Here’s the problem, though - these guys are busy telling us how stupid the voters are sometimes, and how they can’t handle certain speech, etc. and need the government to step in and control what they see and hear to manipulate public opinion. Yet here they are appealing to public opinion. So they are in another bind they can’t dig themselves out of, because the root of their views is total disrespect for democracy and the intelligence of the voters.
(And, of course, a huge number of people are confused and think this is about donations to candidates).
In any event, sometimes the voters have contradictory views depending on what angle you approach a question. For instance, in the 1990s, some districts voted in favor of term limits for Congress - while at the same instance electing incumbents to terms exceeding those limits! I think if you ask people if political speech, absent any porn or insurrection or libel or other accepted exceptions, should be banned, most would say no.
Advertising works. Unlimited advertising can sway close elections to the side with the 20 to 1 spending advantage.
A 20 to 1 spending advantage is okay if one side is vastly more popular than another. But when it is the money of one man that outweighs millions of normal voters, that one man has more push than he ought to in a democracy.
Rush has to be sought out. Advertising hits people who do not seek it.
Advocating the violation of the First Amendment is alot closer to sedition than that. That was his point. And you let it go right over your head.
And enough with this idiotic “buying control of government” crap. It’s complete bullshit. If the voters want to vote for whoever spends the most money, that’s not thwarting democracy, that IS democracy.
Yep. That’s democracy. The voters hear whatever they want and decide who to vote for. That’s how it is supposed to work.
You don’t get to say who has “more push than he ought to.” You have no right whatsoever to decide who should have “more push.” That is up to the voters to decide. Again, that’s democracy. Deal with it.
Plenty of speech hits people who do not seek it. Speakers have a right to go out and speak wherever and whenever they want and try to “hit” people. They can go protest with signs on the street too. That is part of their right. Again, you have absolutely no right to say they can’t.
You just can’t seem to get this whole democracy/free speech thing.
No, I’m accommodating your silly need to acknowledge irrelevance.
Then the voters are committing sedition by the act of voting.
This is how ridicuous your argument is.
It was written to allow speech. Period. It did not disallow any speech for any reason, including “too much” speech or “drowning out” or spending money. Just speech. If you dont’ like it, amend it.
Advertising buys ads, not governments.
Unless you think the people are idiots who vote for whoever they are told, in which case you don’t believe in democracy.
And they trusted the voters to hear any speech at all as an essential part of preventing that. It’s too bad you don’t respect that.
It’s monarchs and tyrants who limit speech simply because it doesn’t like the outcome of elections, not free republics.
If the only thing voters can hear is one side of the story, because some billionaire is flooding the airwaves, that’s a bad thing.
But you are very possibly unable to understand that, so I’ll go on.
No, it’s monarchy. Unlimited dollars wasn’t intended to be unlimited influence. On the upside, it would stimulate the economy.
I have a right to advocate for democracy, like your right to advocate for a corporate hell-hole state where your rights are decided upon by the highest bidder.
I appear to understand it far, far better than you. You’d let it burn to the ground and set us up for a permanent corporate lock. You’re literally advocating the end of the American experiment and the beginning of Wallyworld™.
The voters can hear whatever they want. They have full access to all kinds of information.
But maybe it’s a bad thing if someone has more speech. Doesn’t make a ban on speech constitutional.
Says who?
Nobody’s rights are decided upon by the highest bidder. That’s completely false.
And you’re not advocating for democracy. You don’t like the voters’ choices so you want to manipulate what they see and hear to try to change it. That’s not democracy.
I respect free speech. You don’t. I respect the choices of the voters. You don’t.
Yep. We voters should reject whatever they have to say, shouldn’t we?
No. Dollars are not equal to “push.”
Did you respond to my proposal that we ban the speech of celebrities because they have more than their “fair” share of push too? Should we?
No, I’m fighting for a world where the voters decide what world we have, instead of you deciding.
Not if the buying is done through persuasion of the public. A government that is able to gain public support has public support, whether it was earned in an open marketplace of ideas, or through a controlled propaganda regime.
The fact is, our officials are elected with popular support. if you think rich people “bought” the public, then that’s fine.
Is the issue only advertising? If so, that’s easy to fix. Just ban all political advertising. Including that of the candidates and parties.
Also, are we wanting to stop unlimited corporate spending, or also unlimited individual spending? Because there is no way around the latter without full repeal of the 1st amendment.
