# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/241 "2012-07-04T04:50:55Z")
Wouldn’t it be fucking great if it didn’t work? These assholes pour millions upon million of bucks into sliming Obama and this time it doesn’t work. I’d be fucking dancing in the street. Death by giggling fits. ---
**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 4, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/242 "2012-07-04T06:02:13Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes - in order to roughly equalize how much speech everyone gets. Same thing. You should be able to speak as much as you like. But you shouldn’t get the election results you want based on how much is in your bank account. > [@](#): > > Unbelievable some of the Orwellian things you like to say. > > “Everyone is free to reach the limit on freedom.” It’s not very honest to suggest that’s what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > Not yours. I’m not allowed to engage in sedition. I’m also not allowed to yell fire in a theater. > [@](#): > > You are frustrated that I won’t back down. That’s understandable. You’re not bravely making a stand for freedom, you’re obtusely ignoring arguments that turn your position into ash. > [@](#): > > Don’t let it turn into insults. I know more about this issue than most people, and I’m not going anywhere. If you can’t handle that, just find a new thread. You don’t appear to be that knowledgeable, actually. Since you don’t know that speech can currently be limited for a good reason. And not becoming a plutocracy is a pretty good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/243 "2012-07-04T13:06:38Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > This board is a place for debate using speech. Is it fundamentally unfair because there are no limits on how many words someone can use? Yes or no? Try spamming every board and thread with the same message and see how far you get. There have to be common sense limits on speech here just like everywhere else. ---
**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 4, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/244 "2012-07-04T13:34:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Super PACs don’t give money to candidates. If the SuperPACs are coordinating with the candidates, and they are, they might as well be giving the money directly to the candidates. And the candidates, once elected, [find ways to pay their contributors back.](http://www.republicreport.org/2012/mulvaney-koch-earmark/) It is legalized bribery. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that truly independent spending, without coordination, is a right? If not, that’s not the issue. If so, we can discuss coordination. Read the link I posted. I do not believe that kind of thing is a right, and I think it is a natural result of our present broken system. I’m not sure what you are on about here. > [@](#): > > No. But where’s the dividing line? How much is too much? We need a number. I think $250 used to be the limit. Seems like a fine one to me. > [@](#): > > Can speech be bribery? Can someone’s speech about a candidate be considered bribery in some way? Need to know. Show me how this is relevant to the issue I am dealing with. ---
**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 4, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/245 "2012-07-04T13:38:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wouldn’t it be fucking great if it didn’t work? These assholes pour millions upon million of bucks into sliming Obama and this time it doesn’t work. I’d be fucking dancing in the street. Death by giggling fits. You mean the voters could actually gather information from all the many sources available, and use their brains to think about it? Is that even possible? No, you simply throw more ads up on TV and the voters do whatever they’re told. Like you like to say, advertising works! :rolleyes: ---
**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 4, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/246 "2012-07-04T13:39:02Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Try spamming every board and thread with the same message and see how far you get. > There have to be common sense limits on speech here just like everywhere else. The analogy breaks down. This is a private board, it can make any limits it wants. And in the real world, we’re not talking about spam. We’re talking about political speech. So try answering my 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 4, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/247 "2012-07-04T13:42:29Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You should be able to speak as much as you like. But you shouldn’t get the election results you want based on how much is in your bank account. The voters decide what the election results are and why. Not you. > [@](#): > > I’m not allowed to engage in sedition. I’m also not allowed to yell fire in a theater. So? This isn’t about those. > [@](#): > > You’re not bravely making a stand for freedom, you’re obtusely ignoring arguments that turn your position into ash. Keep trying. > [@](#): > > You don’t appear to be that knowledgeable, actually. Since you don’t know that speech can currently be limited for a good reason. I’m going to say this yet again. I’ve said it many times, but it doesn’t seem to sink in. Pay attention. OF COURSE I know speech can currently be limited for good reason. YOUR reasons aren’t even close to being good enough. Got it now? > [@](#): > > And not becoming a plutocracy is a pretty good reason. Not liking election results is absolutely most unacceptable reason for limiting speech. If the voters want a plutocracy, it’s their choice. