The majority of voters. Why do you have democracy?
That may not have even been their motivation. Perhaps they wanted unions to participate in a Ghent system, perhaps they wanted corporations to fulfil their primary legal obligation of making money for their shareholders instead of campaigning.
You do understand that we also have a Bill of Rights that prevents even a majority of voters from doing certain things, right? That’s on purpose.
“Tyranny of the majority” is one thing the Bill of Rights protects us from. This situation is a perfect example.
It’s shocking that you don’t understand that.
This is why I keep saying blanket statements like “you can’t ban speech” - you don’t seem to understand even that. No, you can’t just ban speech you don’t like or you personally find distasteful or you think causes election outcomes you don’t like. You can’t do that. Nor can the voters. No.
Their motivation is irrelevant. They can’t do it, period.
I was wondering why you continued to braise that rotting canard. Guess it’s because you hate democracy then!
Because you’re incredibly arrogant and think you can ban it simply because you think the voters are too stupid to handle it.
Your contempt for democracy couldn’t go much lower.
Happy July 4!
You think that ad hominem attacks are all you need to prove a point?
You don’t have an argument, you have an assertion. You are asserting that wanting limits on spending in political campaigns destroys democracy.
You certainly have not demonstrated that. And all you do otherwise is decry those that support such limits.
You’re screaming, not debating. There is a difference.
Sorry - your argument is arrogant.
No better than yours.
Same with you.
You think you’re smarter than everyone else. You can’t see that. People like that sometimes need to be just told no.
No.
You may not limit speech. You may not declare the voters are too stupid to hear something. Read the First Amendment. The answer is no.
I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else. In any case, one doesn’t need to be particularly smart to see the vast, open stretches of *derp *in your side of the issue.
Again, speech is limited currently. So the first amendment allows it.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves sedition is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves yelling fire in a theater is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it is claiming something you product cannot do is limited.
Since speech can be limited for good reason, the question is, is manipulating elections with unlimited money a good reason.
I say yes. You say, “Speech can’t be limited!” Which, as I have shown above, isn’t correct. Your entire position is predicated on not knowing what you’re talking about.
[quote=“Lobohan, post:307, topic:624699”]
I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else.
[QUOTE]
Yes, you do. You think the voters are stupid and need you to limit what they see and hear. Yet somehow you are smart enough to see that advertising works - because of course it doesn’t work on YOU, because YOU are smarter than those idiots.
Sigh.
If you can just make any exception to a rule that you want, there would be no rule.
Well, finally!
Because you think the voters are too stupid to handle it, and can be “manipulated.”
No, they are not. That’s the basic premise of the First Amendment - that the voters can handle unlimited amounts of speech.
Yes, I know that I have to spell things out to you in elaborate detail over and over and you still won’t listen.
So I’m done wasting my speech on you.
The First Amendment is still safe from people like you. Happy July 4th!
[quote=“lance_strongarm, post:308, topic:624699”]
[quote=“Lobohan, post:307, topic:624699”]
I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else.
I understand why you want to run away, since you have made literally no argument and are doing nothing more to make your case that repeating it over and over.
No wonder you want unlimited political spending. 
[quote=“Lobohan, post:309, topic:624699”]
[quote=“lance_strongarm, post:308, topic:624699”]
I’m not running away. I’m right here. If you have something new to add, I’ll be ready.
But you’ve stooped to insults, taunts, claims that I’ve said things I haven’t, repeating your same points and ignoring my responses, etc. You’ve run out of steam. There’s no point.
When you want to discuss what I say instead of just talking to yourself, I’m here.
Wait, you’re saying I’m resorting to insults? You’re the one who keeps pretending I’m calling the voting populace stupid and calling me arrogant.
Lance, bubbie, you are screaming and I’m debating. That’s why you’re losing. Well, that and, you don’t have a leg to stand on since you’re on the side of the issue that is pro-corporate-oligarchy.
If all you can do is make accusations, then we’re done here. Clearly there’s no productive conversation happening.
If all you can do is make accusations and circumstantial ad hominems, then we’re done here. Clearly there’s no productive conversation happening. If you believe I’m not debating, stop trying to debate me. The thread speaks for itself.
I can’t force you to honestly evaluate the issue, but I can point out where you’re laughably wrong.
If you think that’s the case, then stop trying. Stop posting. Just coming back here to insist you’re right or throw insults at me is pointless. I’ll let you have the last word if that’s what you want.
I don’t want the last word. I want to rebut your assertions. Which is easy, because you don’t support them.
Good, then I’ll take the last word.
I have exhaustively answered all your questions and objections. Several times. You have ignored them. You are now alleging the same from me. So until you have something new to say, I’ll refer you to the thread. It speaks for itself.
Your version of answer objections is to scream that I think Americans are stupid.
Hardly a reasonable conclusion to draw.
You contend that voters are not smart enough to avoid being controlled by advertising for political candidates, do you not?
Yes, it’s very clear that’s exactly what you think. It’s not possible for you to have your opinion otherwise.
Your argument is:
What’s missing from your argument, but must be there for it to work, is:
Your argument assumes the voters are stupid. You can’t escape that.
That the voters are not stupid is the fundamental premise behind freedom of speech - they can handle speech, and they can decide what to do with it. The First Amendment was designed to prevent exactly your reasoning - which is why it’s not at all an allowable exception to the First Amendment. It goes directly to the heart of it, and of democracy itself.