I didn’t ask that. I asked if you told him you would vote for him if he fixed the pothole, would it be corrupt.
Would it?
Why not?
See my response elsewhere in this thread.
Yes.
(And pointless - that would pay for maybe ten minutes of air time in major markets.)
I can get behind that, but what happens when Sheldon Adelson just buys his own ads directly? You can’t stop that anymore than you can stop Michael Moore from making his own films.
Because of tactical voting, among other things.
No, because a vote is an intangible. Corruption involves an exchange of values.Electioneering communications have a definite value.
It wouldn’t be pointless if it limited public exposure, would it? There are similar limitations in the UK. Anyway, care to cite which clause or precedent indicates limiting campaign expenditure on electioneering communications is unconstitutional? Would it not follow that limiting donations to campaigns would be unconstitutional?
I’d cite the 1st amendment saying Congress shall make no law infringing on freedom of speech, but I’m sure we are all familiar with that one.
Money is not speech, but once money is used to buy speech, that speech is protected.
Constitutionally, you can limit donations. Money is not speech. But let’s say that someone “illegally” buys and airs an ad? What do you do then? Censor it? Put that person in jail over it? That’s pretty clearly an infringement on freedom of speech, because you are directly attacking the speech itself.
You can’t attack funding as a way to get to speech you can’t otherwise censor. If you could, politicians would have found a way to defund unfriendly media outlets long ago. Just tax all media corporations at a special rate of 80%, they’d never be able to publish. And since they are corporations, according to the anti-Citizens United logic, they don’t have rights! So they can be legally legislated out of existence through the tax code.
Tactical voting is still a choice.
And it has nothing to do with money, or speech, or any of that anyway.
So all communication about elections - all political speech - is potentially corrupt?
Wow.
You might as well limit it to zero, that’s the point.
Buckley v. Valeo. 40 years ago.
Possibly. You should go read Buckley.
Yep. The Citizen’s United case involved the threat of prison time for someone daring to distribute a political film. In argument, the FEC’s lawyers said the law allowed them to prosecute book publishers too, if the book was political and published by a corporation (as most are).
Prison for political films and books, in America.
And that’s the other thing about Citizens United. BCRA applied to corporations and Citizens United struck down that limit. But the big “problem” right now isn’t corporate money, it’s billionaire money, and at least before this started happening, it was acknowledged by all that individuals had an absolute right to electioneer as much as they wanted. Now I see the campaign finance reformers moving the goalposts again. Now apparently individuals don’t have the right to spend as much as they want on political speech. Which is a position that would be hard to get even one Supreme Court justice to rule in favor of. The idea that corporations don’t have the same rights as individuals is intuitive, even if I think in practice it wouldn’t work. But individuals do have rights, and your desire for less money in politics does not trump individuals’ first amendment rights.
They move the goalposts because they don’t even seem to understand that there are goalposts at all. They think they can simply claim any exception to the First Amendment, no matter how huge, because they really really really want it. If a rule is so full of holes that it can tolerate any exception, it’s not a rule in the first place. That’s why I find myself reminding these people that they “can’t violate freedom of speech.” Period. It’s like they don’t even understand that.
I do think that campaign finance reform is important, but I think reformers are confused about what the goal should be. To me, the goal is to avoid outright quid pro quo: interest group donates to campaign, politician returns the favor with earmarks or favorably regulations or something.
Limiting direct donations accomplished most of that goal. The soft money ban went even further. But what does stopping independent advocacy accomplish?
I think the gnashing of teeth over the California cigarette tax campaign is a good example. Reformers are angry that all this money was spent opposing a ballot initiative. But how is this corruption? Who is bribed by opposing or supporting a ballot intiative? A ballot initiative is not a candidate, a ballot initiative cannot return favors. It’s either supported or it’s not. The anger over that initiative betrays what the real goal apparently is: to have LESS speech overall. Politicians and the media enable this line of reasoning, because they have an interest. Politiicans don’t actually like independent advocacy, they consider it interference in the campaign. And the media likes to have outsized power, power which is diminished when millionaires run ads questioning whatever the current media narrative is. So they convince well meaning people that if you’re not a politician or a journalist, you really don’t have the right to have a big influence on politics. It’s even corruption for you to do so. But what makes Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly better than Sheldon Adelson? They get an hour to push their point of view every day. Sheldon Adelson buys 30 seconds of airtime and this is a corruption issue?