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/248 "2012-07-04T13:45:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The analogy breaks down. This is a private board, it can make any limits it wants. And in the real world, we’re not talking about spam. We’re talking about political speech. Exactly; your analogy doesn’t work. You asserted that speech is not limited here and then asked a question about whether that is a bad thing. Well, in practice it is of course, so find another analogy. In response to your second point I meant spam in the more general sense, so it could itself be political speech. For example, if I start 50 different threads all about cutting taxes, then I’m spamming this messageboard, but clearly it is political speech at the same time. ---
**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 4, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/249 "2012-07-04T13:47:42Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > If the SuperPACs are coordinating with the candidates, and they are, they might as well be giving the money directly to the candidates. And the candidates, once elected, [find ways to pay their contributors back.](http://www.republicreport.org/2012/mulvaney-koch-earmark/) It is legalized bribery. So if they were NOT coordinating, is it not legalized bribery? Yes or no? > [@](#): > > Read the link I posted. I do not believe that kind of thing is a right, and I think it is a natural result of our present broken system. I’m not sure what you are on about here. Simple question. Is there a right to spend money on speech, as long as you don’t coordinate it with a candidate? Yes or no? > [@](#): > > I think $250 used to be the limit. Seems like a fine one to me. Why is $250 a magic number? What if 1,000 people in a local club all gave $250? That’s $250,000. They might expect something for their club in return. What about that situation? > [@](#): > > Show me how this is relevant to the issue I am dealing with. Answer the question first. It’s a simple question. Can speech alone be bribery? Why would you not want to answer that? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/250 "2012-07-04T14:40:09Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > If so, then you need to ration all speech. Nobody can have more than anyone else. Terrible false dichotomy. You support public funding, do you support rationing of speech? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Do you support that or not?But corporations would qualify for public funding too. Would public funding be available independently of how many ads the corporations had already run? If so, that’d just mean increased political advertising for everyone. If not, you’re advocating rationing. Which obviously means we have to limit newspaper editorials for fairness. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > I’m not sure how your system of banning speech altogether makes speech more accessible though. You might want to explain how banning speech for some makes speech more fair for all. The only way to accomplish that fairness is to ration all speech. Everyone gets exactly 3 minutes or whatever. Do you support that or not? If not, you need to stop claiming that you support fairness as a value in this debate. Oh, cobblers. I’ve used the word “fair” once in this thread (other than quoting you) and it was here: > [@gamerunknown](#): > > If the site’s bandwidth meant that a limited number of posts could be made each day, I could think of fairer ways to distribute posting privilege. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Donations to candidates are ALREADY LIMITED. So what is your point? The largest portion of campaign expenditures are on electioneering communications. Why are donations to candidates limited? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > It’s still speech, and you can’t limit it. Nonsense. Commercial speech is subject to several regulations. One cannot advertise pornography at 9am on the Disney channel. One cannot advertise tobacco at any point on television. As it stands, the Supreme Court holds that when corporations sell candidates like products that isn’t commercial speech and can’t be subject to the same regulations. Instead, it’ll be subject to the same time place and manner restrictions that govern appropriate restrictions of the right to free assembly. Except I doubt we’ll see police using tear gas to keep corporations out of the public eye. ---
**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 4, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/251 "2012-07-04T15:54:27Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The voters decide what the election results are and why. Not you. Of course. And voter opinions can be swayed by immense money advantages. Allowing just a few individuals to provide that money makes those few individuals more influential than millions of people. Not good for democracy. > [@](#): > > So? This isn’t about those. Because I have proven, beyond any doubt, that for _compelling reasons_ the government may limit speech. So even if you believe that political donations equal speech, it is still possible under our laws to limit it. Very wealthy people being able to put a toe on the scale and flip things to their side by unlimited spending isn’t