet farming lobby. Our members like the federal beet subsidy that pays us a billion dollars a year (out of our taxes). It’s election time. Smith is running against Jones. I go to both headquarters and hand each man a check for ten thousand dollars. I go around to several dozen campaign headquarters, for candidates of both parties, and hand out a lot of ten thousand dollar checks. Regardless of who wins on election day, I feel confident the federal beet subsidy is safe for another two years. It’s not about helping my preferred candidate win. It’s about spreading the money around and making sure that whoever wins will support my agenda. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/113 "2021-09-10T03:47:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Buy a new house? That would be nice. Pay off a mistress? You gotta due what you gotta do. Wait. But doesn’t the Senator have to file reports? I mean, he just can’t take my $50k and buy a giant pile of cocaine with it. There are documents and IIRC, campaign contributions must be spent on legitimate campaign items. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/114 "2021-09-10T13:43:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Buckley […] was about giving money to politicians. Wrong. I recommend you re-read the case, the court _upheld_ limits on political donations and there are still caps to this very day. Hence the PACs which are only necessary because each individual has a limit on how much they can donate to a candidate ($5,000 IIRC). The court struck down provisions placing limits on what the politician can _spend_ during his or her campaign. It also struck down limits on what an individual can _spend_ in their own right (when not donating to the politician or their campaign). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/115 "2021-09-10T13:59:09Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The court struck down provisions placing limits on what the politician can _spend_ during his or her campaign. It also struck down limits on what an individual can _spend_ in their own right (when not donating to the politician or their campaign). Correct. But I am still thinking about it. You and I live in the same legislative district. I have had the good fortune to have extra money in savings. Maybe I earned it through hard work or had rich parents. You have good ideas but don’t have as much money. Say you worked even harder than me. Why should I have an advantage and get elected over you simply for that reason? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/116 "2021-09-10T15:10:25Z")
> [@Justice Marshall](#): > > Thus, the wealthy candidate’s immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not only discourage potential candidates without significant personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. Yeah, that was basically Marshall’s dissent. Again: > [@Marshall](#): > > Thus, the wealthy candidate’s immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not only discourage potential candidates without significant personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. There is disagreement over whether there was fraud in last year’s election, and we don’t need to go into that. It’d be interesting to see how a proposition like this one polls: > [@](#): > > In your opinion, does a candidate with significant personal wealth have an advantage over a candidate without significant personal wealth? > … > (for folks who say yes) > Does this advantage undermine your confidence in the integrity of the electoral process? I suspect that, if the question were reworded to be comprehensible to most respondents, there would not be significant disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/117 "2021-09-10T15:15:22Z")
Right, but what stops me from fully agreeing is the basic unfairness. George W. Bush, I think we can agree, wouldn’t have been dog catcher if he wasn’t his father’s son. Hillary would not have been so prominent without Bill. Trump would not have been elected had we not know him for being the 1980s-90s casino/real estate/USFL guy. Why shouldn’t I be able to even THAT playing field with my cash? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/118 "2021-09-10T15:19:03Z")
Also incumbency is a huge advantage. Why can’t I level that field with some cash? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/119 "2021-09-10T15:21:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why shouldn’t I be able to even THAT playing field with my cash? If that’s what’s fair, then the government should give that cash to everyone who wants to run, right? Otherwise, you’re not remedying unfairness, you’re compounding it with more unfairness. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/120 "2021-09-10T15:22:55Z")
There are clear problems with that. Say I am some crank or some Nazi. The taxpayers are just going to hand me money? The “money wins” isn’t fair, but the “no money” keeps the buddy system alive. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2021, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829/121 "2021-09-10T15:25:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > There are clear problems with that. Say I am some crank or some Nazi. The taxpayers are just going to hand me money? I mean, maybe. My point isn’t necessarily that the government should hand you money, it’s that being able to spend a personal fortune isn’t a remedy to other unfairnesses in the electoral system, but is rather an example of unfairness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/convicted-of-a-crime-sold-into-chattel-slavery/949829.md?page=7)