Is legalized bribery speech?
I think that limiting unlimited advertising is reasonably limited speech.
Like how you can’t yell fire in a theater or get all seditiony.
But if someone cannot buy more ads than one is their right to free speech being impaired?
I meant the quote proceeding from that statement.
By rationing ads according by providing public funding for the poorer unions, one is forcing corporations to pay twice as much for ads.
Comparing fire in a theater to a ban on political speech is completely absurd. Don’t even try it.
If so, then you need to ration all speech. Nobody can have more than anyone else.
Do you support that or not?
But corporations would qualify for public funding too.
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.
I say when the super rich make half a million dollar donations they are not doing it from the goodness of their hearts, they expect value for the money. It’s legalized bribery at this point. Do you support legalized bribery, lance?
“Legalized bribery” is an oxymoron. If it’s legal, it’s not bribery, since bribery is a legal term. We would need to discuss what acts qualify as bribery and why. But you still haven’t indicated that you want to have a rational discussion about this. I’m not getting into anything with you if you’re still just throwing rocks. Let me know if and when you get serious.
Just because it shows your argument is hysterical nonsense, it doesn’t mean it isn’t right.
Look, sedition is a place where political speech is limited. And the very rich influencing elections is certainly as important as sedition.
You’re just wrong. Admit it and calm down.
The argument that fire in a crowded theatre = a massive ban on speech is hysterical nonsense.
Back and forth we go.
You’re still doing it.
Pointing to exceptions isn’t an argument. You have to explain WHY they are justified.
Ah, now you’re trying.
If you think influencing election is akin to sedition, then you are EXACTLY the kind of person the authors of the First Amendment were afraid of.
You couldn’t be more wrong. How dare you declare that a certain group of people (the rich) shouldn’t have speech rights simply because you don’t like what they have to say or the fact that others believe it?
No, you may not do that. No way in hell.
Why is sedition, that is to say, advocating the overthrow of the government, not like taking control of the government by giving a huge electoral advantage to the very wealthy?
Remember, no one is talking about banning speech. We are advocating a cap to the amount people can donate. That way everyone has the same power to move the electorate.
It’s far better for a candidate to massively outspend his opponent because he has millions of donations, as opposed to outspending his opponent because he has exactly one rich donor.
The views and needs of those millions of donors should outweigh the one rich guy who can outspend them.
Your stance is simply undemocratic and without merit. Inflammatory appeals to emotion about me being “what they feared” aren’t intelligent argument. They’re shrill arm-flailing.
Well, there’s the fact that there’s an ELECTION involved. Duh. It’s the polar opposite of sedition.
Listen to yourself - you’re calling elections sedition. See why you’re what the Founding Fathers feared?
Bullshit.
Same thing.
But the law involved in Citizens United did ban speech, just so we’re clear on that.
Um, no, that’s not true. There are still plenty of advantages, monetary or otherwise, that are still “unfair.” First, you’ll need to have a cap on how much can be spent, by everyone. Then you’ll have to limit how much time each can speak, since it’s just not fair if someone has more time to speak while others are busy working or taking care of children at home. Then you’ll have to give everyone equal access to broadcasting time - 2 minutes each should do it. Then there’s newspapers - everyone must have 25 words of space. Then you will have to limit the speech of celebrities because its just not fair that they get more attention and therefore more speech…
Donations to candidates are ALREADY LIMITED. So what is your point?
You don’t get to decide whose views and needs should be outweighed. The voters are capable of deciding that.
You are the undemocratic one. You want to substitute your judgment for that of the voters. You’re the one comparing election outcomes with sedition.
That wasn’t an appeal to emotion, it was a simple fact. Your argument is directly contradicted by the First Amendment and it’s entire history. You couldn’t be more wrong, in other words.
Oh, and by the way, the scope of the power of the government to ban “sedition” is not settled either.
It is the same when the unions donate. I assume that you believe unions ought to be limited in their speech as well, right? Like, if the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees happened to be the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections, well, you’d have a problem with that, correct? I mean, those unions are bribing lawmakers and it needs to stop.
Right? Cause it would be wrong for the unions, which represent about 12% of the workforce to buy elections.
Do you support legalized union bribery of elected officials, Evil Captor?
Slee
What? Have you uncovered an example of liberal hypocrisy! We gasp in horror!
I’m sure he does. People against unlimited spending don’t want only their side to spend unlimited.
Are you even listening?
It’s the right’s hard-on to turn the US into a plutocracy that’s at issue here. Also, unions aren’t what they used to be, so if you’re suggesting that it’s a “fair fight” you’re really off base.
As for Lance, above. I’ve made my case. He has utterly failed to make his. It’s a fact that advertising works. And since it works, allowing one person to spend unlimited amounts of money, effectively allowing one person to donate the same amount of money as tens of millions of normal citizens, will sway elections. Not every one. But even one is enough.
There are five hundred-odd congress critters. If even ten percent are swayed by ten or 20 to one outspending, that will shift the balance of power to monied interests, even more than it is now.
We limit speech all the time. You can’t slander someone. You can’t yell fire in a theater. You can say your product cures cancer. You can’t engage in sedition. And you shouldn’t be able to spend a billion dollars to have a pet Senator.
Lance is unable to see this, which is fine. I can’t convince everyone.
No, you’ve ignored my case. Like you do here, again:
Of course it does. So what? It’s still speech, and you can’t limit it.
No, the voters will decide whether to be influenced by the ads. That is there right. You have no right to decide that this is wrong, or inappropriate. It’s not a reason to ban speech. It’s exactly the most disallowable possible reason to ban it, in fact.
Then the voters should refuse to do so.
A few narrow exceptions, based on logical justifications, don’t justify a massive violation of free speech.
You have utterly failed to address any of my arguments. You don’t even try. Because you know you can’t. You just throw rocks and claim victory. But I’ll be here to correct you every time.
Should we all have a limit to how many words we can post here too? Seems only fair.
This is a private board. It also isn’t an election. Try to keep your nonsense on topic if possible.
To be ruthlessly fair, sarcasm was clearly his point on that one. Not a particularly good point, to be sure, but still…