# 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:** 8
**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, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/141 "2012-06-21T18:44:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. Nice dodge. Got an answer? If you can’t handle answering it, that proves my point and we’re done. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/142 "2012-06-23T01:33:56Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Uh, no, I subscribe to the idea that I’m not a drooling idiot who is “manipulated.” Strawman. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > It’s not. Electioneering communications are not campaign contributions and penalising disbursements on electioneering communications is not censorship. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > it’s still not constitutional for the government to limit spending on speech. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Speech can be limited, and I’ve said so. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Nice dodge. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > After all, people who can be “manipulated” shouldn’t be running things anyway. Why do bribery laws exist in a representative democracy? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You have no right to claim that money, or ads, or speech is the wrong reason for voting for someone. As a citizen of the UK, I have the right to elect a representative that apportions time for party political broadcasts. Not to mention, the first amendment supposedly preserves the right to that claim, anyway. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Your respect for democracy is zero > [@lance strongarm](#): > > It’s essential to be precise in this discussion Lobohan respects democracy. In fact, he probably agrees with Dewey: > [@Dewey](#): > > As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. As it happens and as I’ve said before, liberty may not be synonymous with democracy. The case of unlimited expenditures on electioneering communications may be more in line with a plutocracy. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > They choose how to be influenced. In choosing representatives that passed the BCRA, they decided they didn’t want to be unduly influenced by electioneering communications. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Political speech may not be regulated Political speech is subject to [intermediate scrutiny](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Time.2C_place.2C_or_manner_restrictions) based on the precedent of Cox v. Louisiana. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You are less free. By which [metric](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices)? The only difference in freedom indicators given is by the Press Freedom Index, which puts Canada above the US. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > How dare you accuse all the voters of being idiots who are easily brainwashed? Strawman. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > I’m smart enough to know that some candidates have more money than others and can afford more signs Those convinced of their own i[ntelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Krueger_effect) are more susceptible to the effect of [cognitive biases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases). ---
**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 24, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/143 "2012-06-24T01:26:15Z")
Let’s get to the heart of things. > [@gamerunknown](#): > > Strawman. Nope. It’s an inescapable premise of your argument. > [@](#): > > The case of unlimited expenditures on electioneering communications may be more in line with a plutocracy. The people are 100% in charge of elections. If they choose plutocracy, that’s still their choice. > [@](#): > > In choosing representatives that passed the BCRA, they decided they didn’t want to be unduly influenced by electioneering communications. Oh…my…God. You actually wrote that? So the people voted to have the government protect them from their own inability to think critically about speech, and ignore what they don’t believe? They want the government to prevent them from hearing and seeing certain speech because they can’t just ignore it, or decide it’s wrong or false? They KNOW they are too dumb, or can’t control their impulses, and will vote for whomever ads tell them too? See why it’s inescapable? It’s hard to know how to explain how absurd this is. I feel strange even having to do it. Oh, and the people may not vote away constitutional rights. ---
**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 24, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/144 "2012-06-24T01:27:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Heavens no! Its to protect the pristine purity of your reason from my emotional reactions! You need to leave this thread because you might be influenced by the speech here. I’m doing this for your own good. :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:** [June 24, 2012, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/145 "2012-06-24T03:02:40Z")
What’s next? Will the voters choose representatives to decide that they don’t want to be influenced by certain media outlets–and MSNBC or Fox News are banned? The people don’t want to be influenced, after all! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/146 "2012-06-24T03:12:19Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So we should ration speech? Everyone gets a certain amount of speech and then they have to shut up? One minute each, will that work for you? :rolleyes: [Once again:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653227) > [@](#): > > The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.\* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/147 "2012-06-24T03:37:49Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nice dodge. > > Got an answer? > > If you can’t handle answering it, that proves my point and we’re done. Nope, totally not kidding. As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I cannot parse that sentence. It has something to do with government control, fairly sure of that. You’re against it. ---
**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 24, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/148 "2012-06-24T03:52:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes: [Once again:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653227) > [@](#): > > The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. Absolute hogwash. You may not regulate the content or the “volume.” > [@](#): > > It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.