# Dark money, Jane Mayer (2016) book **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 13, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122 "2016-04-13T20:44:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/61 "2016-04-19T16:36:16Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Democracy means even the plutocrats are allowed to promote their views. And in a democracy, we counter those views in the marketplace of ideas. Only authoritarians need to restrict their opponents’ influences by force of law. That’s extremely naive. The problem with the marketplace of ideas is that it can become a monopoly or oligopoly just as easily as the marketplace of goods, if not more so. A totally unregulated economic marketplace is not necessarily a free, fair, or honest market – if left unchecked, it tends to gravitate toward monopolistic and predatory practices by the dominant players. And so it is with the marketplace of ideas, and when those ideas directly impact the democratic process, it’s essential to the preservation of democracy to regulate that impact. No one is saying that the Kochs aren’t allowed to promote their views. They should be able to do anything that you and I can do. They can start a blog, write a book, or post on message boards just like you and me. The principle of regulation is to mitigate excessive political influence that is detrimental to democracy and to the public interest. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/62 "2016-04-19T18:48:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The problem with the marketplace of ideas is that it can become a monopoly or oligopoly just as easily as the marketplace of goods, if not more so. A totally unregulated economic marketplace is not necessarily a free, fair, or honest market – if left unchecked, it tends to gravitate toward monopolistic and predatory practices by the dominant players. Thanks, that’s actually the most succinct and convincing argument for your point of view I’ve yet seen. I just don’t see any evidence that alternative viewpoints are being drowned out in the US. It looks more to me that we’re in the middle of a golden age of diversity in political opinions. Probably worth another thread. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And so it is with the marketplace of ideas, and when those ideas directly impact the democratic process, it’s essential to the preservation of democracy to regulate that impact. No one is saying that the Kochs aren’t allowed to promote their views. They should be able to do anything that you and I can do. They can start a blog, write a book, or post on message boards just like you and me. The principle of regulation is to mitigate excessive political influence that is detrimental to democracy and to the public interest. I’m not sure what the “excessive” part of “political influence” would be. How many voters must change their votes because of my influence before it becomes excessive? Do we need to regulate charismatic people who more easily influence others? How do you separate the influence of a group from the influence of each individual member? I’d rather have people make their own decisions about who to be influenced by, than have the government regulate how influential others are allowed to be. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/63 "2016-04-19T20:50:12Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Thanks, that’s actually the most succinct and convincing argument for your point of view I’ve yet seen. I just don’t see any evidence that alternative viewpoints are being drowned out in the US. It looks more to me that we’re in the middle of a golden age of diversity in political opinions. Probably worth another thread. There’s plenty of evidence. Like [this Princeton study](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) that’s been discussed here before, the Giles-Page study which concludes that the US is now closer to an all-out oligarchy than a functioning democracy. Or the article I cited earlier about how the Kochs have appropriated the Republican party. Or the very book that this thread is about. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I’m not sure what the “excessive” part of “political influence” would be. How many voters must change their votes because of my influence before it becomes excessive? Do we need to regulate charismatic people who more easily influence others? How do you separate the influence of a group from the influence of each individual member? Other countries manage to enact such laws and/or have established political and media structures that make it more difficult for money to control political outcomes and public policy. The fact that laws may be imperfect and there will be attempts to thwart them is never a reason not to have them at all. In the same way that the fact that big money isn’t always 100% successful in pushing through every single policy they might want isn’t evidence that they don’t have a hugely disproportionate influence in public policy. As a general principle, I’d say the kind of spending that is beyond the means of the majority of people is the kind of spending that goes against the spirit and intent of democracy, and certainly the kind of spending that the Koch shadow organization of billionaires has been spending – nearly a billion dollars planned in this election year alone, much of it through their AFP organization – makes a complete mockery of democratic principles. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I’d rather have people make their own decisions about who to be influenced by, than have the government regulate how influential others are allowed to be. Ah, yes, that distrust of government thing again. The very same government that I think we can agree is necessary to regulate markets, prevent monopolistic abuses, and keep businesses honest. The government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Would you rather trust the Koch brothers, the lying, scheming bastards who financially screwed their own family members and have such contempt for law and the world we live in that they’ve accumulated a string of record fines for incessant environmental and other violations? The guys who are going all-out to push an extremist libertarian agenda that would effectively dismantle much of government and all of its social services? But it’s not only them. Their name comes up a lot because they’re the most flagrant and tend to be the organizers of many of the others. I’m reminded of a quote from Orwell’s _1984_: “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently.” That could be the headline quote in the Koch playbook. A democratically constituted government in a functional democracy is the only ally the people have. It’s what the likes of the Kochs are trying to destroy. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/64 "2016-04-20T00:10:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s extremely naive. The problem with the marketplace of ideas is that it can become a monopoly or oligopoly just as easily as the marketplace of goods, if not more so. A totally unregulated economic marketplace is not necessarily a free, fair, or honest market – if left unchecked, it tends to gravitate toward monopolistic and predatory practices by the dominant players. > > And so it is with the marketplace of ideas, and when those ideas directly impact the democratic process, it’s essential to the preservation of democracy to regulate that impact. No one is saying that the Kochs aren’t allowed to promote their views. They should be able to do anything that you and I can do. They can start a blog, write a book, or post on message boards just like you and me. The principle of regulation is to mitigate excessive political influence that is detrimental to democracy and to the public interest. So go try to overturn the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/65 "2016-04-20T00:12:15Z")
I’ll take plutocrats having lots of speech any day over someone telling me the government should be able to decide that some people have “too much” influence, and how much is too much, and who has it, and has the power to regulate it. No way. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/66 "2016-04-20T01:54:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s very much analogous to the situation with university funding, where some feel that it’s OK that the Kochs are funding all these far-right libertarian programs since it offsets what many perceive as the “liberalism” of universities. But whatever intrinsic political leanings may be perceived in academia, they have developed naturally and largely independent of outside forces, merely the result of an analytical discourse about ideas, supported by foundational principles of academic freedom like tenure. > … > So you can argue til you’re blue in the face that the total money that governments and alumni are giving to universities greatly exceeds what the Kochs are giving, but the former money is going to universities to do what they do: teach academic classes, fund laboratories, pay their staff, and heat their buildings. That is not true. Your belief that the left-wing domination of most American universities occurred without outside forces, and was “merely the result of an analytical discourse about ideas”, would strike many people as charmingly naive. To give just one of many examples, look at how President Obama’s Department of Education has re-interpreted the Title IX law on gender discrimination into a weapon with which to attack academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors produced [a lengthy report](http://www.aaup.org/file/TitleIX-Report.pdf) on that subject. (If you don’t want to read 56 pages, the Daily Beast has [a good summary](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/28/how-title-ix-killed-free-speech-on-campus.html).) Or there are the left-wing administrations that are [instructing their faculty](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/16/uc-teaching-faculty-members-not-to-criticize-race-based-affirmative-action-call-america-melting-pot-and-more/) that failure to hold liberal opinions on some topics is a “microaggression”. Or the fact that not only are academics overwhelmingly liberal, but [many of them](http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans) openly admit they would discriminate against conservatives. The idea that the Koch Brothers have some sort of unique, never-before-seen drive to push ideology in universities which have previously been mostly free from ideological concerns is just not true. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/67 "2016-04-20T02:07:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There’s plenty of evidence. Like [this Princeton study](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) that’s been discussed here before, the Giles-Page study which concludes that the US is now closer to an all-out oligarchy than a functioning democracy. These are serious arguments, so I want to quote from your link so that the reader can get the nuance. [INDENT][INDENT] “Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write: ``` Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened. ``` That’s a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] My take is that tendencies towards oligarchy are the rule historically rather than the exception. But this isn’t Ancient Rome. The US middle class enjoys some of the highest standards of living the world has ever seen. Though it’s also true that the 1% has managed to grab a disproportionate share of the economic growth occurring since around 1980. Also, the purpose of democracy really shouldn’t be understood as a mechanism to map unformed public opinions on policy to actual policy. Any more than my dismal knowledge of engineering should be incorporated into the car I drive. No, democracy should be a process of _deliberation_, with the goal of addressing the problems and challenges faced by the citizenry. It is unfortunate that the tidal wave of hit pieces and attack ads funded by the Koch Bros so distorts any semblance of rational fact based investigation during election season. Bad info crowds out good info. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/68 "2016-04-20T05:24:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Ah, yes, that distrust of government thing again. The very same government that I think we can agree is necessary to regulate markets, prevent monopolistic abuses, and keep businesses honest. The government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Would you rather trust the Koch brothers, the lying, scheming bastards who financially screwed their own family members and have such contempt for law and the world we live in that they’ve accumulated a string of record fines for incessant environmental and other violations? Ok, you say that the Koch brothers have “such contempt for law” that they’ve accumulated a string of record fines. Here are a couple of questions for you: How many times have the Koch brothers been found in violation of the law in their lifetime? How many times have federal agencies been found in violation of the law during the same stretch of time? Given your answers to the previous two questions, who has more “contempt for law”, the Koch brothers or federal agencies? > [@](#): > > I’m reminded of a quote from Orwell’s _1984_: “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently.” I haven’t read _1984_ since high school, but if I remember correctly, the character who says that is part of the government. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the whole book is a warning about the dangers of government. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/69 "2016-04-20T13:57:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There’s plenty of evidence. Like [this Princeton study](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) that’s been discussed here before, the Giles-Page study which concludes that the US is now closer to an all-out oligarchy than a functioning democracy. Or the article I cited earlier about how the Kochs have appropriated the Republican party. Or the very book that this thread is about. Yes, excellent cites, but they answer the question “whose interests does the government serve?” I’m looking for evidence that the marketplace of ideas is being dominated by a few. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Other countries manage to enact such laws and/or have established political and media structures that make it more difficult for money to control political outcomes and public policy. So, you’ll have plenty of examples to draw upon when you address my concerns about how to limit “excessive” political influence without limiting everyone’s political influence. > [@wolfpup](#): > > As a general principle, I’d say the kind of spending that is beyond the means of the majority of people is the kind of spending that goes against the spirit and intent of democracy, and certainly the kind of spending that the Koch shadow organization of billionaires has been spending – nearly a billion dollars planned in this election year alone, much of it through their AFP organization – makes a complete mockery of democratic principles. I have no problem with people spending money to promote their views–that is a principle of democracy. Another is people organizing to promote their views. The facts that we don’t like their views and that they’ve organized well doesn’t mean we should try to restrict their rights. I also don’t like the fact that they have more resources than us–but that’s an issue of the tax code, not an excuse to limit everyone’s freedoms. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Ah, yes, that distrust of government thing again. The very same government that I think we can agree is necessary to regulate markets, prevent monopolistic abuses, and keep businesses honest. The government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Would you rather trust the Koch brothers, the lying, scheming bastards who financially screwed their own family members and have such contempt for law and the world we live in that they’ve accumulated a string of record fines for incessant environmental and other violations? The guys who are going all-out to push an extremist libertarian agenda that would effectively dismantle much of government and all of its social services? But it’s not only them. Their name comes up a lot because they’re the most flagrant and tend to be the organizers of many of the others. The answer is neither. You’ve already cited that the government serves the oligarchs rather than the people. That’s exactly why I don’t want the government deciding whose speech to curtail. You’d give the oligarchs even more control! The best way to preserve our freedoms is to not let anyone limit them. I mentioned how you could convince me that speech should limited: show me that viewpoints are being suppressed in marketplace of ideas. