I thought we were talking about interpreting it. Defining the boudaries or free speech.
Thats pretty cynical. If we removed the influence of money in politics you think that the government would step in and fill the vaccuum? Its one thing for the rich to convince me to drink Coca Cola. its another thing for the rich to lie about John Kerry’s war record and then hide behind a shroud of anonymity as their lies subvert democracy (and I don’t even like Kerry).
Thats like saying everyone can have as many guns as they want. No limits. Of COURSE there can be limits.
Money can buy a pretty big megaphone. One loud enough to drown out all other speech (just as Romney’s primary opponents).
I’d actually be happy if there were just better disclosure rules.
Its not one 30 second ad. Its tens of millions of dollars worth of ads. At least we know where the money is coming from.
Sure they do, at least in the alternate universe where humans have more leisure time and more intelligence and objectivity. Unfortunately we live in this world with this version of humanity. With this version you can buy elections. Democracy only works when the vast majority have the ability to understand what theyre voting for and what candidates represent. It doesn’t work just because a small minority can parse the BS well. Abstract concepts of all or nothing, black and white systems do not work with real life. Stop trying to collapse the future of humanity in zealotry divorced from rationality.
These are the limitations on the 1st amendment. All except one involve substantial harm to an identifiable victim:
The exception is obscenity, which can be chalked up to justices being prude old men, and obscenity laws aren’t enforced anymore anyway. The court even recently upheld virtual child porn as protected speech. It’s child porn, but no children are harmed, so it’s protected.
In addition, all free speech restrictions have to survive a legal doctrine called strict scrutiny:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
Political speech is the entire reason for the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech clause. There are no boundaries to purely political speech. A case just last week protecting streaking of all things if it was a political statement further demonstrates that:
**Judge David Rees said 50-year-old John E. Brennan was indeed stripping in protest of what Brennan saw as invasive Transportation Security Administration screening procedures.
“It is the speech itself that the state is seeking to punish, and that it cannot do,” Rees said.**
Exactly. The government can punish the HARM speech does, but not speech itself. Who is the victim when Sheldon Adelson asks you to vote for Mitt Romney? Society? Sorry, doesn’t cut it.
Currently, two entities have undisputed, unrestricted speech rights: the state itself, and the news media. If no one else is allowed to spread their views in an unrestricted way, then those are the entities that decide what points of view we will hear.
The 2nd amendment allows specifically for regulation. The 1st amendment specifically prohibits regulation.
This is a provable assertion. And easily disproven. Was the public unaware of what the other candidates’ messages were? It’s true that they saw more of Romney, but did that truly drown out the other candidates? It’s pretty clear that voters were aware of the other candidates and Romney lost many states despite his money advantage. Secondly, campaign advertising is a drop in the pond compared to the advantages of incumbency and the influence of the news media. The drowning out effect can only be seen purely locally, in cases where there is an incumbent with a big money advantage. And the only proven solution to that problem has been for the challenger to be supported by third party advertising. All public financing would do is give them equal amounts of campaign advertising, while the incumbent still enjoys the commanding heights that his office gives him. It’s still uneven.
I’m fine with disclosure, but I’m under no illusions that reformers will ever be satisfied. They limited direct donations to candidates, and so corporations and rich individuals started advertising directly themselves. If one cared about open debate, this would be a plus. Donating to candidates is truly shadowy and truly bribery. Taking your case directly to the people, even if anonymously, should be far more preferable.
It’s still nothing compared how many people one of the more important pundits reaches. I’d even question whether 30 second ads are more decisive than some of the bigger blogs these days. And don’t think reformers don’t have their eyes on the internet. Lots of people having “undue influence” on the internet.
No, you can’t buy elections. You have to have the most votes to win an election.
If you think the people are too dumb to handle voting, propose an appropriate Constitutional amendment to restrict their power. Stop beating around the bush and pretending that you want to protect democracy. You hate democracy.
Which is what PBS is doing in effect. It is diluting the power of money to exert influence by providing a public alternative. Likewise with public education. It limits the power of parochial schools to instruct children. Would creating technology allowing users to skip ads be an appropriate response?
My intention in separating the constitution from the laws passed by Congress was to assert its higher authority in legal disputes, nothing more.
I’m not Congress, I am not subject to the proscriptions of the first amendment.
Two wrongs fallacy.
This is false. Even discounting strictures of convention, there are still illiterate citizens and numerous other socioeconomic barriers to entry.
It takes some creative interpretation to arrive at that conclusion. The first amendment claims that Congress cannot make a law restricting the right of the people to peaceably assemble: indicating through deduction they can regulate and determine when people are assembling unpeaceably. Not to mention, the right to bear arms is in service of having a regulated militia, not the regulation of bearing arms in order to service a militia.
You have to demonstrate actual corruption though. Especially since campaign donations are mostly spent on electioneering communications.
What is the opinion of five people trumping the position of the populace again?
In regards to speech though, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the speech. Note also that speech is the thing that cannot be abridged, the speaker is irrelevant.
