# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/121 "2012-06-21T15:18:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes it is, by definition. > > We have a free speech clause of our Constitution. You don’t. You are less free. Actually, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is pretty specific on the matter of freedom of expression, and even commercial expression. That we have some regulations regarding election-spending hasn’t (yet) put us on the path to tyranny. I figure the Americans are providing us with a valuable test case. I’d like to see what effectively-unlimited campaign spending does to them over the next 20 years. I expect not too much will be gained or lost, as much of the funding will simply cancel out other funding. By the way, Canadians also have gay marriage and no abortion laws, which by themselves are giant bellwethers of freedom. True North, strong and free, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/122 "2012-06-21T15:19:55Z")
> [@JohnGalt](#): > > I’ve heard that television networks and stations are actually against all of the political advertising, because it has to be offered at the lowest rates they charge. You mean they’re not _free_ to charge fair-market prices? That’s commie-talk! When did the RED destroy the white and blue?!?! ---
**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 21, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/123 "2012-06-21T15:32:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Actually, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is pretty specific on the matter of freedom of expression, and even commercial expression. So you are less free. > [@](#): > > That we have some regulations regarding election-spending hasn’t (yet) put us on the path to tyranny. I didn’t say it would. I just looked up the charter - I’m not actually sure how the free speech clause differs much from ours though. > [@](#): > > I figure the Americans are providing us with a valuable test case. I’d like to see what effectively-unlimited campaign spending does to them over the next 20 years. I expect not too much will be gained or lost, as much of the funding will simply cancel out other funding. I agree with that. All this fuss will die down soon. > [@](#): > > By the way, Canadians also have gay marriage and no abortion laws, which by themselves are giant bellwethers of freedom. True North, strong and free, and all that. Yes, you have more freedom in some ways. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/124 "2012-06-21T15:33:27Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you referring to George Soros? In the previous presidential election cycle Soros was a large donor, but was limited in what he could spend. Now what has happened, is that anyone with money can spend unlimited amounts. If you want to consider this intelligently, imagine for a moment what factors will motivate the typical billionaire to spend. Obviously, the electoral side that wants to slash taxes and repeal regulations is going to be more attractive to the average billionaire. If you have a widget factory and it has to spend money to process its wastes, you will be more profitable if you don’t have to do that. So which side are you going to donate to? Also, what most here aren’t considering, is that without the environmental regulations, _you could set lake Erie on fire_. That’s the world you’re re-creating. One with stinking air, sky-high corporate profits and control by the very wealthy. There are limits to free speech. Crowded theater, sedition and so on. Turning over the political process to the very rich is certainly as dangerous as sedition. So no, Soros isn’t an intelligent counter-point. He’s one, against legion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/125 "2012-06-21T15:39:22Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes, you have more freedom in some ways. So _you’re_ less free. Take _that!_ ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/126 "2012-06-21T15:42:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So _you’re_ less free. Take _that!_ America also has the most people in prison. Which I suppose means we’re less free… literally. ---
**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 21, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/127 "2012-06-21T15:52:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > In the previous presidential election cycle Soros was a large donor, but was limited in what he could spend. Huh? He was limited in what he could donate (to a candidate). He could spend as much as he wanted. > [@](#): > > Now what has happened, is that anyone with money can spend unlimited amounts. If you want to consider this intelligently, imagine for a moment what factors will motivate the typical billionaire to spend. It doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > Obviously, the electoral side that wants to slash taxes and repeal regulations is going to be more attractive to the average billionaire. If you have a widget factory and it has to spend money to process its wastes, you will be more profitable if you don’t have to do that. So which side are you going to donate to? This isn’t about donations. > [@](#): > > Also, what most here aren’t considering, is that without the environmental regulations, _you could set lake Erie on fire_. That’s the world you’re re-creating. One with stinking air, sky-high corporate profits and control by the very wealthy. Not if the VOTERS don’t go along with the plan. > [@](#): > > There are limits to free speech. Crowded theater, sedition and so on. A few narrow limits don’t justify huge ones. > [@](#): > > Turning over the political process to the very rich is certainly as dangerous as sedition. Your inflammatory language ignored, I’ll remind you, again, that the voters decide elections, not money. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/128 "2012-06-21T16:11:00Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Huh? > > He was limited in what he could donate (to a candidate). He could spend as much as he wanted. Not in the days leading up to the election. That was the point of Citizens United, they wanted to promote their film. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter. No, _you think_ it doesn’t matter. You certainly haven’t demonstrated that with an intelligent argument. > [@](#): > > This isn’t about donations. You certainly know what I meant. It isn’t an according-to-Hoyle donation, but it is a contribution to some Super-PAC that is going to support said candidate. > [@](#): > > Not if the VOTERS don’t go along with the plan. Which is dependant on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn’t work. You are engaging in magical thinking, that American people won’t be swayed by endless and overwhelming advertising by monied interests because… _magic!_ > [@](#): > > A few narrow limits don’t justify huge ones. You aren’t being honest if you think limiting spending on political campaigns is a “huge limit”. No one is saying you can’t advocate for your side. They are saying that everyone should have limits into what they can buy. > [@](#): > > Your inflammatory language ignored, I’ll remind you, again, that the voters decide elections, not money. I’ll remind you that when you outspend someone ten to one or more, you’re going to sway some voters. It won’t be enough to change every election, but even if it sways a handful it can tip the balance of power, to the monied interests. Rich people getting super-votes is un-American and downright vile. ---
**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 21, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/129 "2012-06-21T16:31:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Not in the days leading up to the election. That was the point of Citizens United, they wanted to promote their film. Yes, that’s true. > [@](#): > > You certainly know what I meant. It isn’t an according-to-Hoyle donation, but it is a contribution to some Super-PAC that is going to support said candidate. Which is a VERY different thing. It’s essential to be precise in this discussion when it comes to that. > [@](#): > > Which is dependant on the nonsense notion that advertising doesn’t work. False. Of course it works, I’ve said so already. > [@](#): > > You are engaging in magical thinking, that American people won’t be swayed by endless and overwhelming advertising by monied interests because… _magic!_ No, I’m saying that it’s none of your damn business if they are swayed. They can vote for whatever reason they want. You are engaged in arrogant thinking when you complain that the outcome of elections is somehow wrong because people chose to believe speech you don’t like. > [@](#): > > You aren’t being honest if you think limiting spending on political campaigns is a “huge limit”. Uh, no, it is. It’s a wholesale denial of political speech to an entire class, based on nothing but its source. It boils down to “let’s limit that speech because we don’t like who is speaking or how much speech they are engaging in.” That is simply not an allowable exception. > [@](#): > > No one is saying you can’t advocate for your side. They are saying that everyone should have limits into what they can buy. And that’s not allowable. This was established 30 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo. It’s the same reason you can’t have spending limits for campaigns. > [@](#): > > I’ll remind you that when you outspend someone ten to one or more, you’re going to sway some voters. It won’t be enough to change every election, but even if it sways a handful it can tip the balance of power, to the monied interests. And that’s the responsibility of the voters. > [@](#): > > Rich people getting super-votes is un-American and downright vile. There is no such thing as a super-vote. You made that up. There is only votes. The voters are in complete control of elections. You may not manipulate what they see or hear simply because you don’t like how they vote. That’s exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/130 "2012-06-21T16:40:50Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You may not manipulate what they see or hear simply because you don’t like how they vote. That’s exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. Obviously, we aren’t going to get anywhere because you’ve decided you’re undeniably right and nothing in the universe could convince you otherwise. But what I’d note is what you’re accusing me of in the quoted portion, is exactly what the very wealthy will be doing this election. In any case, speech is limited all the time. And unlimited spending for the very rich is a threat to democracy itself. You don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It means your ideological blinders are occulting it from your view. ---
**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 21, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/131 "2012-06-21T16:46:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Obviously, we aren’t going to get anywhere because you’ve decided you’re undeniably right and nothing in the universe could convince you otherwise. So have you. > [@](#): > > But what I’d note is what you’re accusing me of in the quoted portion, is exactly what the very wealthy will be doing this election. Um, what? How friggin’ arrogant can you get? How dare you accuse all the voters of being idiots who are easily brainwashed? YOU are the one with no respect for democracy. Not me. > [@](#): > > In any case, speech is limited all the time. No it’s not. It’s only limited in a few cases with very good reason, usually because the speech part is ancillary. Speech is never limited based on your proposed reasons, which are “I don’t like who is speaking and I don’t like how much they are speaking.” Those are completely unacceptable. > [@](#): > > And unlimited spending for the very rich is a threat to democracy itself. Speech is never a threat to democracy. That’s downright Orwellian. Only dictators say such things. > [@](#): > > You don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It means your ideological blinders are occulting it from your view. What ideological blinders are those? What do you think my ideology is? Oops, you should have checked first, now that lame attempt is also going to backfire. By the way, the ACLU agrees with me. You don’t have to agree with the ACLU, but the fact that they do should at least make you stop and think harder about this. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/132 "2012-06-21T16:58:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So have you. Well, I have the advantage of basing my decisions on reason and sound arguments. > [@](#): > > Um, what? > > How friggin’ arrogant can you get? > > How dare you accuse all the voters of being idiots who are easily brainwashed? > > YOU are the one with no respect for democracy. Not me. I love democracy. You think it should go to the highest bidder. Or conversely, you think that it is impossible to sway a voter with lies and overwhelming misinformation campaigns allowed by unlimited spending. Either way, nonsense is what you’re peddling. > [@](#): > > No it’s not. It’s only limited in a few cases with very good reason, usually because the speech part is ancillary. Speech is never limited based on your proposed reasons, which are “I don’t like who is speaking and I don’t like how much they are speaking.” Those are completely unacceptable. The reason, which you’d understand if you were listening in good faith, is that unlimited spending allows the very rich to alter the outcome of some elections. Effectively giving the very-rich much more of a say in how policy is written. Subverting the core of democracy is a _very good reason_ to limit this “speech”. I just invented a box. If I push the button it sways an election by one percentage point in the direction I choose. I’ll push the button for you if you pay me 100 million dollars. Is the box legal according to you? Is my use of it free speech? This is what you’re fighting so hard to advocate for. It’s servile. > [@](#): > > Speech is never a threat to democracy. That’s downright Orwellian. Only dictators say such things. Then why is sedition outlawed? Oh shit, I just _blew your mind_, didn’t I? > [@](#): > > What ideological blinders are those? What do you think my ideology is? Oops, you should have checked first, now that lame attempt is also going to backfire. I assume you are the sort of person who thinks that money is pristine and beautiful. And those what possess it can do no wrong. > [@](#): > > By the way, the ACLU agrees with me. You don’t have to agree with the ACLU, but the fact that they do should at least make you stop and think harder about this. Unreasoning devotion to principle over reality is a trap that many fall into. ---
**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 21, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/133 "2012-06-21T17:14:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well, I have the advantage of basing my decisions on reason and sound arguments. So do I. > [@](#): > > I love democracy. You think it should go to the highest bidder. Or conversely, you think that it is impossible to sway a voter with lies and overwhelming misinformation campaigns allowed by unlimited spending. Either way, nonsense is what you’re peddling. No, you have no respect for voters’ intelligence whatsoever. That is clear. You think the government needs to protect them from “lies and overwhelming misinformation campaigns.” You realize that this could justify absolutely any censorship you want it too, right? > [@](#): > > The reason, which you’d understand if you were listening in good faith, is that unlimited spending allows the very rich to alter the outcome of some elections. Bullshit. The voters decide elections. > [@](#): > > Subverting the core of democracy is a _very good reason_ to limit this “speech”. You are exactly the kind of person the First Amendment was written to protect us from. > [@](#): > > I just invented a box. If I push the button it sways an election by one percentage point in the direction I choose. But there is no such box. Voters do not do whatever you tell them to by pressing buttons. See how arrogant you are? See how little respect you have for the voters? > [@](#): > > Then why is sedition outlawed? Oh shit, I just _blew your mind_, didn’t I? Well, no, you didn’t, mainly because “sedition is outlawed” isn’t really true. But this could lead to a whole new conversation. If you want that, let me know. We should probably start a new thread. > [@](#): > > I assume you are the sort of person who thinks that money is pristine and beautiful. And those what possess it can do no wrong. Nope. That’s silly. > [@](#): > > Unreasoning devotion to principle over reality is a trap that many fall into. You’re talking like a dictator again. My principle is the Bill of Rights, and my application of it to this case is very well-reasoned. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/134 "2012-06-21T17:23:45Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So do I. > > No, you have no respect for voters’ intelligence whatsoever. That is clear. > > You think the government needs to protect them from “lies and overwhelming misinformation campaigns.” You realize that this could justify absolutely any censorship you want it too, right? > > Bullshit. > > The voters decide elections. > > You are exactly the kind of person the First Amendment was written to protect us from. > > But there is no such box. Voters do not do whatever you tell them to by pressing buttons. See how arrogant you are? See how little respect you have for the voters? > > Well, no, you didn’t, mainly because “sedition is outlawed” isn’t really true. But this could lead to a whole new conversation. If you want that, let me know. We should probably start a new thread. > > Nope. That’s silly. > > You’re talking like a dictator again. > > My principle is the Bill of Rights, and my application of it to this case is very well-reasoned. As I said before, we won’t come to an agreement, because you think: [ul] [li]Voters cannot be swayed by advertising.