Look, adaher, I know that you and Lance live in some wonderful conservative pretendy-land where candidates don’t keep track of who writes SuperPACs half a million dollar checks and SuperPACs don’t coordinate with the candidates whose causes they support, and the check-writers expect nothing in return but the knowledge that they have Done Good. I am sure it is a lovely place. But it is not Earth.
Nobody can “buy” elected officials. That’s absurd. Bribery is illegal. People cannot be sold either - slavery is illegal.
Enough already.
See my response to adaher, pretendy-land man.
I am a lifelong Democrat. I have worked at length to oppose the right wing and plutocrats.
I know that politicians keep track of who favors them, and may give favors in return. That’s been true since the dawn of time. You act like it’s something new. It’s not. It’s been true long before money got involved. It’s just politics. It is the responsibility of the voters to throw out anyone who they think is putting other interests ahead of theirs.
Democracy.
And see my response, reality-boy.
As of yet, there is no clear link between independent advocacy and political favors. In fact, most politicians tend to hate what they see as “interference” in their campaign. As if they own the debate or something.
When the problem arises, we can deal with it. I’m not interested in censorship to solve a theoretical problem.
Ok, we understand that you don’t understand the problem. Thanks for raising your hand.
What is the problem? The problem is that you believe in a drowning out effect when there is none. Let’s be clear: most reformers just don’t want disfavored speakers to speak. They want them to shut up.
That’s the core of it and every excuse they come up with ends up being made up because they constantly move the goalposts.
Ah right the guy who gets into other people’s ears ten million times more often than the common man doesn’t drown him out at all. Don’t know why I didn’t realize this fundamental law of human influence before.
The fact that you’re holding onto an argument with such laughably nonexistent merit proves my case for me. If you had anything that really made sense to say about it you would. Instead you rely on an argument that assumes humans are not actually humans while millions are spent not to drown out opposing voices. (Guess your rich leaders are really dumb for spending those billions on influencing elections huh?)
Why are we comparing independent advocates like the Kochs to the common man? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare them to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore ,or George Will? Do not they also have ten million times more influence than the common man? Why do you not suggest regulations limiting how much they can speak? Do they have special rights that other people do not?
Ten million times, huh?
So when is it “fair?” Give me a number. 1 million times more? 100 times more? Or is it not fair until everyone has exactly the same amount of times in your ear?
Wow, now there’s a circular argument.
You’re clearly getting frustrated and making dumb mistakes. You should take a break.
Wonder what they would have said if it had been Micheal Moore v. FEC instead of Citizens United v. FEC.
Okay, so we all hear some voices more than others due to advertising. I hear a whole lot more voices urging me to buy a Lexus than I do the voices telling me to not buy one, or to buy a used car or a bike instead.
Yet I haven’t bought a Lexus.
The reason I haven’t bought a Lexus is because I’m not a drooling idiot. I do not blindly do whatever messages thrown into my ear over and over tell me to. I have the power to make decisions regardless of what messages I hear, and the power to think about those messages critically, and the power to go find other information if I think I need it. I can say to myself “no, I don’t want a Lexus” or “I need more information about my choice and can go find it somewhere.” I am an intelligent, rational, self-aware adult.
How about you?
Your “regulate” equivocation was the important point. Speaker may be irrelevant, but time, place, manner and even content are important (because political speech requires higher scrutiny than commercial speech, for instance).
Ah, good, someone referring positively to the defence’s usage of the 14th amendment to refer to corporate personhood. Care to repeat that for the rest of the class? Considering a corporation a legal person is a violation of basic decency.
Care to define what constitutes unlimited free speech and censorship?
Special pleading.
Where’s your profession of support for public spending in order to provide an alternative voice to the corporate media?
When has government awarding of money ever been contingent on political affiliation?
False, according to the poll I posted earlier.
Spotlight fallacy.
If public expenditure in order to educate civilians is “rationing”, then PBS is engaged in rationing. Again, would providing citizens with a tool to skip political ads be an appropriate response?
Apologies, misattributed.
Red herring.
This is the first presidential election since the ruling. I’m glad you’re willing to be so reactive in your approach to the future of the political process.
Miramax.
Please consult this.
The fact that the FEC declined to go after Miramax for donating $6 million to John Kerry’s campaign shows that the law was being arbitrarily enforced.
forget higher scrutiny, there are no legal limitations on political speech. Every attempt has been struck down.
What does it mean legally if they are not considered persons? Does this mean they do not have 1st amendment rights? If so, then almost all content is censorable since almost all content is corporate-produced if it’s reaching the masses. Does it meant that we can divide corporations into corporations we like and corporations we don’t like and thus treat them differently? That’s good to know, because the Democratic and Republican Parties are both corporations, and the GOP will be glad to know that they can limit Democratic Party spending while keeping their own unlimited, since corporations don’t have equal protection.
The public generally supports the right of the NY Times to say whatever it wants. The public also generally supports the right of Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow to say what they want to a large audience. THe public would prefer it if the Kochs would shut up. Favored and disfavored. The Constitution does not allow such distinctions.
The political class already has almost as much influence as the media. Giving them a news station of their own doesn’t change anything. If you’re referring to public financing of campaigns, I’m fine with that, so long as anyone who wants can also weigh in and run independent ads.
Not political affiliation, but continued support for the party that supports the subsidy. Parties are not shy about telling their beneficiaries that the other party will take away their free money if they don’t support their benefactors.
He’s not the only example. And if you look at opensecrets.org, you’ll find that in 2006 and 2010, the party that was outspent won congress.
And so far, I fail to see a problem. The polls tended to move in the primary because of the debates more than any other factor. Romney ended up winning simply because he was the only plausible guy left after all the others were vetted. And right now, Obama has outspent Romney 4-1, yet the polls haven’t moved. His burn rate is incredible, faster than we’ve ever seen, yet the public is not being moved by these ads. That proves that the quality of the arguments matters more than the number of times the argument is made.
No it isn’t.
Where’s your profession of support for public spending in order to provide an alternative voice to the corporate media?
True. Their votes are what matters, not polls.
If the voters are too lazy or too stubborn to realize that they are responsible for election outcomes, that is still their choice.
The rationing isn’t about public expenditure. It’s about you wanting to ration rights, by restricting everyone to an equal amount of speech.
What about it?
No. I will not accept any claims that I am not a rational adult.
If you are saying that all people are not smart enough or rational enough to handle speech, then you must also accept one or more of the following:
-
You are also not rational and therefore your opinion doesn’t count any more than anyone else’s.
-
You think you’re special, and therefore are dripping with arrogance.
-
You think the First Amendment is a fraud, and democracy itself, because the people are not rational enough to think about speech and handle it rationally.
You simply cannot pretend that you are defending democracy by showing your contempt for the voters. It doesn’t work.
I’m not familiar with that case. If that’s the case, then the law should be enforced better.
But I need to see a citation, because there’s no way in hell a corporation gave a donation (illegal) to a candidate of $6 million (busts the limits) and got away with it. There is clearly more to the story.
Fahrenheit 9/11 cost $6 million to produce. Since it was independent electioneering against George Bush’s reelection, by the logic of the reformers, it was a $6 million “donation” to Kerry’s campaign.
Of course, I don’t see it that way. To me, Michael Moore and Miramax have every right to campaign as much as they want. On their own, not coordinated with a campaign.
Oh, for God’s sake. I get it now.
I’d like them to explain why this isn’t true under their logic.