If that were true, you wouldn’t be worried about what speech the people hear.
You just haven’t thought this through hard enough. Your premise is that the government must control what the people hear because of its affect on the outcome of elections. You can’t disconnect the two.
Tell me, WHY are you worried about wealthy plutocrats getting their message out easier? You can’t answer that question without referring to a belief that the people are gullible fools who can’t think for themselves, or that they don’t go find out, through easily-available and free means like the Internet, campaign events, and the media, all the information from all sources to make an informed voting choice. You think they just sit on their couches and wait to be told who to vote for.
When you give your money to Carl Rove’s superpac, you don’t have any control over what Carl Rove does with that money. You aren’t expressing yourself, you are helping Carl Rove express himself by giving him money. you ONLY connection with the speech taht ultimately occurs is money. The only connection you have to the speech that ultimately occurs is your money. In what way are you expressing speech that is disconnected from your money?
I think the disconnect here is taht you are focusing on the weeds of CU (corporations have the same first amendment rights to political speech as natural persons) while others are concerned about the principles involved.
I would say that when it comes to political speech and corporations, it seems obvious to me that there are some distinct differences in rights afforded to people and corporations that might justify treating them differently wrt the first amendment.
That’s the thing, it ain’t free and those with more money get a LOT more speech under this system.
We place all sorts of limits on the first amendment. This is hardly the nail in the coffin.
So you agree that it is only unconstitutional NOW because SCOTUS says so, that the argument pre-CU was not nearly as strong.
The NYT doesn’t pay radio stations to read their editorials on the air, you are generally expected to pay for the privelege of reading their opinions. There once wasa time when newspapers were politically affiliated (the word Democrat or Whig would appear in their name) and that was fine. I think that if the East India trading company started paying for half the money that went into elections, the founding fathers would have had a problem with the notion that it was merely free speech.
Your source measured the amount of money raised for all Republicans in all the races that were run that day. And mentions that Walker got two thirds of his money from big donors from outside the state, whereas Barrett got only a quarter of his money from outside the state.
Your cite also notes that contributions from “issues” groups that ran ads that just barely stopped short of endorsing a particular candidate were not included, because they are not well regulated and are hard to quantify … but DID offer a rough estimate that such issues groups on the Republican side outspent Democratic groups by $22 million to $5 million.
So, overall, your quote supports my thesis that big money people and contributions can and do weigh in heavily to support Republican/conservative candidates, much more so than Democrats. Thanks!
Campaign donations are already limited for some and banned for others (including corporations). This is not about campaign donations.
I apologize if I’m confused about your position - I’m a noob here and this thread is long - but do you oppose the Citizens United decision? If so, you support the power of the government to ban or limit speech by certain groups. (Let’s not get into it over ban vs. limit).
The poster was saying you shouldn’t be able to spend money to influence elections. Newspapers (which are corporations, btw) spend money to influence elections. If you think otherwise, tell me why.
Yes, it tells you the direct donations to the candidates. If you count third party spending, the numbers get much closer (which, by the way, means there was more third party spending from Democrats than from Republicans).
Of course they do. To the tune of $37M for Republicans vs. $35 for Democrats.
Would it make you feel better if the donations to Carl Rove’s SuperPAC were earmarked for specific ads? Would that convince you that that would be speech?
No, the argument was as strong then as now. But the time to hope for an asinine decision was the first time, when it was 5 - 4 and only one more Justice needed to detect a penumbra hiding in the back of a drawer somewhere. Two years later, it ain’t happening.
No, it says Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has determined that, subject to the Central Hudson test, commercial speech can be limited (think tobacco advertising). They have also determined that Congress can make laws dictating the time, place and manner of political speech. They have also determined that the First Amendment defends associations of individuals.
If political ads do not have an influence on the election, then banning them will have no tangible effect and thus is not a threat to democracy.
And also said that political speech enjoys the highest level of protection, far above commercial speech.
This is not a time, place, manner issue.
Huh? Not sure what you mean, though corporations are associations of individuals.
Of course political ads have an affect on elections? So what?
Doesn’t matter anyway - they are protected speech, period.
There is simply no way to ban a political ad and not violate the First Amendment. That should be obvious. It’s pathetic and scary that people have so many convoluted theories on how to ban speech these days.
Is anyone actually claiming that here? I think Lance, the noob, was saying that your position kinda sorta implied that it was when you said:
Not much of an argument, I will agree, but that’s not him saying “money is speech”.
Still, surely Congress can stifle speech by putting monetary restrictions on it. Is paper speech? Suppose the government said newspapers could only buy 4 sheets of paper per week (interstate commerce clause, dude!). Would freedom of the press still be intact? Paper isn’t “the press”, right?
If all that free speech means is that you get to stand on the corner and say whatever you want, that is not the “free speech” that we have enjoyed for about 250 years in this country.
