No petulance. I am just out of new ways to point out your error. Since you are convinced of the merits of your position, I simply invite you to pursue it. Take. Pluck it from the tree on which it grows.
Because money has no meaning. Burning a flag has a specific meaning,“I hate America” or “I hate what America has become.” All money does is determine the size and number of megaphones you can buy for whatever speech you wish to make, on whatever position. It has no meaning of its own.
But a specific chunk of money, used to buy a specific ad — that has meaning.
Everything has meaning. Buying a banana is tells the world you want a banana and are willing to purchase at the offered price.
The ad is speech. The money behind it isn’t.
Uh huh.
Burning a flag is legal.
But using money to buy any incindiary device or flammable material with intent to burn a flag is not.
OK with that scheme? It’s money, not speech.
Enforcement issues aside, it’s my understanding that only the recipient of illegal campaign contributions is guilty of a crime.
Citizens United was not about campaign contributions.
The ad has meaning. The money does not.
True. So - other than using your voice (with no enhancement) in the street, what speech doesn’t require money?
I mean - you would allow the ad, but forbid paying for it? Does that logic extend to all other types of speech? Allow the demonstration but forbid expending any money on organizing it? Allow the book but forbid spending money to print it?
Citizens United wasn’t about criminalizing political activity, either. It’s Bricker’s hypothetical, not mine.
Burning a flag is a matter of free speech. Burning 100,000 flags in public is a fire hazard and the government will stop it.
Sort of like a handful of billionaires giving ten times the money that everyone else in the country gives is a democracy hazard and the government should stop it.
This isn’t rocket surgery.
OK.
Good luck with your plans. Have fun storming the castle.
So I show you that your analogy is nonsense and you snip at me?
I guess when you have no rational arguments to bolster your view, there is always the irrational.
No, Lobohan. I’m just tired.
But OK, let me saddle up Rocinante and climb aboard.
The problem with your response to my analogy is: I don’t agree with your formulation of “democracy hazard.” While every reasonable observer can see the fire hazards inherent in the multi-flag bonfire, it’s not a matter of clearly established fact that a “democracy hazard” exists. You think it does, but merely holding an opinion does not make that opinion fact.
So how are we to determine which of our opinions controls?
I guess we should intelligently consider of unlimited money from people with most of the money would sway elections in a manner that is fundamentally unAmerican.
Does money sway elections? Not every time, but it will undoubtedly sway close elections. Are we agreed?
If yes, then ask yourself, why do the richest people in the world get to sway elections, in your opinion? Because they can? Why isn’t that, the ability of twenty or thirty people to overpower the donations of millions of Americans something that is out of line?
In any case, feel free to not reply, we’ve been down this road before. I was just typing because I had a free minute before I need to get back to work.
I guess we shouldn’t.
I suppose it will sway very close elections, yes. But even before Citizen’s United, that was true.
No, in my opinion it’s not out of line. and it’s certainly not a result of Citizen’s United.
No they wouldn’t because its such small potatoes that Romney would just take the money and vote how he felt like. If he disappointed you he’s out $2,000 no big deal. Add 4 zeros to that and then things a bit more interesting.
Megacorp’s president anonymously sets up a 20 million dollar super pac to make sure Romeny gets elected. After the election Megacorp sends a lobbyist which mentions that certain clean air quality standards would cost them 100 million dollars, and wouldn’t it be better for the people of American if an exception covering Megacorp could be arranged. He might also mention in passing how glad they are that their money helped Romney get elected and how much they hope they will be able to help him be reelected. No explicit bribery you understand, it’s just that if things don’t go their way they might not be able to find the funds to contribute the next time. Further since the super pac was anonymous no one will even be able to tie the action to the contribution.
It is gob-stopping to me that the supreme court looked at the pre-CU state of affairs and decided that the problem was that money didn’t have enough influence in the political process.
That is gob-stopping. It’s also not what they concluded. They concluded there is no constitutional basis for restricting political expression based on the type of speaker.
Buck Godot exemplifies typical liberal way of thinking: you set a goal and then pervert (“interpret”, if you will) the laws to fit the goal. So he assigns the same motivation to others.
And there wouldn’t be. The wealthy would be allowed to make the same contributions to the public discourse as the rest of us; just subject to the same limits. They aren’t being silenced if they are limited to a bull horn that is twice as large as everyone else’s instead of 10,000 times as large. If we can have noise ordinances and fcc regulations without losing the first amendment, certainly we can try to limit de facto bribery.