Funny thing is, Citizens United was the one that brought the case under BCRA that ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 were illegal. THe FEC dismissed the complaint.
Then Citizens United goes, “Okay, that means we can make a documentary too.”
Oops, no can do. See, Michael Moore and Miramax have special rights.
I vaguely remember this now.
Would have been alot different had the case moved forward, I’ll bet.
Cite?
I reiterate:
Care to define what constitutes unlimited free speech and censorship?
I’m referring to the people. In a representative democracy, the political class is meant to be the voice of the aggregate of the people, not their opponent.
Cite?
Election outcomes, yes, legislation, no. Which is why it’s important to note whether a bill has popular support or not. This post lists several problems with representative democracy.
Miramax vs. FEC. Michael Moore is not a corporation. Michael Moore’s speech would not be limited by BCRA.
Cite.
Miramax is a corporation though.
Just like David Bossie is not a corporation, but Citizens United is.
You are simply not going to talk your way out of this one. If you think CU can’t spend money on a political film, then neither can Miramax.
That covers substantial harm, it is not content-based or a ban on political speech per se. It just means that protesters cannot disrupt speeches to shut down what the speaker is trying to say. It’s a response to the heckler’s veto.
I was having trouble finding a direct cite, but here is a lawsuit against the Democratic Party, Incorporated:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2011cv02089/651381/
The legal name of the Democratic National Committee is the DNC Services Corporation. The copyright notice is at the bottom:
The jurisprudence is clear: all speech restrictions must pass strict scrutiny, as defined earlier in the thread. Limits on independent advertising do not even come close to that standard. The fact that censorship is required to enforce the ban makes it even more constitutionally suspect.
Mean to be, but is not necessarily. The political class is often wrong, they often lie, they also have their own self interest which is not the same as the people’s. If they are the only voice, then the people aren’t even hearing a small fraction of legitimate viewpoints.
What do Democrats say Republicans are going to do to Medicare if elected? What is the implication of that attack? “Vote for us, or you won’t continue to get Medicare.”
True, but irrelevant. Fahrenheit 9/11 was funded by a corporation. Depending on who is on the FEC, it was definitely censorable. and Moore practically invited censorship by saying that he was hoping people would watch the movie and vote for Kerry.
And I’d note that reformers have abandoned their view that individuals have 1st amendment rights to spend as much as they want on speech. That was the immediate consensus post-Citizens United view. Now that’s inoperable since billionaires are spending a lot of money. Now apparently individuals have less 1st amendment rights than media corporations, which is so absurd it’s a laugh riot.
I think Lance is wrong abou that, reformers don’t want to ration speech. They want to simply decide who may speak and who may not. Favored and disfavored.
Citizen’s United should have simply distributed its film through Miramax. Voila!
Sure sure. Try to win an argument by speaking for others since you cant win on your own merits unless the opponent is make-believe. Nice try, come again.
Denying that this is what most reformers favor? What exactly was BCRA meant to do? The Supreme Court even ruled that the law divided speakers into favored and disfavored. I’d say that makes it official.
If you don’t favor dividing speakers into favored and disfavored, propose a law that applies to everyone, without exceptions. You can’t do it.
I can’t because I have no power to legislate or interpret the constitution or legislation. It certainly can be done. The favored speaker is the person actually speaking, actually personally distributing, ect. The paid for speech would be allowed so long as it does not advertise anywhere except when solicited for by people who have signed up to receive your materials through mail, email ect.
Adaher and I are generally on the same side of this argument though. He’s just speaking in my absence.
To respond myself - some want to ration speech, others want to simply ban some speakers, as he said. But some who want to ban some speakers justify it with reasons that amount to rationing speech. They say that some speakers have “too much” speech and therefore must be banned. But that still leaves other speakers with “too much” speech, so rationing is the only “fair” solution. Not that any of this is constitutional.
So you want to ban all political ads and all spending on political speech.
So you can’t buy or sell bumper stickers or yard signs. No mailings either. No TV or radio ads, at all.
We can’t have hecklers drowning out the speech of the official with the megaphone, so we restrict the area for the heckler to operate. We can’t have corporations drowning out the speech of those with less money, so we restrict the area in which the corporation’s money can be spent on electioneering communications.
Again, cite.
If individuals do not have fewer rights, then corporations should be content with being able to spend as much on campaigns as the average person.
I don’t care about the speech, it’s the SIDE EFFECT where the wealthy buy our elected representatives that bothers me. You don’t get it, Lance, you don’t WANT to get it. You are paving the way for plutocracy, laying a red carpet down for the wealthy to march in and take over our government to an unprecedented degree. You are destroying the thing you profess to love: democracy.
Translation: “the end justifies the means”. That is, the end - supposedly preserving democracy - justifies the means - stifling political speech. How North Korean of you. You know, all their laws and regulations are also all about “preserving democracy”.
The POINT of free speech is to protect democracy. If you are destroying democracy in the name of free speech, you are still destroying democracy. Democracy is not advanced by allowing plutocrats to buy your government. When they can openly write half million dollar checks to political organizations, it’s all over but the crying, baby.
That would be valid if there was a drowning out effect and if everyone doing the drowning out was so restricted. If you don’t allow corporations to run political ads, then do the people now have a bigger voice? No. They have the same voice they had before, because the political class and the media and whichever “good” groups got exempted get to keep on advocating. Now if you ban ALL political advertising and put the Fairness Doctrine back in place, then you at least have a fairer system. But if the media and political class can speak freely, then so should everyone else.
That problem did exist, and it was corrected. The result has been that Congress has become more ideological polarized and less interested in compromise since money interests can’t win bipartisan support as easily as they used to.
Independent advocacy does not create the same quid pro quo problem as direct donations. If that proves to be incorrect with time, we can revisit the problem.
There is no restriction on speech that can possibly be pro-democracy. And speech cannot buy anything. Speech persuades, it doesn’t buy.
The legitimate worry that reformers have is that if one side of an issue has more opportunity to speak than the other side, that it makes the public more likely to support the side speaking more. THe problem is that independent advocacy is just one side of that problem, it doesn’t go away when you eliminate it. You still have Fox News and the NY Times occupying commanding heights and having undue influence on the public.
When in doubt, a completely open marketplace of ideas is the best bet. The burden of proof is on those who would restrict freedom.
I get it just fine.
What you don’t seem to get is that your cure is worse than the disease.
You may not care about speech, but you’re still proposing to suppress it, and you can’t do that. It violates the Constitution. You have to find another way to solve your concerns about money.
I believe my views are the most consistent with democracy. I am not destroying democracy. It is up to the voters to keep it alive. But whatever - take it up with the authors of the First Amendment.
Exactly.
Yep. Heard it all. All kinds of scoundrels use the cover of “protecting democracy” to take away your rights.