Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United?

[Evil_Captor]

@lance_strongarm

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.

PAC donations are not limited, need I remind you again of the half a million dollar checks?

[Evil_Captor]

@lance_strongarm

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.

I would in fact like to read it. Do you have a link?

[Evil_Captor]

If money is simple speech as Lance suggests, and therefore can’t be limited in any way with regard to political campaigning, I must ask: why can’t the wealthy simply use money to sway voters by giving it directly to them? It is a form of speech after all, and you’ can’t limit that.

[Bricker]

@Evil_Captor

If money is simple speech as Lance suggests, and therefore can’t be limited in any way with regard to political campaigning, I must ask: why can’t the wealthy simply use money to sway voters by giving it directly to them? It is a form of speech after all, and you’ can’t limit that.

Money used to buy speech is analyzed as speech.

The reason for this is clear: the government cannot regulate purchase of ink and paper based on how many newspapers you intended to print, or what the papers intended to say.

Money used to bribe a person for a vote is not speech.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

Money used to buy speech is analyzed as speech.

The reason for this is clear: the government cannot regulate purchase of ink and paper based on how many newspapers you intended to print, or what the papers intended to say.

Money used to bribe a person for a vote is not speech.

So, you admit that there are some circumstances under which money is not speech. I would say that money used to buy megaphones so candidate A can have a “louder” voice than candidate B is ALSO not speech.

After all, when you give someone money in exchange for voting are you not in essence saying, “Sir, I believe in Candidate A so deeply and devoutly, that I will HAPPILY part with a thousand dollars just for your assurance that you will vote for Candidate A when you enter the polling booth!” What more heartfelt assurance of faith in a candidate can there be than parting with one’s very own money to ensure his or her election?

[Bricker]

@Evil_Captor

So, you admit that there are some circumstances under which money is not speech. I would say that money used to buy megaphones so candidate A can have a “louder” voice than candidate B is ALSO not speech.

After all, when you give someone money in exchange for voting are you not in essence saying, “Sir, I believe in Candidate A so deeply and devoutly, that I will HAPPILY part with a thousand dollars just for your assurance that you will vote for Candidate A when you enter the polling booth!” What more heartfelt assurance of faith in a candidate can there be than parting with one’s very own money to ensure his or her election?

Well, I simply don’t agree with your analysis.

[gamerunknown]

Would it be legal for someone to stand outside a polling booth and offer $200 for every Romney voter to write a short opinion piece on why they voted as they did?

[lance_strongarm]

@gamerunknown

Like they did when they voted for the politicians responsible for BCRA 2005.

And those politicians violated the Constitution.

Guess we’d better shut down PBS then.

Stop being silly. PBS is not unconstitutional. That’s a good fix.

You play all these silly games with words. It’s annoying.

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

PAC donations are not limited, need I remind you again of the half a million dollar checks?

This shows that your viewpoints are based on ignorance of basic facts.

PAC donations are limited. PACs are simply groups that accept donations and give donations directly to candidates. Citizens United had nothing to do with those, and did not change the limits on them.

Here are the limits, FYI:

Help for candidates and committees - FEC.gov

**Super **PACs are not anything like traditional PACs. That name is very confusing. They don’t give money to candidates at all. They spend it on speech. Donations to them are unlimited because of that, because donating to a Super PAC is almost exactly the same thing as spending the money on speech yourself.

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

I would in fact like to read it. Do you have a link?

Sure, at the bottom of this page:

The ACLU and Citizens United | American Civil Liberties Union

Part of this site bears quoting:

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

[lance_strongarm]

@gamerunknown

Would it be legal for someone to stand outside a polling booth and offer $200 for every Romney voter to write a short opinion piece on why they voted as they did?

Nice try, but if you’re trying to make an analogy, it fails.

Here’s a better one: someone who plans to vote for Romney runs an ad in a local newspaper saying why he thinks everyone should vote for Romney.

Should that be illegal?

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

So, you admit that there are some circumstances under which money is not speech. I would say that money used to buy megaphones so candidate A can have a “louder” voice than candidate B is ALSO not speech.

Of course it’s speech. You’re limiting the speech Candidate A. That’s what you want to do. You admit it by saying that A has a louder voice!