That’s easy. Many Congressmen steer earmark money to their campaign contributors. A few won’t even consider earmark requests unless a donation to the campaign is made. Jack Murtha was notorious for his “pay to play” policy. And it was all perfectly legal, he didn’t even have to hide it. There is as of yet no proven relation between independent electioneering and political favors. Which means there is also as of yet no legal justification for limiting independent electioneering.
But let’s be clear, corruption doesn’t seem to be the primary worry of reformers anymore. There’s been a lot of talk about the California ballot initiative that was initially supported by the public, but a blitz of corporate advertising turned the public against it. There is no corruption issue here. It’s a ballot initiative. The real issue seems to be a lack of trust in the judgment of the voters to weigh opposing arguments. Democracy worked exactly as it should have in California. The media and political class supported the initiative. Now according to reformers, apparently that should have been the last word, since apparently those two groups enjoy rights not available to anyone else by virtue of their special status or something. But then corporations and independent advocacy groups gave the other side of the argument, and they won, despite the media and political class still bleating in favor of the initiative. That’s how it’s SUPPOSED to happen. But Rachel maddow lamented that something was broken in the system.
The things subject to legislation in this country are limited and everyone knows that. Kennedy in his majority decision in Citizens United even pointed out that BCRA divided speakers into “favored” and “disfavored”, which not only violates the 1st amendment, but the 14th and basic decency as well. While the public may want to grant certain entities unlimited free speech rights while censoring others, it can’t be done. We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law says we have free speech, which means we have free speech. Not “You can only have as much speech as you can share with the whole class”.
Do you oppose judicial review powers by the courts? If so, then explain why. If not, stop this nonsense already. We’ve already covered this. Supporting a Constitutional republic isn’t contempt for democracy, but calling for limits on speech because you say the people are too stupid to handle it is.
Tell me how many of the last 10 presidents have had less campaign money. Tell me what the percentage of senate and congressmen winning with less money is: ok, won that argument, next.
People that hate democracy wish to concentrate decision making into a few hands while diminishing the influence of the majority. You are the one who hates democracy. It’s very simple to understand. You are not fooling anyone (maybe yourself?).
You haven’t won that argument, unless the results are skewed by incumbents in Congress who raise lots of money against token opposition. A guy like Charlie Rangel would raise $500,000 and face an opponent who raised $5000. But if you look at races where the incumbent raised $500,000 and his opponent say, $250,000, and his opponent had a pretty good chance of winning.
In the post-Citizens United world, incumbent money advantages have meant less. Citizens United evened the playing field between incumbents and cash-poor challengers.
Also, in 2006 and 2010, the party that raised the least money won Congress.
You’re just saying that unless a candidate is sufficiently greased by rich guys, they’ll never win. We get that. Now here is where we part ways: WE don’t approve of this state of affairs. You do.
Another way of looking at it is that only the incumbent can win if neither candidate can get their message out. Which requires donations, not necessarily from rich guys. Lots of candidate raise large amounts of money from small donors.
The alternative is a system in which no candidate can win without the support of the corporate news media or the political establishment. Another positive side effect of Citizens United has been that anti-establishment candidates have found it easier to defeat long entrenched incumbents. These incumbents tended to be backed not only by the party bosses, but also by the news media, who had gotten used to the access.
Without free speech, there is no way to counteract the influence of the news media and the political establishment. What they say goes. Which is why those two entities are trying very hard to convince well meaning people that something is broken when they can’t monopolize the airwaves.
Another “money in politics” problem, one that actually is corrupting, is turning out all the people who benefit from government money. For some reason the reformers don’t see a problem with votes literally being bought in this way.
Give people money and make it clear that receiving the money is dependent on their support for the party that gave them money= democracy?
Use far smaller amounts to persuade people to vote a certain way= corruption?
Were they elected with a majority of the votes? (Leave out Al Gore)
If so, that’s all that matters. That’s democracy. The voters had a choice and made it. The reason they make it is none of your business.
The MAJORITY elects people, every time (again, save Al Gore). YOU are the one who doesn’t like the results of elections where a MAJORITY of voters make their choice. Ergo, you are the one who hates democracy, not me. I respect it. I respect the intelligence of the voters and their right to make their choice for any reason. You don’t.
The VOTERS approve of that state of affairs. They keep affirming it. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from voting for the candidates without money. They are on the ballot like everyone else.
The voters often do vote for the guy with less money. Just ask Alan Grayson, who was defeated despite having a lot more money than his opponent. And who is now trying to move to a new district in hopes of an easier race where he’ll have more money than his opponent and likely lose again.
And Grayson, this guy is a hero to the same kind of people who want to limit money in politics. In reality, he’s the poster boy for why money in politics doesn’t matter.
You can call a system where plutocrats buy elected officials like clothes off a rack “democracy” all you like, doesn’t change a thing, Lance. It’s still a plutocracy.
You can’t buy an official by persuading voters to support him. If that was true, then in some small way I’m making campaign contributions on the internet. Which means that my right to speak on the internet is limited by how influential I become. If I start making too much of a contribution, then in theory Congress can forcibly limit my influence by limiting my posting and/or blogging.