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/70 "2016-04-20T21:24:38Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > These are serious arguments, so I want to quote from your link so that the reader can get the nuance. I’ve omitted the quote (found [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19273428&postcount=67)) for the sake of brevity but it’s an excellent summary and I urge everyone to read it. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > My take is that tendencies towards oligarchy are the rule historically rather than the exception. But this isn’t Ancient Rome. The US middle class enjoys some of the highest standards of living the world has ever seen. Though it’s also true that the 1% has managed to grab a disproportionate share of the economic growth occurring since around 1980. Right, but the founding of modern democracy was for the precise purpose of countering that very tendency to be ruled by kings and oligarchs. The “money is speech” mantra is undermining democracy and reversing that trend. As for the middle class, much of that growth was from earlier times; today middle class income is relatively stagnant while the income of the top few percent is growing by leaps and bounds. The US has one of the highest Gini coefficients in the industrialized world. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Also, the purpose of democracy really shouldn’t be understood as a mechanism to map unformed public opinions on policy to actual policy. Any more than my dismal knowledge of engineering should be incorporated into the car I drive. No, democracy should be a process of _deliberation_, with the goal of addressing the problems and challenges faced by the citizenry. It is unfortunate that the tidal wave of hit pieces and attack ads funded by the Koch Bros so distorts any semblance of rational fact based investigation during election season. Bad info crowds out good info. Agreed, and there is an astute point there. Direct democracy in terms of direct input on policies by an uninformed public usually leads to bad outcomes – examples would be referendums or so-called “ballot initiatives” where voters invariably reject taxes no matter what they’re for. The solution to that particular problem is to mediate policy making through the deliberative process that you suggest, in which legislators have the benefit of expert guidance in matters of social policy, science, and economics. Beyond that, the key to a successful democracy is to support an informed public through high quality information resources like a strong public broadcasting system and, above all, prevent the public dialog from becoming excessively distorted by vested interests with deep pockets. If anyone wants to know why the US is the only first-world nation on earth without universal health care or a national health care policy, now you know. Or why it’s virtually impossible to take urgently necessary action on climate change because so many people either don’t believe the science or are convinced that it would be too expensive. Or why people believe that cutting taxes for the super wealthy will somehow benefit themselves. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I haven’t read _1984_ since high school, but if I remember correctly, the character who says that is part of the government. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the whole book is a warning about the dangers of government. I’m going to ignore the usual “government is evil” crap and just address this. Yes, I was aware that that quote happened to be about government. The book was written just after World War 2 when the atrocities of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were still on everyone’s mind. But the caution could apply equally to any unchecked power structure, like an oligarchy. This is why I also carefully stated the following after that quote, to which I now add emphasis: “_ **A democratically constituted government** _ in a _ **functional democracy** _ is the only ally the people have. It’s what the likes of the Kochs are trying to destroy.” > [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, excellent cites, but they answer the question “whose interests does the government serve?” I’m looking for evidence that the marketplace of ideas is being dominated by a few. That is an absolutely bizarre interpretation of that paper, or for that matter, of Jane Mayer’s book which is on precisely the same subject. Here for instance is a quote again from an interview with Mayer about the Kochs’ incursion into the education system: [The Koch brothers] are waging a war of ideas, but one in which they push their own point of view by paying for it, and paying universities to push it. And it’s growing at a very fast clip at this point. One of the things in the final chapter of the book, there is a tape of them talking about all of this, at one of the secret meetings the Kochs hold, with the donor group that they’ve assembled. And their operatives are saying, “We’ve created something that the other side (meaning the liberals) can’t compete with, it’s unrivaled.” And they say, “What it is is a pipeline, a talent pipeline.” And they describe it: You take the most promising students that you can convert to your point of view and you move them on through the other institutions that they’ve got, which are political think tanks, advocacy groups, turning them into people who work in their campaigns, authors, media personalities. To claim that they’re not waging – and winning – a war of ideas takes a special kind of willful blindness. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I have no problem with people spending money to promote their views–that is a principle of democracy. No. The principle of democracy is that an informed public makes rational decisions about their own governance and the informed preferences of the majority prevail. Anything that corrupts that to further a minority special interest corrupts democracy itself. > [@Pleonast](#): > > You’ve already cited that the government serves the oligarchs rather than the people. That’s exactly why I don’t want the government deciding whose speech to curtail. You’d give the oligarchs even more control! It’s just crazily wrong-headed to cite the government as an ally of the oligarchs and then claim that its regulatory authority must therefore be curtailed. Lincoln didn’t cite the government as being of, by, and for the oligarchs, he cited it as being of, by, and for the people. It’s been appropriated by the wealthy precisely because in the US, especially, they’re winning the war of ideas. Governments are not intrinsically that way. They’re not that way in Sweden, in the UK, in Canada or anywhere in Europe. Government is not your enemy, it’s your only possible ally. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/71 "2016-04-20T21:45:26Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So go try to overturn the First Amendment. First things first. What we need to do is overturn a long line of cases interpreting “persons” in the 14th Amendment to include corporations and other creature-of-law “persons” when it was clearly meant to mean “natural persons” only; common law has always clearly distinguished the two categories of “persons” (and recognizing no third). Those cases generally had nothing to do with 1st Amendment, protections, BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/72 "2016-04-21T15:58:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That is an absolutely bizarre interpretation of that paper, or for that matter, of Jane Mayer’s book which is on precisely the same subject. Here for instance is a quote again from an interview with Mayer about the Kochs’ incursion into the education system: > [The Koch brothers] are waging a war of ideas, but one in which they push their own point of view by paying for it, and paying universities to push it. And it’s growing at a very fast clip at this point. > > One of the things in the final chapter of the book, there is a tape of them talking about all of this, at one of the secret meetings the Kochs hold, with the donor group that they’ve assembled. And their operatives are saying, “We’ve created something that the other side (meaning the liberals) can’t compete with, it’s unrivaled.” And they say, “What it is is a pipeline, a talent pipeline.” And they describe it: You take the most promising students that you can convert to your point of view and you move them on through the other institutions that they’ve got, which are political think tanks, advocacy groups, turning them into people who work in their campaigns, authors, media personalities. > To claim that they’re not waging – and winning – a war of ideas takes a special kind of willful blindness. I guess I’m not being clear enough. Yes, I agree that the Kochs are waging a war of ideas. But I’m asking for evidence that political views are being restricted from being expressed. That any sort of monopoly or oligopoly is preventing alternatives from competing in the marketplace of ideas. Because I’m, anecdotally, not seeing a problem there. I am seeing a problem in people listening to the Kochs–but that’s a problem with giving idiots the franchise, not a problem with allowing advocacy. I also see a problem with our government catering to the rich–but that’s a problem with the politicians we elect, and again not a problem with political speech. I do disagree that the Kochs are winning the war of ideas. In this primary season, only one (and the one doing the worst) of the five remaining mainstream candidates is even remotely running on the Kochs’ agenda. I see plenty of political organizing of people who oppose the Kochs. The marketplace of ideas looks functional to me. Please address that directly. > [@wolfpup](#): > > No. The principle of democracy is that an informed public makes rational decisions about their own governance and the informed preferences of the majority prevail. Anything that corrupts that to further a minority special interest corrupts democracy itself. Yes, a principle of democracy is an informed public freely directing their government. But it’s not the only principle and it has to be balanced against others. If you want to convince me that curtailing the principle of permitting people to use their own resources to express their political preferences, you’ll need make good on your claim that people are unable to express their preferences in the current system. Talking about how powerful our opposition is and how unresponsive our government is does not address this issue. > [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s just crazily wrong-headed to cite the government as an ally of the oligarchs and then claim that its regulatory authority must therefore be curtailed. Lincoln didn’t cite the government as being of, by, and for the oligarchs, he cited it as being of, by, and for the people. It’s been appropriated by the wealthy precisely because in the US, especially, they’re winning the war of ideas. Governments are not intrinsically that way. They’re not that way in Sweden, in the UK, in Canada or anywhere in Europe. Government is not your enemy, it’s your only possible ally. Please don’t ignore that the government