You’re pretending it’s not, but it’s very clear.
So does spending hundreds of millions of dollars on electioneering communications. The voters responded to that arrogant assumption of stupidity on their part by rejecting it. You fully endorse it.
No, we do not have any limits on spending on speech. Not even for campaigns.
Bull. The First Amendment was designed to protect speech. You don’t get to say it was deigned to be violated for any particular reason. You can’t just make up excuses for violating it.
Sigh.
No, “the need is great” is not a test for the constitutionality of violating free speech. That test would justify pretty much any ridiculous idea. Which is why you propose it, of course.
Not dishonest. You said “I’d support a convention to change the constitution.”
You’d have to repeal it, or at least roll it back.
Of course I do. But it doesn’t justify violating the Constitution to prevent it. That’s not fighting fair.
The VOTERS will decide whether we descend into a new gilded age.
You are so unbelievably absurd.
The voters reject ads when they vote in elections. Or not. As you said, advertising works. They cannot vote to deny other voters the right to do that. They will decide whether they want to believe an ad - by SEEING it.
Your preposterous logic asks us to believe that the voters are smart enough to know how stupid they are. They vote to shield themselves from speech because they know they can’t handle the speech? That’s just plain bullshit.
Does this mean that YOU can’t handle ads? YOU will do whatever an ad tells you? YOU can’t resist or think critically about ads? No, I don’t think so. I think you’d say you can handle them. Why do you think you’re special?
Saying that we can put limits on speech to change the outcome of elections because we can put limits on sedition is the slippery slope. It’s complete looniness.
We’re already in one, have you looked at the numbers? The voters will decide if we get OUT of this one, with the billionaires using their huge economic advantage to keep us in one. And though you would LIKE to see the First Amendment perverted into a rationale for an unequal, unending advantage for the wealthy in the use of the mass media, a lot of people will see your desire for what it is, and fight you ever step of the way.
For the record, I think that, with the billionaires backing, you are very likely to win for the forseeable future, and that American democracy will continue to be a plutocracy for a time. A very dark time for the not-rich of us. Enjoy!
Allowing plutocrats to hold a perpetual, unequal advantage in the use of the mass media is a DIRECT THREAT to democracy. Nothing loony about that.
I don’t want a plutocracy either, so that would be a loss.
But that’s for the voters to decide. Isn’t it?
So let’s get this straight - election results are a direct threat to democracy.
Yeah, makes sense. Nothing loony about that.
The First Amendment says you cannot declare that someone has an unequal advantage in the use of mass media and try to “fix” that. You simply can’t do it. You need to finally accept that. I know it’s hard to accept that others have rights, and that they use them in ways you don’t like. But that’s life.
Rah rah.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the next step in the glorious battle?
They will?
Keeping campaign donations (including PAC donations) to a limit of $250 is about all I had in mind.
Sure, they will. We agree on that. You just think it’s OK to let the wealthy have machine guns and cannon while the rest of us fight it out in the media with the equivalent of with bow and arrows. I just don’t want to see it get down to actual bullets, cause if ballots get meaningless, things can get to bullets fast.
I really, really, really do not believe that.
Campaign donations are already limited. The limit is higher than $250, but you basically have what you want. And it has nothing to do with Citizens United, which didn’t alter donation limits to campaigns.
You may want nothing more than limits on donations, but others want far more. But I’m still not sure that’s all you want.
I don’t care what you believe. I am not here to prove anything about myself to you. I could, but this isn’t about me.
Go read the ACLU’s brief in support of the Citizens United decision. That will blow your mind too.
No, I don’t believe that at all. (Remember, people can and do pool their money to meet the big guns with their own).
But when you compare speech with weapons, you’re never going to get it.
If you think everyone should have the same amount of speech, then you are for limits on ALL speech, and you want to ration it. Do you? Should everyone be limited to exactly the same amount of speech?
As has been pointed out, the ACLU was in favor of the Citizens United outcome.
Do you also believe they seek a plutocracy?
Like they did when they voted for the politicians responsible for BCRA 2005.
No, it’s for five justices to decide.
Guess we’d better shut down PBS then.
They’re lawyers, very compartmentalized thinkers. They probably don’t realize that they are the unwitting dupes of plutocrats.