Sometimes it is, yes. So?
On behalf of corporate America, I apologize that all of you will be manipulated and brainwashed by political ads, because you’re not smart enough to think about them critically or ignore them. Whichever ones you see more than those of the other side, you’ll mindlessly believe. You might as well just not vote, since your vote is now meaningless since you just can’t control yourselves. It’s all corporate America’s fault.
So this would mean that you want to ban ALL political ads. Right?
This question seems to now be definitively answered in the negative.
I know you are having fun with your strawman there, but you DO know what the alternative to ballots is, don’t you?
It’s not a strawman. Not at all.
Did you mention ballots? The things that the people have when they vote, and therefore have 100% control of election outcomes?
By limiting the amount of money that can be given in campaign contributions, they do so.
Which is a fine standard for determining whether expenditure on speech is warranted: a point where one side cannot advocate effectively. Shouldn’t be hard establishing a ratio, eh? Unless we are determined that any restriction on speech is unwarranted and that limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a candidate is as bad as limiting the amount a collection of people can give to a TV station. After all, outlawing the printing paper is as bad as outlawing the sign, right?
Great argumentum ad consequentiam there. As it turns out, the big bucks roll out for the Democrats.
Yeah, as in the case of Free Speech Zones, limits on commercial speech, libel and bribery.
No, they don’t. As the left keeps saying (correctly) money isn’t speech. But speech is speech, even if it takes money to express it. So - giving money to someone isn’t speech. Paying for a political ad on TV or in a newspaper is. Hope this makes it clearer for you.
Well Lance, you seem determined not to hear my arguments. And I think I have made them thoroughly enough that readers not so invested in one side or other of the argument can evaluate their worth. So I see no further point to this discussion.
No, using money to buy political ads doesnt magically turn money into speech. It’s still just a medium for exchange.
It doesn’t turn money into speech. It is producing speech, directly. You cannot separate paying for the ad from the act of publishing the ad - no one gives you ad space for free, the only way you can put up an ad is to pay for it.
In one instance, people are pooling money which is handled by corporate or union staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. In the other instance, people are pooling money which is handled by campaign staff, which in turn pays for the production and purchasing of a medium of/for an electioneering communication. Banning the expenditure of money on the former for a period of time is a restriction on free speech, but not the latter? I see no functional difference other than the “capacity for advocacy” test lance strongarm posted, which seems like a special plea.
Why not rewrite the law stating that people can spend a certain amount on electioneering communications, just as there’s a cap on campaign contributions subject to capacity for advocacy?
I hear them fine. I reject them.
Funny how you are the one who thinks certain arguments should be censored though.
Okay, Terr, if the government can’t abridge a right, but it CAN ban spending money on that right, please tell me if you agree with these hypotheticals too:
-
The government can ban any spending of money on religion. Bible or other religious text sales or buying? Banned. Collecting and spending money to build a church? Banned.
-
The government can ban accused criminals from paying a lawyer. They have a right to representation by a lawyer, but they just can’t pay him for his services, nor can anyone else.
-
The government may ban paying a doctor for an abortion, or anyone else. Abortion is still a right, so this doesn’t violate Roe v. Wade, but the doctors may not get paid for abortions, they must do them for free.
-
All spending on the media - TV, radio, newspapers - is banned. You can print or broadcast all you want, but you may not spend money on it. No buying paper and ink, no paying reporters.
Please give a simple yes or no with a justification. Thanks. Same goes for anyone else who wants to wade into this.
Um, you realize that this dissolves your argument against spending limits, right?
(I don’t think I posted that).
Because spending and donations are two different things. And it matters who you are donating too.
Donations to a candidate are vastly different from donations to an independent group engaged in speech. The latter is pretty much indistinguishable from simply spending the money on speech yourself. That’s why one is limited and the other isn’t.
Well, no, and Buckley explained this.
But if you insist - fine, we must abolish all donation limits to candidates too. Be careful what you wish for.
You have it backwards. If a campaign or group has difficulty expressing itself due to restrictions on donations, you have to loosen or abolish those, not tighten them on others.
Wow. That’s exactly what you’re doing. Not me.
So?
Yep, narrow, logical expections that don’t even come close to justifying your ridiculous massive ones. Stop this nonsense.
To elaborate -
This means you should reject SPENDING limits on either.
Do you?
Once we clarify that, you can talk about your proposed limit on donations.
Because in the second case you’re not “pooling money” for political speech. You’re donating to the candidate, which can go for any kind of expenditure, like his meals on campaign trail, paying for his transportation costs, paying the massive campaign staff, etc. etc. - all of which are not political speech. If there was a way to earmark the donation (and enforce the earmark) to say “this donation is strictly for political speech” then I would agree it’s the same thing. But there isn’t.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I say it cannot band spending money on that right.
So you would answer no to all those questions? The government cannot ban spending money on those rights?