I want to hear you and/or him say out loud “the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message.”
If you can say that, then tell me why you would possibly need to ban or limit ads, or why you think you have a right to.
That will clear all this up.
The fact that you even ask that question makes you unqualified for this discussion.
The government must abide by the Constitution. You didn’t hear?
Well, as a generalization, I simply disagree with that statement. Not all people will critically appraise political ads, like not all people will critically appraise ads in general. Note that this is not the same as saying “all the people are teh dumb and are swayed by political ads” – you can’t generalize in either direction.
Anyway, there is not a simple dividing line between swayed by ads and not. Everyone that sees them is influenced to one degree or another.
Countries can and do change parts of their constitution if there is huge consensus. It is ridiculous to imagine otherwise.
In any case, I should be clear that I do not believe that this is unconstitutional. The first amendment requires interpretation and I disagree with your interpretation. That’s not the same thing as wanting to overturn it.
This isn’t the premise advertisers are operating on, otherwise they’d simply attempt to get advertisements seen by the majority of people, rather than relying on effective frequency in order to create artificial demand, in direct opposition to rational choice theory.
But let’s meet minds here. Can you agree with this statement?
“There is no justification for limiting speech based on the view that the people cannot think about the message in a way the government thinks is proper.”
Of course. They’re supposed to be influential.
But the voters may not simply vote to violate the Constitution - only to change it. So if you have an amendment to offer, fine. If a constitutional amendment is seriously considered, you’ll work to build a consensus, and I’ll work to build a different one.
The supreme irony, though, is that your side will be using the very rights it is proposing to get rid of to do it!
There are groups today, including some that are incorporated just like the Citizens United group, that are accepting donations and using them to run ads calling for the repeal of Citizens United. And I just laugh when I see that. What hypocritical fools.
They may think that advertising has an inimical effect when used to influence elections and not when used to influence public opinion on supreme court opinions. That said. Cite?
Overturning a law with popular support is not democracy. You’re doing professional goalpost shifting again.
The underlying presumption of this debate seems to be that since corporations are rich, and unfettered they would use their wealth to dominate the political process, then the only workable solution is to limit freedom of speech, since the little people have no chance anyway.
I think I’m going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom.
For groups I’m talking about? If that’s what you want I can provide it.
Fine. We live in a constitutional republic in which the government follows the will of the people, subject to the limits of the Constitution.
Overturning a law with popular support is perfectly consistent with living in a constitutional republic in which the government follows the will of the people, subject to the limits of the Constitution.
Better?
Stop playing games. The government may not violate the Bill of Rights. Vague notions of democracy is irrelevant to that fact. If you want to say it’s not democracy, fine, whatever. What you are advocating is just what de Toqueville warned of: “Tyranny of the Majority.” Even popular laws that violate the Constitution must be struck down.
I said it before, democracy may be the antagonist of liberty. Socialism and syndicalism pose sharp threats to the freedom of property. Prisons are a fundamental intrusion on liberty. Campaign finance laws limit a person’s freedom to have as much speech as money allows. To an extent, so do publicly owned channels. I think switching to strictly public funding for electioneering communications would be an appropriate limitation on freedom in service of democracy.
That’s a bedrock function of our system. Certain laws may not be passed because the Constitution forbids them. Even if they are popular. Do you not get this basic principle?
Sure.
No they don’t. Donations aren’t speech. Money isn’t speech.
But limiting the expenditure of money intended to be used on speech (in this case, the electioneering communications campaign finance pays for) limits speech.
Fine. We don’t have a pure democracy. If you want one, feel free to propose any necessary changes to the Constitution.
We have a constitutional republic in which the government’s power, and therefore the people’s power, is limited.
Buckley addressed this. You should read it again, or for the first time.
If you want me to choose between limiting donations to Super PACs and repealing all donation limits to candidates, I’ll choose dumping the limits to candidates. And the courts might do that soon too. Be careful what you wish for.