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:
My ability to effectively interpret legalese is maybe a bit better than the average layperson but I’m no lawyer
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Yeah, that was basically Marshall’s dissent. Again:
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:
I suspect that, if the question were reworded to be comprehensible to most respondents, there would not be significant disagreement.
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?
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.
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.