I agree, but democracy cannot involve regulating the discourse. If people believe lies, then that’s just how democracy works.
If you could prove a real drowning out effect, then that might be something, but I have yet to see it in practice except in local races where an incumbent destroys an unknown challenger. I never see a ballot initiative or race between two plausible candidates where one side fails to reach me with its message several times. The fact that one might reach me more isn’t going to make a difference.
Since the first amendment has limits based on strong reasons (fire in theater, sedition) the question is actually if unlimited spending is bad enough to warrant a similar treatment.
You’re arguing like someone who thinks that the second amendment grants the right for home possession of nuclear and biological weapons.
Anyone who values democracy.
So you don’t think advertising works?
I want a limit that applies to everyone to preserve democracy.
I am the one advocating for the process to remain clean. You’re advocating the entire country becoming a company store.
So, you don’t think advertising works?
You should explain that to the people wasting money on political donations. Because they’re meaningless, according to you.
I don’t think a celebrities words should be limited. Just the amount they can spend on advertising. Much like I don’t think a billionaire’s words should be limited, just the amount they spend on advertising.
You may not understand what you’re fighting for. I’m not saying you have bad motives. I’m saying you don’t see what you’re fighting for accurately.
Which is why my stance against tyranny is the one you should cleave to.
You are already partisan. There are independent voters in the middle who base their decisions on things like advertising. And as Republicans have taught us with Death Panels and Swiftboating, repetition of a lie drills it into the head of a large population.
I’m not saying that Nancy Pelosi will lose her district, it’s too safe. But if even 10% are swayed over time, that will lock control to one side, the side that kowtows the lowest to big business.
I would limit all spending, corporate and individual. Because unlimited spending, in my opinion, rises to the level of threatening the president or planning to overthrow the government.
That’s true. But since 1st amendment exceptions have to pass strict scrutiny, the burden of proof is on reformers to prove that unlimited spending is causing substantial harm. Because right now their arguments are all over the place. What kind of harm is caused? Is it bribery? Okay, then that wouldn’t apply to ballot intiatives or self-funded campaigns like Meg Whitman’s.
The 2nd amendment allows for regulation, while the 1st amendment’s prohibition on Congress regulating or restricting the freedoms listed is absolute. Of course, the courts haven’t agreed with that and the founders themselves violated it, but the principle is that gun ownership can be regulated in the public interest, speech exceptions have to survive much greater scrutiny.
That just means the media decides who gets a soapbox and when. That’s not exactly healthy either.
The President has already spent an effectively unlimited amount on his own campaign. he spent $8 billion to postpone Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election, when they were scheduled by law to go into effect in October.
I highlight that example to show that incumbents have all sorts of ways to directly buy an election that are not available to challengers.
Comparing the two amendments like that is impossible.
Once again, of course it works. Doesn’t make it sedition, or an exception to the First Amendment. Lots of speech works.
A limit on speech isn’t democracy by definition.
Nope, I’m saying if the voters want to buy something from the store, that’s their right, and you should stay out of it. They aren’t forced to buy. If they do, too bad.
Once again, a straw man.
But then you’re a hypocrite, because celebrity gives people “more push” than average folks just like money does. Why do you support a celebritocracy? Why do you want Tom Cruise to run our country?
And I’m saying you have good motives, but they are irrelevant.
When discussing questions of democracy, an appeal to popularity is permitted.
No, it doesn’t. The first amendment limits the powers of Congress.
Take a civics class.
Advertisements cannot be aired at the same time as other advertisements. People can not be on the podium at the same time as the president. These are simple, insurmountable restrictions.
Except when they elect politicians to craft laws or amendments you disagree with (which is also democracy).
If it doesn’t, then intervening to prevent waste would preserve money that could be spent on more productive products. If it does, then allowing the rich to have a disproportionate voice is inimical to democracy.
Actually, one Supreme Court justice was the decisive factor in whether or not these limitations on electioneering communications were constitutional.
Can you cite an instance of a politician supporting the cause of a celebrity over the objections of the majority of the population, without receiving some kind of pecuniary compensation?
If the concern is bribery or quid pro quo, that’s going to call for different regulations than a concern over someone having too much influence. If the issue is quid pro quo, then unlimited spending on ballot initiatives or self-funded campaigns isn’t a concern.