\* Now THAT’s a stupid analogy. Speech is not in limited supply. It cannot be rationed. The idea that we must somehow limit speech to protect free speech is downright Orwellian. > [@](#): > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. No. This is not a courtroom either. The rules are very clear - read the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. Let’s pretend this analogy is valid. The difference in the real world is that the jury has access to unlimited information outside the courtroom. It can read or watch whatever it wants, in the media, on the Internet, etc. It can seek whatever it wants to make a decision and isn’t restricted to what it hears in the courtroom. And, of course, people are perfectly capable of, you know, thinking about what they hear. And ignoring it. People ignore ads every day. They are not idiots who just vote for whomever blasts more ads in front of them. No. You can’t limit speech. Get used to it. ---
**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 24, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/149 "2012-06-24T03:55:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. Fine. One more chance. Do you want the government to ban speech to protect you from how you might act if you heard it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/150 "2012-06-24T04:11:45Z")
OH! Well, that’s very different! When you put it like that, it makes everything so much simpler. Which you seem eager to do, you lay down your chips as delicately as a manhole cover. “You can’t do this, get over it, get used to it, it is Written!” Well, no, no it isn’t. If you want to say there’s no problem, because propaganda doesn’t work, then history has your work cut out for you. Of course it works, it works especially well when there is no counter-propaganda, if there is no alternative case presented,or…if that alternative case is muffled. And the difference between drowning out and muffling is pretty much an abstraction, don’t you think? Is it a tricky proposition to balance free speech with such needful limitations? Sure it is, and it will require careful and vigilant attention. Somewhat risky, even. But giving the Forces of Darkness a ten to one advantage in propaganda to protect a pristine ideal of free speech? Not a risk I’m willing to take, but most likely will have to accept anyway. Golden Rule, the guys got the gold, makes the rules. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/151 "2012-06-24T07:48:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > In the previous presidential election cycle Soros was a large donor, but was limited in what he could spend. > > …So no, Soros isn’t an intelligent counter-point. He’s one, against legion. Soros has been creating dozens of groups that promote his ideology and he’s been doing it for a decades. The Soros political propoganda machine IS legion. If you want to limit the amount that any candidate can spend for their campaign, how would you limit the amount of time that media corporations like NBC/MSNBC or ABC spend interviewing candidates they support? Would the candidates with slightly more than the minimum voter support needed to enter candidate debates be given free airtime to overcome the obviously biased support for one party or candidate? ---
**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 24, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/152 "2012-06-24T14:06:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > OH! Well, that’s very different! When you put it like that, it makes everything so much simpler. Which you seem eager to do, you lay down your chips as delicately as a manhole cover. “You can’t do this, get over it, get used to it, it is Written!” Well, no, no it isn’t. Yes, it is. > [@](#): > > If you want to say there’s no problem, because propaganda doesn’t work, then history has your work cut out for you. Of course it works, it works especially well when there is no counter-propaganda, if there is no alternative case presented,or…if that alternative case is muffled. I have explained to you many times that this isn’t about whether propaganda works or not, it’s about whether the government may censor speech based on the notion that it must protect us from it. Which is the arrogant, “people are idiots” premise you subscribe to. > [@](#): > > And the difference between drowning out and muffling is pretty much an abstraction, don’t you think? No. Still no answer to my question. > [@](#): > > Is it a tricky proposition to balance free speech with such needful limitations? Sure it is, and it will require careful and vigilant attention. Somewhat risky, even. But giving the Forces of Darkness a ten to one advantage in propaganda to protect a pristine ideal of free speech? Not a risk I’m willing to take, but most likely will have to accept anyway. Golden Rule, the guys got the gold, makes the rules. You can’t answer the question. I consider my point to be made. ---
**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 24, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/153 "2012-06-24T14:43:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But giving the Forces of Darkness a ten to one advantage in propaganda to protect a pristine ideal of free speech? See, you don’t get to declare that one side is “the Forces of Darkness.” You realize that, right? Simply declaring that a certain source of speech is bad is the absolutely most fundamental violation of the First Amendment possible. You simply may not do it. As for advantages, the logical conclusion to your notion that we can censor some speech in order to balance it is speech rationing. If it’s unfair for anyone to have more speech, then everyone - you, me, everyone out there - must have exactly the same amount of speech, or else it’s unfair. So, what - everyone gets one minute? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/154 "2012-06-24T16:11:28Z")
> [@](#): > > See, you don’t get to declare that one side is “the Forces of Darkness.” You realize that, right? Of course he gets to declare that. Free speech, you know. It doesn’t mean anyone is going to heed him when he declares it, but he does get to do so. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/155 "2012-06-24T19:02:48Z")
It is difficult to answer an argument made up primarily of declarations of victory. There are no weak points to assault, it has no points, weak or otherwise. It is too many for me, I fold. ---
**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 24, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/156 "2012-06-24T21:00:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It is difficult to answer an argument made up primarily of declarations of victory. There are no weak points to assault, it has no points, weak or otherwise. By dodging my question - because you know you can’t answer it without completely admitting defeat - you leave me no choice but to declare victory. That’s your choice, not mine. You declare that the people need protection from influence, with the inescapable implication that they are incapable of handling it themselves. But somehow you escaped the brainwashing, because, why? You’re smarter than the masses of idiots? The arrogance behind this argument is insufferable. Leave the people alone. They don’t need your protection from speech. Thanks for not delaying the inevitable any more. ---
**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 24, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/157 "2012-06-24T21:01:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Of course he gets to declare that. Free speech, you know. It doesn’t mean anyone is going to heed him when he declares it, but he does get to do so. A minor quibble. ---
**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 24, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/158 "2012-06-24T21:03:29Z")
So let’s use this board as a microcosm for the real world. Who here feels they need some posters to be censored to protect him from being influenced? Who here isn’t capable of handling certain speech? Who thinks that OTHERs need this protection, but not them, because they are smarter than the rest of us? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/159 "2012-06-24T22:16:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Now THAT’s a stupid analogy. Speech is not in limited supply. TV advertising time **is,** that’s why it costs so much. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/160 "2012-06-24T22:30:14Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So let’s use this board as a microcosm for the real world. > > Who here feels they need some posters to be censored to protect him from being influenced? Who here isn’t capable of handling certain speech? Who thinks that OTHERs need this protection, but not them, because they are smarter than the rest of us? Wait a minute. What about those of us who think we are smarter than the masses, but still don’t think the masses need protection. What are we? Chopped liver? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=9)