In the vein of this.
After all those strawmen? I’ve seen the LiberalViewer videos and I’m not convinced. In fact, I unsubscribed on that basis. Speech should not be dependent on funding for that speech, at least not in forums which are already subject to federal regulation.
If one party can speak for less money than the other, it’s providing a microphone to one party and not the other.
Ah, I see. Court hearings.
Like banning money spent on speech, banning court hearings appealing violations of freedom of speech would also be unconstitutional in my view.
You are trying to sneak around the First Amendment. You can’t do that.
Like I said, don’t insult me and don’t appeal to a lame logical fallacy.
What are those? Haven’t heard of them.
I don’t understand this comment.
And?
The FCC already monitor broadcasts to a stricter degree than they monitor conversations held in private. As an analogy, no amount of expenditure will get one a campaign poster up in a national park.
They have less relative speech - even in a hypothetical scenario where there were unlimited ad spots.
In scenario A, pre-Citizens United, adverts have a set rate of 10000 dollars for the broadcaster, which could be subsidised entirely by public expenditure. Union X supports D, corporation Y supports R, but neither can spend any money in support of them and this is a limitation on their freedom of speech. Individual O spends $100k in support of D, individual R spends $100k in support of R. Each get 10 ads in support
Post-Citizens United (no apportionment), O and R spend the same amount, each get 10 ads. Union X spends $50k and gets 5 ads, Corporation Y spends $200k and gets 20 ads. So far, so good.
Post-Citizens United with subsidising, individual R spends his $100k, Corporation Y spends their $200k… but since D doesn’t attract as much money, they get 30 ads for $150k. It costs $5k for each electioneering communication for the Ds, meaning Rs pay twice as much for the same amount of speech - which seems to me to be an undue burden on the right of the Rs to successfully advocate (if both were subsidised regardless of income, Rs would be able to afford 60 ads).
Edit:
Which?
Another new justification! You just keep coming up with them.
There is no right to “relative speech” in the Constitution.
Just give it up already instead of making up new whacky doctrines left and right.
There’s no right not to have an “undue burden” either.
Well, of course there is, what do you think the “undue” part means?
Where in the Constitution does it say one has a right not to have an “undue burden” on paying for speech, or whatever that means?
Let’s pretend the government can regulate speech in order to make sure everyone has the same amount of speech.
That means you CANNOT ban corporate speech, only limit it to whatever everyone else has.
It also means that ANY time an inequality exists, it is unfair. It means you have to ration speech. Everyone gets exactly 2 minutes, or $100, or whatever. Otherwise someone has “less relative speech,” and you’ve declared that this is wrong.
And since some people have absolutely no money to spend on speech, the amount anyone is allowed to spend must be zero, since that’s the only way you can even it out.
So get to work.
No one is talking about banning speech. We’re talking about limiting the amount of advertising you can buy.
I’m surprised you think this is a profound gotcha question.
Oh, dear God. Please read this out loud, several times.
This was your position a week ago.
Would it be constitutional to require corporations to pay twice as much for electioneering communications than unions, or to tax corporate expenditure on electioneering communications at twice the rate of union expenditure on electioneering communications?
Well, no, it’s never been my position.
No, I don’t think it would be.
You can keep dreaming up ways to get around the First Amendment all you want.
You remind me of anti-abortionists who keep coming up with ways to sidestep Roe v. Wade.
Corporations are not people and money is not speech. It’s as simple as that. You’re the one building castles in the air.
You really are having trouble understanding this issue.
Maybe you should take a rest from it and you’ll eventually realize that you’re arguing nonsense?
Two straw men.
Corporations don’t need to be people to have speech rights.
Spending money on a right is part of that right.
I have discussed both of these at length. If you want me to explain again, just let me know.
But in the meantime, your arguments would lead to all kinds of preposterous conclusions, such as political parties having no speech rights (they aren’t people after all) or the government being free to ban the sale of Bibles (money isn’t religion just like its not speech). Yet when I bring these up, you and others never respond.
You think that advertising isn’t speech.
That’s complete nonsense. I shouldn’t have to explain that.
Love the line currently making the rounds: “I’ll believe a corporation is a person the day Texas executes one.”
Just read an interesting factoid: 71% of the money going to superPACs are in the form of checks written for amounts of $500,000 or more. Half a fricking mil. But Lance Strongarm does not believe that the donors expect to get anything back for these PALTRY sums …
Of course corporations aren’t people.
Can we get back on topic?
You’re not engaging in debate any more, your lobbing snowballs. If you want to discuss my points instead of evading them, let me know.
Equalized by whom? Who gets to decide which speech is good, which is over represented, which needs to be shown more, which needs to be shown less? You?
Free speech is about the right to say things, not the right to have everyone hear it. If you cannot afford an ad, your right to free speech is not being impaired. If someone can buy more ads than you, your right to free speech is not being impaired. You know this, it has been covered a bunch of times on this board.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Just read an interesting factoid: 71% of the money going to superPACs are in the form of checks written for amounts of $500,000 or more. Half a fricking mil. But Lance Strongarm does not believe that the donors expect to get anything back for these PALTRY sums …
[/QUOTE]
The issue is not if people are being influenced, it is if speech should be limited.
Slee