Yeah, cause the rich man money machine is really rolling now. Democracy in America is about over.
Is that your position - “spending money to influence the outcome of an election should not be possible”? Are you sure? Nobody should be able to buy a billboard with a political message. Nobody should be able to place an ad in a newspaper or on TV. Nobody should be able to rent a place for a political meeting. The candidate should have no budget whatsoever to get his message out.
Wow. I don’t want to live in the country you envision.
That’s funny. Before CU, nothing stopped a billionaire from paying for an issue advocacy ad. Same as after. The campaign contribution restrictions that existed prior to CU? They exist after CU as well. You really don’t know what CU decided, do you? But gosh darn it, you know you’re mad about it! What with all the plutocracy-enabling and democracy-destroying going on like gangbusters. It’s madness! Here, just for giggles to see if anyone will read this and actual let it sink in (emphasis added):
Oh, and one more thing–for fuck’s sake! Now I’m done.
I want to second this post to see if we can get a definitive answer from the other side that keeps saying that money does not equal speech.
Does my free speech only extend to how loud I can shout? But then again, I had to eat food to provide energy to my body to be able to shout. Food costs money! Once again, evil money influencing speech!
Do I have a right to be free from searches and seizures of my property, but damn, I’m not allowed to spend money to actually buy property?
I am a liberal Democrat, but I fully support the Citizens United decision. As did the ACLU, by the way.
Speech cannot “buy” elections. If that’s true, there’s no point in having democracy anyway, is there? The “buying” elections argument is predicated on the idea that the voters are just idiots who do whatever TV ads tell them to. That notion is disrespectful to democracy, not the Citizens United decision. The people do not need protection from speech.
As for corporations and who they are slanted for (not that it matters, as I’ve said) - Citizens United applies to everyone, not just corporations. That includes labor unions, or many independent liberal or reform groups that depend on wealthy individuals (George Soros is the favorite one for the rightwingers to mention, but there are many more) and small donors who want to pool their money (for example, MoveOn.org).
Money isn’t speech (no court ever said that either) - but spending money on speech, like any other right, is part of that right.
Here’s some other ways to think about it:
Could the government ban the sale of bibles or donations to religious groups? You can practice your religion all you want, just don’t spend money on it. Money isn’t religion after all.
Could the government ban paying a lawyer to defend you in court? You could still get it for free (good luck with that), you just can’t pay for it. Money isn’t the right to an attorney, after all.
Could the government ban paying doctors for abortions and say it’s not a violation of Roe v. Wade? You can get an abortion, you just can’t pay for it. Money isn’t abortion, after all. (This is a real possibility - the states are finding all kinds of ways to get around Roe v. Wade - and abortion-rights supporters would rightly scream about it if it were tried).
Back to speech - could the government ban the sale of magic markers and poster board, or megaphones, or payments to bus companies ferrying protesters to Washington DC? Could it ban this website from paying it’s host and designers and staff?
The idea that the government can ban spending money on a right is ludicrous. It’s meant to limit the right itself.
Moreover, the Citizens United decision involved the possibility of a person (not a corporation) going to PRISON for daring to distribute a film criticizing a political candidate. (Kinda like, say, Michael Moore uses a corporation to distribute his films).
The government lawyers who opposed it said in court that the law also gave them the power to ban any book about politics that was published by a corporation (as most are)!
That should never, ever happen in America.
There is an ENORMOUS difference.
One is giving money to a candidate. The other is expressing your opinions using speech.
The second one, if you hadn’t heard, is protected by the First Amendment.
Actually the gob stopping quote was meant to be mostly a throw away line expressing my frustration that we are in the scenario mentioned in the first part of my post.
This part is what I am most interested in responses to. Stratocaster and Terr, I am seriously interested in what your views are of the situation above. Below are a few possibilities
A) The scenario is unrealistic and wouldn’t/doesn’t happen because…
B) The scenario represents democracy in action there is nothing wrong with those with money being able to influence legislation through campaign donations.
C) The scenario is realistic and lamentable, but there is nothing we can constitutionally do about it.
D) The scenario is lamentable but a constitutional solution would be to …
E) ???
No, it’s not about PACs either.
It’s about speech.
If speech is “the gateway to plutocracy” - because, as this claim presumes, the people are stupid and do whatever they are told and need to be “protected” from speech - then democracy is a joke in the first place. I don’t think the people are stupid.
As has already been explained, this is not about campaign donations.
Most of those newspapers are also (shudder) corporations!
I don’t know if you’re being disingenuous or what. Money does not buy speech, it buys access to media. Nobody is freaking SHOUTING to be heard. They are buying ads. Modern political campaigns, especially at the state and federal levels, are utterly dependent on mass media to succeed. So long as unlimited funds allow PACS (organizations secretly working with candidates which SUPPOSEDLY are not supporting individual candidates, but nobody believes that) permit the rich to pour money into their favored candidates and causes, in unlimited amounts, the rich will have an enormous advantage politically. They may not win EVERY election they go after, but they’ll win the vast majority. Out of state forces and Governor Walker’s campaign outspent his opponents either 7.5 to 1 or 9 to 1, depending on which figures you believe. They weren’t funded by legions of believers, they were funded by rich guys and corporations with large checks.
You say that unlimited funding by the rich will not affect democracy. I suppose you might be a Pollyanna, but I think it’s more likely you are like a hound dog looking at a pork chop, and that pork chop is control of the democratic process by wealthy conservatives who presumably share your political goals.. You may be howling about Citizens United and freedom of speech, but I think it’s all about the pork chop.
Work on passing a law (constitutional law, by the way) requiring disclosure of such donations.
Again, that canard.
From http://host.madison.com/data/politics/campaign-donors/
Scott Walker remains the undisputed titan of political fundraising in Wisconsin, raising $22.8 million since he took office in January 2011. But pitted together, labor unions, Democratic candidates and parties and other groups aligned with the Democratic Party have raised about $35 million in that time — nearly matching the $37 million raised by GOP candidates and Republican political action committees and other groups. Data covers campaign contributions between Jan. 1, 2011, and April 23, 2012.
$35M vs $37M. Such an enormous difference, it warrants running around hysterically, shouting about bought elections.
Yes. There’s no basis for any other interpretation.
SPEECH is protected. From any source.
The idea that speech is only protected by humans is silly anyway, since only humans can speak or express ideas. All speech from corporations comes from humans. Corporations are just tools created and used by people. Saying that corporations don’t have speech rights because they aren’t people is like saying billbboard, or websites, have no speech rights, and trying to ban billboard or website messages.
First of all, you don’t get to say it’s all about the pork chop, because the First Amendment says otherwise.
Second, your entire argument is premised on the idea that the people are too stupid to hear certain speech, and will just vote for whoever’s TV ads they see more on TV. That premise is more a threat to democracy than any speech.
Yes.
I find it funny that people are so terribly upset about people buying TV and radio time, 30 seconds a shot, and expressing their opinions - yet see nothing wrong with those who bought the whole TV network and express their opinions or give others access for free all day.
Why aren’t you clamoring to ban Fox News? Isn’t it a threat to our democracy many times over what Super PACs are?
No, my premise is value neutral on that point. The fact that wealthy plutocrats are more able to get their message out has no bearing on the intelligence of the people they are sending messages to.
What bans have I proposed, exactly? So far as I know, I have only proposed limiting the amount of campaign donations, a far cry from a ban.