is appropriated by oligarchs when that fact is inconvenient to your position. Increasing government regulation of our speech necessarily increases the control of those interests the government serves. That might be acceptable if speech is being suppressed by the current system and other corrections are not available. That is why I accept regulation in other matters, because the open marketplace has shown failures. So as I keep requesting, show me the failures in the marketplace of ideas: what the barriers to entry are for alternative views, what prevents advocates from increasing their viewership, how voters are coerced into voting against their preferences, etc. I don’t think the wealthy are winning the war of ideas, but even if they were, that’s how democracy works–the people get to decide. We don’t throw out our democratic principles, even if we failed to convince others to our views. The problems in the American democracy are not caused by too much political advocacy and organization. It’s caused by politicians not respecting the will of the people. It’s caused by apathetic citizens not voting out of office those politicians. We elect the leaders we deserve, and we surely do. :mad: But when people say “we shouldn’t let people advocate or organize too much, because they’re advocating and organizing more than we are (and just ‘coincidentally’ they oppose us too)” that’s putting our partisan politics ahead of our democratic principles. It’s wrong when they do it; it’s wrong when we would do it. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/73 "2016-04-23T01:33:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > First things first. What we need to do is overturn a long line of cases interpreting “persons” in the 14th Amendment to include corporations and other creature-of-law “persons” when it was clearly meant to mean “natural persons” only; common law has always clearly distinguished the two categories of “persons” (and recognizing no third). Those cases generally had nothing to do with 1st Amendment, protections, BTW. So the since the New York Times isn’t a person, they’re not protected by the First Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/74 "2016-04-23T01:51:16Z")
That one’s covered explicitly, corporation or not. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/75 "2016-04-23T03:27:24Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > That one’s covered explicitly, corporation or not. No it is not. Morons who idiotically insist that the government should be able to censor corporations who express negative opinions about Hillary Clinton when she’s running for President unless they’re even more hypocritical than they appear would have no problem with punishing corporations like the New York Times. Thankfully the First Amendment protects us from morons who attempt to control political speech and impotently squeal about Citizens United. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/76 "2016-04-23T03:52:06Z")
Trust me, it is. It’s called ‘freedom of the press.’ ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/77 "2016-04-23T04:53:34Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Trust me, it is. It’s called ‘freedom of the press.’ I see, and how exactly is “freedom of the press” more explicit than “freedom of speech”? If “freedom of speech” only applies to “persons” not “corporations” there’s no reason to believe that “freedom of the press” does either. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/78 "2016-04-23T05:27:27Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I see, and how exactly is “freedom of the press” more explicit than “freedom of speech”? > > If “freedom of speech” only applies to “persons” not “corporations” there’s no reason to believe that “freedom of the press” does either. Freedom of speech has been interpreted as an individual right. ‘The press’ by definition is collective. The NYT is a member of the press, therefore freedom of the press applies, regardless of any definition of ‘individual.’ ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/79 "2016-04-23T05:54:51Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Freedom of speech has been interpreted as an individual right. ‘The press’ by definition is collective. The NYT is a member of the press, therefore freedom of the press applies, regardless of any definition of ‘individual.’ Uh-huh. There are a ton of assumptions packed into that. Ok, is Fox News protected by the First Amendment guarantee of “Freedom of the Press” but the ACLU isn’t? It not, why not? Who determines what corporations are protected by it and what aren’t? Or is your belief that all corporations are and that SCOTUS was right to smack down the idiots who tried to sanction Citizens United for practicing journalism? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122/80 "2016-04-23T05:59:08Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Uh-huh. There are a ton of assumptions packed into that. > > Ok, is Fox News protected by the First Amendment guarantee of “Freedom of the Press” but the ACLU isn’t? > > It not, why not? > > Who determines what corporations are protected by it and what aren’t? > > Or is your belief that all corporations are and that SCOTUS was right to smack down the idiots who tried to sanction Citizens United for practicing journalism? I said nothing but that the analogy to the NYT is fallacious. I don’t know how you jump from that to what I think of any of this ancillary crap. My contention was (and is) correct. I’m not going to get drawn in to the rest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dark-money-jane-mayer-2016-book/752122.md?page=5)