Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech can possibly destroy democracy, or that it is necessary or even possible to suppress speech to improve democracy, is to be feared.
A person’s spending on campaigns (speech) is unlimited. Some people spend millions of their own money on speech, just like a corporation.
Bah. You profess no understanding of the distinction between “freedom of speech” and plutocrats writing half million dollar checks to political campaigns of direct benefit to officeholders. This leaves me exactly two options for describing you, neither of which I can use outside the pit.
How much does MSNBC pay to give rachel Maddow her soapbox? This doesn’t count as a campaign contribution?
For which candidate?
Corruption laws. If you don’t think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech.
Relatively, yes. You used the analogy “marketplace of ideas”. The issue is, when the marketplace of ideas is tied to the wealth of the individuals propounding the ideas, that has a distorting effect on public discourse.
Barack Obama, or the Democrats in general.
They do not limit speech. Anti-corruption laws do not even address speech.
Sorry, the only thing limits on independent advocacy accomplish is to increase the relative power of the mainstream media and the political class.
It reduces the viewpoints people hear.
YOU are the one who can’t understand the difference.
There ARE no limits on expenditures on electioneering communications. They are unconstitutional.
That’s not to say that money is speech. Money spent on political activities unrelated to speech can be regulated.
But once money is converted into speech, that speech may not be censored.
Don’t you realize that unlimited money in politics can only lead to situations likethis?
Independent advertising is an attempt to influence the public, not politicians. Influencing the public is what they are supposed to be doing.
This isn’t independent advocacy, it’s corporate expenditure on electioneering communications. The political class includes everyone of voting age in a democracy.
Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way.
Cite?
Neither did the relevant provision of BCRA.
It’s both. So what? Doesn’t change anything.
No, it completely banned certain sources of speech from spending money on it. It effectively banned a film from being shown.
Stop this nonsense. Of course it did. That was its entire purpose. And it is for you too. You think certain sources of speech have too much speech so you want to ban it.
So you admit this limits speech, and that the purpose is to limit speech.
We currently limit speech. You aren’t allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or commit sedition.
You’ve been told this before, and you have refused to accept it. Why do you ignore these facts?
Thanks for admitting it too.
My point, which went over your head, was that Gamer is trying to say it’s not about speech, but money. Of course it’s about speech.
Oh, for God’s sake. We’ve covered this over and over.
I’m not going to explain it again. Instead, I’ll ask you a question - can we limit speech any way we want? Yes or no? Read the First Amendment and then tell me. Simple yes or no will suffice.
Your quote seemed to suggest that limiting speech wasn’t possible.
Yeah, and you ignore it and reset. Every time.
We can do it when the cause is serious enough. Like fire in a theater or sedition.
Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition.
Two can play this game. “Advocating violating of the first amendment is directly analogous to sedition”.
When I say political class I mean the people privileged enough to get on Meet the Press or who can command TV time to talk to the public. they have outsized influence, as does the media. No amount of outside spending can drown that out, so the primary argument against outside spending is bogus.
Time and place limits are reasonable, as long as the message can be gotten out. However, you cannot restrict WHO speaks. Time, place, and manner restrictions must apply to all equally. BCRA had exceptions. Those exceptions were part of what made the law unconstitutional. Favored speakers. Disfavored speakers.