[/li][li]Speech cannot be limited, ever (even though \*sedition \*and _fire-in-a-theater_ limit speech).[/li][li]Limiting spending (which would apply to everyone) is onerous. [/li][li]That accepting that people are swayed in their opinion by advertising means you think people are stupid. I don’t, I just understand advertising works.[/li][/ul] In any case, I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery as to whether you’re completely full of shit, I’ve already demolished your arguments, so you repeating them is only moving us in circles. ---
**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 21, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/135 "2012-06-21T17:33:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > As I said before, we won’t come to an agreement, because you think: You can’t come to an agreement when you’re speaking for me, can we? > [@](#): > > \*Voters cannot be swayed by advertising. Lie. I’ve repeatedly said the opposite. > [@](#): > > \*Speech cannot be limited, ever (even though \*sedition \*and _fire-in-a-theater_ limit speech). Another lie. Speech can be limited, and I’ve said so. That doesn’t mean you can limit it any way you want. > [@](#): > > \*Limiting spending (which would apply to everyone) is onerous. Onerous? That’s it? > [@](#): > > \*That accepting that people are swayed in their opinion by advertising means you think people are stupid. I don’t, I just understand advertising works. It’s when you’ve basically said that people are stupid that indicates you think people are stupid. Now you know what it’s like to encounter someone who you can’t just brush off. Better luck next time. > [@](#): > > In any case, I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery as to whether you’re completely full of shit, I’ve already demolished your arguments, so you repeating them is only moving us in circles. Those aren’t the only options. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/136 "2012-06-21T17:53:02Z")
Propaganda works best on an emotional level. This is not to say that people are stupid, but that people are not adding machines. Say that Tweedledum is running against Tweedledumber. You live in a perfectly split area, half of the people around you are of a political persuasion that favors Tweedledums party, the other half opposite. Tweedledum can afford lawn signs given away free to every supporter, Tweedledumber can not, so in your evenly divided neighborhood, if you drove through, you would have the false impression that your neighborhood overwhelmingly supported Tweedledum. You could not help having that impression. Now, perhaps you are a perfectly rational meat machine, you are utterly unaffected by any suggestion that you are out of step with the people around you. In that case, you are an extremely rare person. Because most of us do respond to such input, on a level that our pure rationality does not affect. Doesn’t mean you are stupid. Means you are human. Mark Twain nailed it more than a hundred years ago, in his essay on “Cornpone Opinons” available here because it is concise, humorous, relevant, and I fucking love Mark Twain… [http://paulgraham.com/cornpone.html](http://paulgraham.com/cornpone.html) ---
**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 21, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/137 "2012-06-21T18:20:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Propaganda works best on an emotional level. This is not to say that people are stupid, but that people are not adding machines. Does it work on you? Do you want the government to protect you from it by banning some speech that it thinks you would respond to in a way that would make you vote the way the government doesn’t think you should? > [@](#): > > Say that Tweedledum is running against Tweedledumber. You live in a perfectly split area, half of the people around you are of a political persuasion that favors Tweedledums party, the other half opposite. Tweedledum can afford lawn signs given away free to every supporter, Tweedledumber can not, so in your evenly divided neighborhood, if you drove through, you would have the false impression that your neighborhood overwhelmingly supported Tweedledum. You could not help having that impression. Obviously. Though, of course, I’m smart enough to know that some candidates have more money than others and can afford more signs, and so are most people. But let’s continue… > [@](#): > > Now, perhaps you are a perfectly rational meat machine, you are utterly unaffected by any suggestion that you are out of step with the people around you. In that case, you are an extremely rare person. Because most of us do respond to such input, on a level that our pure rationality does not affect. Yes. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t mean you are stupid. Means you are human. Ah, so the government needs to violate freedom of speech to protect me from my irrational impulses because I’m human. So much better! I don’t feel insulted by this arrogant bullshit at all! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/138 "2012-06-21T18:22:38Z")
Heavens no! Its to protect the pristine purity of your reason from my emotional reactions! ---
**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 21, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/139 "2012-06-21T18:29:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Heavens no! Its to protect the pristine purity of your reason from my emotional reactions! You didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: Do you want the government to protect you from it by banning some speech that it thinks you would respond to in a way that would make you vote the way the government doesn’t think you should? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/140 "2012-06-21T18:33:15Z")
I’m sorry, but reading that sentence gives me a headache. No doubt, when it left your keyboard, it was succinct, pithy, and utterly destroyed my argument. But the hamsters fucked it up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=8)