# GOP superPACs plan to spend $1 billion on electons this year **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 8, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451 "2012-06-08T01:37:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/181 "2012-06-29T01:04:00Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Outlaw hearings? In the vein of [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Don’t insult me with a circumstantial ad hominem After all those strawmen? I’ve seen the LiberalViewer videos and I’m not convinced. In fact, I unsubscribed on that basis. Speech should not be dependent on funding for that speech, at least not in forums which are already subject to federal regulation. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > No it doesn’t. If one party can speak for less money than the other, it’s providing a microphone to one party and not the other. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/182 "2012-06-29T14:01:22Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > In the vein of [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act). Ah, I see. Court hearings. Like banning money spent on speech, banning court hearings appealing violations of freedom of speech would also be unconstitutional in my view. You are trying to sneak around the First Amendment. You can’t do that. > [@](#): > > After all those strawmen? Like I said, don’t insult me and don’t appeal to a lame logical fallacy. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen the LiberalViewer videos and I’m not convinced. In fact, I unsubscribed on that basis. What are those? Haven’t heard of them. > [@](#): > > Speech should not be dependent on funding for that speech, at least not in forums which are already subject to federal regulation. I don’t understand this comment. > [@](#): > > If one party can speak for less money than the other, it’s providing a microphone to one party and not the other. And? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/183 "2012-07-01T02:03:52Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > I don’t understand this comment. The FCC already monitor broadcasts to a stricter degree than they monitor conversations held in private. As an analogy, no amount of expenditure will get one a campaign poster up in a national park. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > And? They have less relative speech - even in a hypothetical scenario where there were unlimited ad spots. In scenario A, pre-Citizens United, adverts have a set rate of 10000 dollars for the broadcaster, which could be subsidised entirely by public expenditure. Union X supports D, corporation Y supports R, but neither can spend any money in support of them and this is a limitation on their freedom of speech. Individual O spends $100k in support of D, individual R spends $100k in support of R. Each get 10 ads in support Post-Citizens United (no apportionment), O and R spend the same amount, each get 10 ads. Union X spends $50k and gets 5 ads, Corporation Y spends $200k and gets 20 ads. So far, so good. Post-Citizens United with subsidising, individual R spends his $100k, Corporation Y spends their $200k… but since D doesn’t attract as much money, they get 30 ads for $150k. It costs $5k for each electioneering communication for the Ds, meaning Rs pay twice as much for the same amount of speech - which seems to me to be an undue burden on the right of the Rs to successfully advocate (if both were subsidised regardless of income, Rs would be able to afford 60 ads). Edit: > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Like I said, don’t insult me and don’t appeal to a lame logical fallacy. Which? ---
**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:** [July 1, 2012, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/184 "2012-07-01T22:14:14Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > The FCC already monitor broadcasts to a stricter degree than they monitor conversations held in private. As an analogy, no amount of expenditure will get one a campaign poster up in a national park. Another new justification! You just keep coming up with them. > [@](#): > > They have less relative speech - even in a hypothetical scenario where there were unlimited ad spots. There is no right to “relative speech” in the Constitution. Just give it up already instead of making up new whacky doctrines left and right. > [@](#): > > which seems to me to be an undue burden There’s no right not to have an “undue burden” either. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/185 "2012-07-01T22:30:21Z")
Well, of course there is, what do you think the “undue” part means? ---
**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:** [July 1, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/186 "2012-07-01T22:35:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, of course there is, what do you think the “undue” part means? Where in the Constitution does it say one has a right not to have an “undue burden” on paying for speech, or whatever that means? ---
**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:** [July 1, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/187 "2012-07-01T22:42:38Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > They have less relative speech Let’s pretend the government can regulate speech in order to make sure everyone has the same amount of speech. That means you CANNOT ban corporate speech, only limit it to whatever everyone else has. It also means that ANY time an inequality exists, it is unfair. It means you have to ration speech. Everyone gets exactly 2 minutes, or $100, or whatever. Otherwise someone has “less relative speech,” and you’ve declared that this is wrong. And since some people have absolutely no money to spend on speech, the amount anyone is allowed to spend must be zero, since that’s the only way you can even it out. So get to work. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/188 "2012-07-01T23:23:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Fine. One more chance. > > Do you want the government to ban speech to protect you from how you might act if you heard it? No one is talking about banning speech. We’re talking about limiting the amount of advertising you can buy. I’m surprised you think this is a profound gotcha question. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/189 "2012-07-02T00:49:16Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No one is talking about banning speech. We’re talking about limiting the amount of advertising you can buy. Oh, dear God. Please read this out loud, several times. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/190 "2012-07-02T17:42:50Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > It also means that ANY time an inequality exists, it is unfair. It means you have to ration speech. Everyone gets exactly 2 minutes, or $100, or whatever. Otherwise someone has “less relative speech,” and you’ve declared that this is wrong. This was your position a week ago. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > give out free or really cheap TV time to candidates Would it be constitutional to require corporations to pay twice as much for electioneering communications than unions, or to tax corporate expenditure on electioneering communications at twice the rate of union expenditure on electioneering communications? ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/191 "2012-07-02T17:51:44Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > This was your position a week ago. Well, no, it’s never been my position. > [@](#): > > Would it be constitutional to require corporations to pay twice as much for electioneering communications than unions, or to tax corporate expenditure on electioneering communications at twice the rate of union expenditure on electioneering communications? No, I don’t think it would be. You can keep dreaming up ways to get around the First Amendment all you want. You remind me of anti-abortionists who keep coming up with ways to sidestep Roe v. Wade. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/192 "2012-07-02T20:06:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, no, it’s never been my position. > > No, I don’t think it would be. > > You can keep dreaming up ways to get around the First Amendment all you want. > > You remind me of anti-abortionists who keep coming up with ways to sidestep Roe v. Wade. Corporations are not people and money is not speech. It’s as simple as that. You’re the one building castles in the air. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/193 "2012-07-02T20:07:41Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Oh, dear God. Please read this out loud, several times. You really are having trouble understanding this issue. Maybe you should take a rest from it and you’ll eventually realize that you’re arguing nonsense? ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/194 "2012-07-02T20:14:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Corporations are not people and money is not speech. It’s as simple as that. You’re the one building castles in the air. Two straw men. Corporations don’t need to be people to have speech rights. Spending money on a right is part of that right. I have discussed both of these at length. If you want me to explain again, just let me know. But in the meantime, your arguments would lead to all kinds of preposterous conclusions, such as political parties having no speech rights (they aren’t people after all) or the government being free to ban the sale of Bibles (money isn’t religion just like its not speech). Yet when I bring these up, you and others never respond. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/195 "2012-07-02T20:15:51Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You really are having trouble understanding this issue. > > Maybe you should take a rest from it and you’ll eventually realize that you’re arguing nonsense? You think that advertising isn’t speech. That’s complete nonsense. I shouldn’t have to explain that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/196 "2012-07-02T21:22:43Z")
Love the line currently making the rounds: “I’ll believe a corporation is a person the day Texas executes one.” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/197 "2012-07-02T21:26:00Z")
Just read an interesting factoid: 71% of the money going to superPACs are in the form of checks written for amounts of $500,000 or more. Half a fricking mil. But Lance Strongarm does not believe that the donors expect to get anything back for these PALTRY sums … ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/198 "2012-07-02T21:44:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Love the line currently making the rounds: “I’ll believe a corporation is a person the day Texas executes one.” Of course corporations aren’t people. Can we get back on topic? ---
**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:** [July 2, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/199 "2012-07-02T21:45:12Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Just read an interesting factoid: 71% of the money going to superPACs are in the form of checks written for amounts of $500,000 or more. Half a fricking mil. But Lance Strongarm does not believe that the donors expect to get anything back for these PALTRY sums … You’re not engaging in debate any more, your lobbing snowballs. If you want to discuss my points instead of evading them, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/200 "2012-07-02T22:59:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What would be the point of free speech that is in no way equalized? Equalized by whom? Who gets to decide which speech is good, which is over represented, which needs to be shown more, which needs to be shown less? You? Free speech is about the right to say things, not the right to have everyone hear it. If you cannot afford an ad, your right to free speech is not being impaired. If someone can buy more ads than you, your right to free speech is not being impaired. You know this, it has been covered a bunch of times on this board. [QUOTE=Evil Captor] Just read an interesting factoid: 71% of the money going to superPACs are in the form of checks written for amounts of $500,000 or more. Half a fricking mil. But Lance Strongarm does not believe that the donors expect to get anything back for these PALTRY sums … [/QUOTE] The issue is not if people are being influenced, it is if speech should be limited. Slee [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=11)