good for democracy. It’s dangerous, because it means that the richest people will decide policy. Even more than they do now. > [@](#): > > Keep trying. I’m making my case. I can’t force you to understand. > [@](#): > > I’m going to say this yet again. I’ve said it many times, but it doesn’t seem to sink in. Pay attention. > > OF COURSE I know speech can currently be limited for good reason. > > YOUR reasons aren’t even close to being good enough. > > Got it now? Turning the US into a plutocracy run by monied interests plenty important. When corporations got to do what they wanted we had children in mines and you could set Lake Erie on fire. > [@](#): > > Not liking election results is absolutely most unacceptable reason for limiting speech. If the voters want a plutocracy, it’s their choice. Ah, so we get to the nut. You don’t \*care \*if the country destroys itself. Again, sedition is about overthrowing the country. It is limited. Turning the country into a corporate hellhole is equally dire. And should be limited as well. ---
**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 4, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/252 "2012-07-04T16:39:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So if they were NOT coordinating, is it not legalized bribery? Yes or no? No. > [@](#): > > Simple question. Is there a right to spend money on speech, as long as you don’t coordinate it with a candidate? Yes or no? yes, but it is reasonable to limit the amount spent. > [@](#): > > Why is $250 a magic number? What if 1,000 people in a local club all gave $250? That’s $250,000. They might expect something for their club in return. What about that situation? $250 is a drop in a the bucket, sir. They can expect what they like, or hope for what they like. If you are talking about them aggregating their contributions in some way, I would oppose that too. One thousand $250 donations are drops in the bucket. A $250,000 donation is a bribe. > [@](#): > > Answer the question first. It’s a simple question. Can speech alone be bribery? Why would you not want to answer that? Sure, speech can be bribery. Such as, “Put this little rider in the next bill you can that gives my company a break on tariffs for these chemicals, and I’ll give you a half a million dollars in campaign donations through CorruptPAC.” Now, you asked a lot of questions, it’s time you answered a few, if you can manage it. Do you honestly believe that a wealthy person/corporation who writes a check does not expect some fairly specific actions on the part of the Congressman in return? Do you think it is beyond his means to clandestinely communicate what he wants? Do you think the SuperPACs are telling the truth when they say they “do not cooordinate?” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/253 "2012-07-04T17:05:47Z")
Sure, they could easily be telling the truth. GeeDubya did not endorse the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry, why should he? ---
**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 4, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/254 "2012-07-04T17:34:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course. And voter opinions can be swayed by immense money advantages. Allowing just a few individuals to provide that money makes those few individuals more influential than millions of people. > > Not good for democracy. The VOTERS decide. That IS democracy. You don’t seem to get that. > [@](#): > > Because I have proven, beyond any doubt, that for _compelling reasons_ the government may limit speech. So even if you believe that political donations equal speech, it is still possible under our laws to limit it. No, you haven’t even come close to proving that. > [@](#): > > Very wealthy people being able to put a toe on the scale and flip things to their side by unlimited spending isn’t good for democracy. It’s dangerous, because it means that the richest people will decide policy. Even more than they do now. No, the VOTERS are deciding. You don’t seem to get that. When someone wins an election, it means the VOTERS decided. > [@](#): > > Turning the US into a plutocracy run by monied interests plenty important. When corporations got to do what they wanted we had children in mines and you could set Lake Erie on fire. And the voters put a stop to that. > [@](#): > > Ah, so we get to the nut. You don’t \*care \*if the country destroys itself. No, I care very much. I just don’t believe we need to destroy our democracy to restore it. > [@](#): > > Again, sedition is about overthrowing the country. It is limited. Turning the country into a corporate hellhole is equally dire. And should be limited as well. So why don’t you just propose not having elections any more, since you think the voters are making such stupid decisions? ---
**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 4, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/255 "2012-07-04T17:39:37Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No. So why are you talking about coordination when you believe its bribery even without it? > [@](#): > > yes, but it is reasonable to limit the amount spent. No, it’s not. Just as you cannot limit how much speech someone expresses, you can’t limit how much they express by limiting how much money they spend. You can’t use word limits, time limits, space limits, etc. nor spending limits. No limits on speech. > [@](#): > > $250 is a drop in a the bucket, sir. They can expect what they like, or hope for what they like. If