# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/161 "2012-06-24T22:33:04Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Nope. It’s an inescapable premise of your argument. Write where I wrote that I think the people susceptible to political advertising are idiots or retract this statement. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The people are 100% in charge of elections. If they choose plutocracy, that’s still their choice. They didn’t, as I said. They chose representatives that chose to pass legislation limiting the sway of money on elections. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Oh, and the people may not vote away constitutional rights. The constitution can be amended. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You may not regulate the content or the “volume.” Content may not be regulated except in specific scenarios (fighting words). [Volume can clearly be regulated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation#United_States_initial_legislation). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The idea that we must somehow limit speech to protect free speech is downright Orwellian. Which isn’t what he said. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > So let’s use this board as a microcosm for the real world. Yes, let’s. I’d consider it highly irregular if posting privileges were distributed based on income, with those earning under a certain amount per annum being restricted to two posts of five hundred characters or fewer a day. 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. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/162 "2012-06-24T23:01:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > TV advertising time **is,** that’s why it costs so much. Well, not quite, but you bring up my favorite solution to this problem - give out free or really cheap TV time to candidates. The public owns the airwaves and they should serve the public interest. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/163 "2012-06-24T23:02:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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? But you’re not smarter than the masses - you are the masses and you’ve already been brainwashed. Those other guys are the real smarter-than-the-masses guys. You’re not smart enough to know that you’re not smart. It’s all very simple. ---
**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, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/164 "2012-06-24T23:08:52Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Write where I wrote that I think the people susceptible to political advertising are idiots or retract this statement. No. Your entire opinion is based on this idea. > [@](#): > > They didn’t, as I said. They chose representatives that chose to pass legislation limiting the sway of money on elections. And they can’t do that. It’s unconstitutional. Even if it’s pathetically absurd to even say that. > [@](#): > > The constitution can be amended. Good luck with that. Until then, you have to follow it. We’ve never felt the need to take away a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and most people would be profoundly skeptical of any proposal to do so, as they should be. > [@](#): > > Content may not be regulated except in specific scenarios (fighting words). [Volume can clearly be regulated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation#United_States_initial_legislation). This isn’t about fighting words or volume. > [@](#): > > Which isn’t what he said. It’s his premise, and yours. It’s inescapable. > [@](#): > > Yes, let’s. I’d consider it highly irregular if posting privileges were distributed based on income, with those earning under a certain amount per annum being restricted to two posts of five hundred characters or fewer a day. 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. Okay, let’s try your analogy - should all ads be banned? Not just corporate ads - all ads? It’s speech access based on wealth after all. Straight answer please. Should all spending on speech be banned, or at least rationed? Everyone gets $100 to spend on speech, to pay for Internet access, pen and paper, signs, megaphones, ads, whatever? Another straight answer please. Both ideas are the logical conclusions of your insistence that speech must be equalized, not just free. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/165 "2012-06-25T00:27:57Z")
What would be the point of free speech that is in no way equalized? Its about having viewpoints heard, ideas shared, debated, considered. Your notion of mathematically precise equality is absurd, as you well know, but who says that because perfection is impossible improvement should be abandoned? We are making it up as we go along, we are an experiment in progress. All those “rights” we claim, unalienable, a gift from the Creator who didn’t bother to write them down for us…we made them up, we simply said that we hold the truths to be self-evident, and that’s that. You are surely within your rights to insist that free speech is some invincible ideal, never tarnished, never compromised, and the only thing wrong with that is that it just ain’t so. Doctrines of free speech have been twisted ever which way, even twisted to forbid unpopular speech. Doesn’t make sense that we are forbidden to twist it in favor of political equality in deference to a pristine purity it never had in the first place. As Lincoln said “Let a thousand schools of thought contend, let a hundred flowers bloom!”. Maybe not Lincoln. Maybe it was Marshall. ---