Doesn’t mean they like the millionaire candidate, nor that they’re the first choice of theirs.
It has a lot to do with representative democracy.
Yes, if there is a quid pro quo exchange of values. Anyway, the issue isn’t so much whether there is corruption. This exchange of values certainly doesn’t meet the legal definition of corruption. What is important is that money should not play a disproportionate role in “currying favours”.
No, it’s the expenditure of money on speech. I can’t break into someone’s house to stick up a poster.
No, they should be entitled to express themselves. I just don’t think that their influence on public discourse should be dependent on their wealth.
You say “now”. The issue is prominent because of the incredible amounts being spend on electioneering communications, but a similar provision was in FECA.
Which isn’t true and never has been true.
Not so. Hell, one of the principle architects of campaign finance reform was involved in a major corruption scandal.
Their power is by no means diminished by other corporations purchasing advertising time from them. If it were, they wouldn’t sell it to them.
Expenditure of money on speech cannot be limited. That was established in Buckley v. Valeo. if expenditure of money on speech can be limited, then all speech except that which is spoken aloud without the aid of amplification can be regulated, and therefore we really don’t have free speech at all.
You simply cannot get around the fact that if money is used to buy speech, an act of censorship must still take place to remove the illegal speech.
I see political advertising like graffiti on public airwaves, with a far more deleterious effect on public discourse.
Of course not. Few people get their first choice of anything. That’s a function of our voting system, with or without money involved.
Sure. But you can’t violate the Constitution in order to stop that.
That’s supposed to be an analogy?
You think. Good for you. You can vote accordingly. You don’t get to decide whose influence on public discourse is proper. I don’t like the fact that Rush Limbaugh has influence, but I won’t go banning his show, or ban the spending of money on his show.
And was promptly struck down too, as you know.
Seriously, enough.
You can’t violate freedom of speech in the blatant, sweeping way you would like to. Your proposed exception to free speech is completely unacceptable, and makes a joke of the First Amendment. If we accept your exception, we would have to accept just about any exception. It’s incredibly broad and overreaching. It is not a narrow, logical exception like the others. It’s nothing more than a violation of free speech.
But that’s why they are in business at all, to sell ads.
You may not declare that you can ban speech because it has a “deleterious effect on public discourse.”
No.
You don’t seem to get it. You can’t just go banning speech because you don’t like the effect of the speech. That’s exactly what the First Amendment forbids.
I thought you could. Like if your speech causes a mad rush for the exits at a movie theatre or if the limits are narrowly tailored to pursue a valid public policy concern (corruption of the political process seems to be a pretty valid concern to me).
In order to justify speech restrictions, substantial harm must be caused by the speech. The supposed harm caused by campaign advertisements has not been proven, it’s purely conjecture. And if ads are a problem, then ALL ads should be banned. Candidates are not privileged, with more 1st amendment rights than the rest of us. If the Kochs can’t run an ad, if the NRA can’t run an ad, then neither can Congressmen or Presidential candidates.
And if the commercials weren’t one of the more inventive art forms on television, I’d be behind banning all advertising. Not to mention, this change really just creates a different problem. It moves to the question of: What amount of paying for a publication or program amounts to advertising?
Cuz cameramen, writers, actors, set designers, makeup artists, stage managers, foley artists, sound editors, production managers, boom operators, costume designers etc - all these guys love to work for free.
If we lose our democracy to the plutocrats because of SuperPAC money, we will probably not be able to just politely ask, “Can we please have our democracy back?” It will probably take bullets, and bloodshed. Is the game worth the candle?
Commercials are inventive because they have the funding, so that’s what creative people have to do if hey want to make decent money. It’s disgusting and demeaning to humanity and the artists. We should stop letting irresponsible people with money pollute our planet with their propaganda and petty money grubbing.
Back to the OP: Screw the supreme partisans. The people need to amend the constitution, and vote in leaders not loyal to the D’s or R’s. Leaders that will do as the people instruct.