After all, when you give someone money in exchange for voting are you not in essence saying, “Sir, I believe in Candidate A so deeply and devoutly, that I will HAPPILY part with a thousand dollars just for your assurance that you will vote for Candidate A when you enter the polling booth!” What more heartfelt assurance of faith in a candidate can there be than parting with one’s very own money to ensure his or her election?

We’re not talking about money in exchange for voting. If that were the case, all spending on all campaign activities whatsoever by anyone would be corrupt. Nobody thinks that, even you.

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

If money is simple speech as Lance suggests, and therefore can’t be limited in any way with regard to political campaigning, I must ask: why can’t the wealthy simply use money to sway voters by giving it directly to them? It is a form of speech after all, and you’ can’t limit that.

I have never said “money is speech.” No court has said so either.

Money SPENT ON SPEECH is part of the right of speech. That is the principle at work here. And it is perfectly logical when you think about it. You wouldn’t say the government could ban spending on, for instance, bibles, and say it wasn’t a violation of religious freedom, would you?

Money spent on other things is not speech, and nobody has ever said it is. Money spent on speech cannot be limited because it is part of the right of speech.

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

They’re lawyers, very compartmentalized thinkers. They probably don’t realize that they are the unwitting dupes of plutocrats.

Wow, you’re even willing to completely throw away everything the ACLU has ever said and done in our zeal to win. Pretty pathetic.

What’s next, calling the Founding Fathers dupes and lawyers too? Anything to get your precious exemption to the Bill of Rights so you can stick it to the corporations.

[lance_strongarm]

Oops, I got the wrong link for the ACLU. The file on that link is worth reading, but it’s not the amicus brief that ACLU filed with the SCOTUS.

Here’s the right page:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-aclu-amicus-brief

Also a good article that explains what Citizens United is and is not and why ACLU supported it:

Understanding the Citizens United Ruling

[Evil_Captor]

@lance_strongarm

This shows that your viewpoints are based on ignorance of basic facts.

PAC donations are limited. PACs are simply groups that accept donations and give donations directly to candidates. Citizens United had nothing to do with those, and did not change the limits on them.

Here are the limits, FYI:

Help for candidates and committees | FEC

**Super **PACs are not anything like traditional PACs. That name is very confusing. They don’t give money to candidates at all. They spend it on speech. Donations to them are unlimited because of that, because donating to a Super PAC is almost exactly the same thing as spending the money on speech yourself.

Fine, the half million dollar checks are being written to SuperPACS. BFD.

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

Fine, the half million dollar checks are being written to SuperPACS. BFD.

And as I explained, Super PACs are completely different from traditional PACs.

Which means you were wrong when you asserted that donations to candidates or to or from PACs aren’t limited. They are. Just throwing money around doesn’t make it corrupt. Where the money goes matters very much.

You were confused by the name, and by the media reports by others confused by this issue. Now you know better. It is not “BFD,” it is a HUGE and very important distinction. Please stop saying that there are no limits on donations to candidates, because that’s false. All the limits are still in place even after Citizens United.

[Evil_Captor]

@lance_strongarm

Of course it’s speech. You’re limiting the speech Candidate A. That’s what you want to do. You admit it by saying that A has a louder voice!

We’re not talking about money in exchange for voting. If that were the case, all spending on all campaign activities whatsoever by anyone would be corrupt. Nobody thinks that, even you.

But Lance, as you yourself say, money is speech, pure and simple. So how can you say we can’t limit it for political contributions but CAN limit it for contributing directly to the voters. Seems to me if money=speech and is therefore protected by the First Amendment, forbidding giving it to a voter is the same a forbidding giving it to a SuperPAC.

[lance_strongarm]

@Evil_Captor

But Lance, as you yourself say, money is speech, pure and simple.

No.

I just explained this.

Don’t play this game.

[gamerunknown]

@ACLU

Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

If they decide they don’t want to hear certain types of speech, a representative democracy limits certain types of speech. Except they can’t decide that, apparently.

@lance strongarm

Donations to them are unlimited because of that, because donating to a Super PAC is almost exactly the same thing as spending the money on speech yourself.

Post an expenditure breakdown of SuperPACs and if it’s significantly different from an expenditure breakdown of a candidate I’ll believe you.

@lance strongarm

Should that be illegal?

Could Congress determine a certain place, a certain time and a certain manner in which a person couldn’t expend money on purchasing advertising? I think so. However I wouldn’t advocate making it illegal, I think there are other forms of broadcast media more susceptible to expenditure, namely television campaigns.