**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 25, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/166 "2012-06-25T13:41:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What would be the point of free speech that is in no way equalized? Its about having viewpoints heard, ideas shared, debated, considered. Hey, great. But there is absolutely no legal basis for rationing speech by the government. In any event, the idea that political ads are the only form of speech in election campaigns is silly. They are but a small portion. In between each ad is usually hours and hours of news coverage and opinion, for instance. And that’s just TV. > [@](#): > > Your notion of mathematically precise equality is absurd, as you well know, but who says that because perfection is impossible improvement should be abandoned? I know. That’s my point - it’s YOUR notion. You cannot pick a certain source of speech and arbitrarily declare that they have “too much” speech and ban it altogether and then claim you’ve “improved” things. Not legally and not logically. If you want to be fair to all, you have to ration speech, with mathematical precision. You can’t just pick on a few people, and ignore inequities among the rest. That’s not any more “fair.” > [@](#): > > We are making it up as we go along, we are an experiment in progress. All those “rights” we claim, unalienable, a gift from the Creator who didn’t bother to write them down for us…we made them up, we simply said that we hold the truths to be self-evident, and that’s that. So amend the Constitution. Good luck convincing people that the Bill of Rights goes too far. > [@](#): > > You are surely within your rights to insist that free speech is some invincible ideal, never tarnished, never compromised, and the only thing wrong with that is that it just ain’t so. I have not claimed that, but I do claim that your proposed exceptions to free speech, and your justifications for it, go far beyond anything ever accepted in our system, and are logically absurd. > [@](#): > > Doctrines of free speech have been twisted ever which way, even twisted to forbid unpopular speech. Doesn’t make sense that we are forbidden to twist it in favor of political equality in deference to a pristine purity it never had in the first place. Your saying that because we made mistakes in the past, we should repeat them? Furthermore, you just don’t get it, do you? Those who twisted (good term) free speech doctrine to ban unpopular speech simply because it was unpopular JUSTIFIED their actions by claiming they were in favor of things like “political equity” instead! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/167 "2012-06-25T15:34:24Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Good luck convincing people that the Bill of Rights goes too far. I don’t think it’d be too hard convincing people that money has an undue influence in US politics and that the first amendment wasn’t designed to protect the right of corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money to attempt to sway voters before elections. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > This isn’t about fighting words or volume. I am not attempting to equivocate, but it quite clearly is about volume in the sense of proportion. The side with money has a disproportionate influence. You’ve recognised that yourself: > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The public owns the airwaves and they should serve the public interest. How is apportioning free air time anything other than “rationing”? As it stands, that’s the form of political advertising I support: where airtime is not based on wealth, or even prior popularity. I fundamentally disagree with the position of the BNP, but I’d far prefer to have to endure one pathetic ad from them than be overwhelmed by a deluge of internecine and trite spats between Labour and the Conservatives. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > It’s his premise, and yours. It’s inescapable. If you’re going to misrepresent our positions, do so consistently at least. He wrote: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. The intention isn’t to preserve speech, it’s to preserve equality and democracy. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/168 "2012-06-25T15:40:04Z")
Forgot to mention: > [@lance strongarm](#): > > There are better, constitutional ways to deal with it. Propose one. ---
**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 25, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/169 "2012-06-25T17:29:03Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I don’t think it’d be too hard convincing people that money has an undue influence in US politics and that the first amendment wasn’t designed to protect the right of corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money to attempt to sway voters before elections. Yes, it would be hard, when people like me use my free speech to speak against it. The people are very wary of any rolling back of the bill of rights, as they should be. It has never happened. > [@](#): > > I am not attempting to equivocate, but it quite clearly is about volume in the sense of proportion. The side with money has a disproportionate influence. You’ve recognised that yourself: Yes. And that’s life. You can’t ever equalize influence. It comes with the help of money sometimes, or not. What if a famous celebrity endorses a candidate? That’s disprortionate influence. You gonna ban that too? Are you going to put a limit on candidate’s speech or spending? There are many ways that one side can have more influence. That’s the choice of the voters, to be influenced. It is all in the hands of the voters. > [@](#): > > How is apportioning free air time anything other than “rationing”? Because it wouldn’t involve any limits on speech whatsoever. It would just be a form of partial public financing of campaigns. Anyone could still buy ads or do any other kind of speech they want. > [@](#): > > As it stands, that’s the form of political advertising I support: where airtime is not based on wealth, or even prior popularity. I fundamentally disagree with the position of the BNP, but I’d far prefer to have to endure one pathetic ad from them than be overwhelmed by a deluge of internecine and trite spats between Labour and the Conservatives. Tough. > [@](#): > > If you’re going to misrepresent our positions, do so consistently at least. > > He wrote: > > 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. The real world is not an auditorium. The speakers aren’t being invited to speak. Every speaker may speak, as much as they want. > [@](#): > > The intention isn’t to preserve speech, it’s to preserve equality and democracy. Democracy doesn’t need your help. Banning speech is not how you protect speech. ---
**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 25, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/170 "2012-06-25T17:32:07Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Forgot to mention: > > Propose one. I already mentioned free air time for candidates, which is basically a public subsidy for campaigns (that costs the broadcasters instead of the taxpayers). We need to increase the ease of voter participation - elections on Saturday and vote by mail would help alot. Ultimately we need this: [Proportional representation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) to stop wasting votes. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/171 "2012-06-25T23:53:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > …The people are very wary of any rolling back of the bill of rights, as they should be. It has never happened… You simply have got to be kidding. ---
**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 26, 2012, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/172 "2012-06-26T00:02:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You simply have got to be kidding. Got something to say? Say it. That’s a good policy in general. No beating around the bush. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/173 "2012-06-26T15:39:47Z")
It’s the “it never happened” part. My choices are you’re kidding, or you don’t know. I took the more generous of the two. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/174 "2012-06-27T02:47:28Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > The people are very wary of any rolling back of the bill of rights, as they should be. It has never happened. While the bill of rights hasn’t been amended, there have been clarifications about the extend of the provisions and the parties they are applicable to. Another, simpler method would be to clarify the 14th amendment as applying only to slaves. ETA: Not the only way such a ruling could be accomplished. Another bill could outlaw hearings on the Constitutionality of limitations on disbursements for electioneering communications. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > You can’t ever equalize influence. One can mitigate the undue effect of money on politics though. Opposing such efforts is the prerogative of the oligarch, aristocrat or plutocrat. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Because it wouldn’t involve any limits on speech whatsoever. Yes, it would. Requiring the broadcaster to accept unpaid ads from one contributor deprives the other in relative terms. It also deprives every other company peddling its wares to the public of the time used. Would requiring every political ad be shown in omnibus form (Constitutional, Libertarian, Communist, Democratic, Republican, Green, etc.) be a limitation on speech? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The real world is not an auditorium. The speakers aren’t being invited to speak. Every speaker may speak, as much as they want. Irrelevant to the fact that you misrepresented BrainGlutton’s point. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Democracy doesn’t need your help. Banning speech is not how you protect speech. An argument only made by your strawman. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/175 "2012-06-27T13:32:27Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > While the bill of rights hasn’t been amended, there have been clarifications about the extend of the provisions and the parties they are applicable to. Another, simpler method would be to clarify the 14th amendment as applying only to slaves. Yes, thanks for noting that rights have been EXPANDED even more. > [@](#): > > ETA: Not the only way such a ruling could be accomplished. Another bill could outlaw hearings on the Constitutionality of limitations on disbursements for electioneering communications. Please clarify that. Outlaw hearings? > [@](#): > > One can mitigate the undue effect of money on politics though. Not this way. > [@](#): > > Opposing such efforts is the prerogative of the oligarch, aristocrat or plutocrat. Don’t insult me with a circumstantial ad hominem. You’re better than that. And you don’t know me very well. The ACLU supports the Citizens United decision. Are they supporters of oligarchy too? > [@](#): > > Yes, it would. Requiring the broadcaster to accept unpaid ads from one contributor deprives the other in relative terms No it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > It also deprives every other company peddling its wares to the public of the time used. But that’s true now. If you want to oppose this for any reason, fine. I don’t care. Don’t do it then. You still can’t violate the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Irrelevant to the fact that you misrepresented BrainGlutton’s point. Nope. > [@](#): > > An argument only made by your strawman. Nope. ---
**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 27, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/176 "2012-06-27T13:33:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It’s the “it never happened” part. My choices are you’re kidding, or you don’t know. I took the more generous of the two. If you have an argument to make, make it. Don’t play games or lob insults from the sidelines. Not interested. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/177 "2012-06-27T15:45:21Z")
Hell, **Lance** , even my dog knows how often free speech has been infringed, for one reason or another! And he’s too drunk to hunt, half the time. Too lazy anyway. ---
**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 27, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/178 "2012-06-27T15:46:35Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Hell, **Lance** , even my dog knows how often free speech has been infringed, for one reason or another! And he’s too drunk to hunt, half the time. Too lazy anyway. Bye. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/179 "2012-06-27T16:34:26Z")
Oh, dear! I have been dismissed! Whatever shall I do, wherever shall I go? Whoa is me! ---
**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 27, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/180 "2012-06-27T18:39:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, dear! I have been dismissed! Whatever shall I do, wherever shall I go? Whoa is me! Damn you! You make a dumb spelling error and force me to respond one last time to get a parting shot! It’s “woe” not “whoa.” Seriously, if you want to discuss something substantively, let me know. I’m not interested in watching you throw rocks at me from behind your mama’s skirt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=10)