you are talking about them aggregating their contributions in some way, I would oppose that too. One thousand $250 donations are drops in the bucket. A $250,000 donation is a bribe. No, I’m saying what if 1,000 club members each send their own $250, in separate envelopes, and each ask for something for their club? No aggregation. What about that? > [@](#): > > Sure, speech can be bribery. Such as, “Put this little rider in the next bill you can that gives my company a break on tariffs for these chemicals, and I’ll give you a half a million dollars in campaign donations through CorruptPAC.” But you said money isn’t speech! Can SPEECH alone be bribery, as in “you do this for me, and I’ll say nice things about you.” Yes or no? > [@](#): > > Now, you asked a lot of questions, it’s time you answered a few, if you can manage it. Do you honestly believe that a wealthy person/corporation who writes a check does not expect some fairly specific actions on the part of the Congressman in return? Sometimes they want something specific, yes. Sometimes they just want the guy to win and do whatever he says he’ll do and that’s enough. > [@](#): > > Do you think it is beyond his means to clandestinely communicate what he wants? Do you think the SuperPACs are telling the truth when they say they “do not cooordinate?” You just said coordination doesn’t matter above. ---
**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 4, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/256 "2012-07-04T17:41:44Z")
It’s July 4. I am celebrating our freedom from tyrants and those who think they are smarter than the rest of the people and think this justifies manipulating democracy and speech to “fix” the outcome of elections. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/257 "2012-07-04T18:34:12Z")
We don’t think we are smarter than all the rest of the people, we’re just pretty sure we’re smarter than you. ---
**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 4, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/258 "2012-07-04T19:00:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The VOTERS decide. That IS democracy. You don’t seem to get that. And swaying the VOTERS with unlimited money is a bad thing. > [@](#): > > No, you haven’t even come close to proving that. I have proven it utterly and without reservation. Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves sedition is limited. Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves yelling fire in a theater is limited. Fact: The government says that your speech, if it is claiming something you product cannot do is limited. These are facts, and no amount of hysterical denials on your part can change them. > [@](#): > > No, the VOTERS are deciding. You don’t seem to get that. When someone wins an election, it means the VOTERS decided. Yes. And manipulating the voters with unlimited money is a bad thing. > [@](#): > > And the voters put a stop to that. And we’ll have it again, if unlimited political money allows monied interests to get the electoral results that promote their profitability over public good. > [@](#): > > No, I care very much. I just don’t believe we need to destroy our democracy to restore it. You have not rationally demonstrated that limiting the amount of money in political campaigns destroys our democracy. In fact, the very argument is utterly stupid, because there are already limits on our speech and it did not destroy our democracy. In fact, the argument is doubly stupid, because until Citizens United helped create Super PACS, there were limits and it did not destroy our democracy. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and are emotionally over-reacting because you perceive some weird assault that isn’t there. > [@](#): > > So why don’t you just propose not having elections any more, since you think the voters are making such stupid decisions? Because I love democracy. You are the one advocating its death. ---
**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 4, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/259 "2012-07-04T19:05:45Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So why are you talking about coordination when you believe its bribery even without it? > > No, it’s not. Just as you cannot limit how much speech someone expresses, you can’t limit how much they express by limiting how much money they spend. You can’t use word limits, time limits, space limits, etc. nor spending limits. No limits on speech. > > No, I’m saying what if 1,000 club members each send their own $250, in separate envelopes, and each ask for something for their club? No aggregation. What about that? > > But you said money isn’t speech! > > Can SPEECH alone be bribery, as in “you do this for me, and I’ll say nice things about you.” Yes or no? > > Sometimes they want something specific, yes. Sometimes they just want the guy to win and do whatever he says he’ll do and that’s enough. > > You just said coordination doesn’t matter above. As I thought, you somehow neglected to answer my questions, after I answered all of yours. I cannot say I am surprised. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/260 "2012-07-04T19:26:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > … I cannot say I am surprised. Sure you can! And if you say it loud enough, often enough, with enough talking heads nodding in solemn agreement, people will believe you. The gostak distims the doshes! Damn right they do! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=14)