I find feigned obtuseness to be a good defense for sarcasm.
Note: the following does not (necessarily) apply to anyone in this thread. (I say “necessarily” because it might, but I don’t know enough to make a judgment on anyone on this board either way.)
The thing that really annoys me about this debate is that I’m pretty confident that for all their talk about their concern about free speech, most of those who are most vocal for their love of Citizens United (on a national level) don’t give a damn about the First Amendment. It’s just that they know most of their fellow wealthy politically engaged people are also conservative Republicans, and they just want to spend fabulously unlimited amounts to get their chosen agenda enacted.
They think it’s a-okay for wealthy individuals and corporations to purchase elections. That’s fine (to have the belief, at least). They could at least do us the favor of being honest about it, and not put up such a transparent lie.
I understand that you do not want to argue this point, because it gets at the essence of the problem, that rich men can now use campaign donations to bribe politicians to do their will on an unprecedented scale. You can quibble about the legal meaning of bribery, but it is widely understood to be a private citizen giving a politician a bunch of money with the understanding that the politician will subsequently do something the individual favors. This is EXACTLY what is going on with SuperPACs. You have confused freedom of speech with the right to bribe – which does not exist, of course.
It’s an analogy.
This board is a place for debate using speech. Is it fundamentally unfair because there are no limits on how many words someone can use? Yes or no?
I am OK with limiting union donations as well as corporate donations.
Hmmm.
Since this doesn’t apply specifically to me (since I’m a Democrat who opposes rich conservatives as much as any other) I’ll just make these three observations:
- Your post is a circumstantial ad hominem.
- Motives are irrelevant to whether an argument is correct or not.
- The ACLU supported the Citizens United decision. I think they care about the First Amendment and not rich people.
I’m happy to - as long as you promise to do the same and not play your games any more.
Do you?
Let’s see.
This isn’t about donations. Donations are already limited.
How do you define bribery? Please post your definition here. Then we can talk about whether it applies to donations or spending - of any kind.
Okay, a definition. Not a good one, but let’s go with this.
Donations to politicians from corporations and unions are already illegal.
So what’s your point?
Donations from individuals aren’t, of course. Have you ever given money to a candidate? Thousands do every day. They expect something for it, don’t they?
Well, no, it’s not. Super PACs don’t give money to candidates.
If speech about a candidate can be defined as bribery, then you need to expand your definition. I suggest you be very careful, because I’m going to use your definition against you. It’s not like I haven’t been through this debate before.
Do you believe unions and corporations can be limited in what they spend on speech?
You need to answer that question before we can discuss the rest, because that’s the heart of this issue.
Your argument is nonsense.
No one is limiting the amount of words. We’re talking about limiting the amount you can donate to politicians.
If there is a cap on how much you can spend, then everyone is free to reach that limit. And as I’ve shown you many times, there are limits on speech today. So even if you accept that donations = speech, then we certainly have the power to limit it.
But I’ve explained this a thousand times and you are either unable or unwilling to understand it. So… how about that local sports team?
Indeed. That’s why I said I was annoyed.
Perhaps not, but I think it says a lot when the dividing lines seem so (mostly) ideological on the part of its supporters (and yes, I know you could apply it to both sides, but what motive would liberals have to “suppress” their own speech?).
Besides, if those with a lot of money (and who are therefore assumably intelligent) see that certain laws and such will grant them a massive influx of power, that should at least tell the rest of us (I refuse to use “the 99%”; it’s such a cliche these days) a little about what we should do in response.
And as I said, they actually care about the issues they say they care about, which I can respect. What I don’t respect are those who pay lip service, but are actually interested only in personal power.
I am not sure what you mean by “your games” but what the hell.
Donations to super PACS are not limited. You seem intent on following the line that PACS don’t count. Take a good look at the topic. It’s about Super PACs. Your next line will be that candidates have no control over the PACS that support them and do not coordinate with them, thus there can be no quid pro quo. This is what is known as a “legal fiction.” In fact candidates clandestinely coordinate with their PACS, which are often run by ex-staffers of theirs who “quit” to run the PAC.
I have donated very small amounts … I a not a millionaire to candidates. I did not expect anything from the candidate because I recognized that my contribution was so small it was a drop in the bucket. Are you honestly suggesting that someone who writes a $500,000 check to a candidates PAC has similar expectations?
Not sure what you mean here.
yes, I do. Money is not speech. “Buying megaphones” is not speech.
Yes - in order to roughly equalize how much speech everyone gets. Same thing.
Unbelievable some of the Orwellian things you like to say.
“Everyone is free to reach the limit on freedom.”
Not yours.
You are frustrated that I won’t back down. That’s understandable. Don’t let it turn into insults. I know more about this issue than most people, and I’m not going anywhere. If you can’t handle that, just find a new thread.
I don’t understand. You’re annoyed by your own post?
You’re still doing it.
Don’t.
History is full of people who justified denying others their rights and thinking it was a good thing.
Ah, okay. You can read their minds then.
Super PACs don’t give money to candidates.
Do you believe that truly independent spending, without coordination, is a right? If not, that’s not the issue. If so, we can discuss coordination.
No. But where’s the dividing line? How much is too much? We need a number.
Can speech be bribery? Can someone’s speech about a candidate be considered bribery in some way? Need to know.
Wow.
What about printing presses, or home computer printers, or any printers, or copy machines? Could the government ban the sale or rental of buses or fuel used to bring people to protests in DC? Could it shut down the Internet by banning payments to ISPs or phone service? Or ban the sale of phones? Or computers? Or paper, and ink, and writing instruments? Or paying reporters? Could the government ban this website from spending money on its ISP or any staff it may have?
Really? You think this is all perfectly constitutional?
It boggles the mind.
What about banning the sale of Bibles? Or any other religious texts? Or spending money on or by churches or other religious groups of any kind? Or banning the payment of lawyers to represent you in court? Those are also spending money on rights, but aren’t the rights themselves.
…yard signs, billboard rental, T-shirts with message on them, buttons, bumper stickers…
The government could ban the sale of all these? Money isn’t speech after all. Of course, you can make your own sign - if the government doesn’t ban the sale of poster board and paint too.
Really?
Sorry, I realized that was confusing not long after the edit window expired. I meant, “that’s why I said in my first post was just about the situation annoying me, as opposed to me making a serious effort to argue against unlimited campaign contributions, especially as a form of free speech.”
Hmm, that was a lot easier to express in my head than it is in words. My apologies.
As for the rest… well, there’s an entire Pit thread on whether Republicans really believe that they’re combating voter fraud with their recent efforts, or whether they’re deliberately passing laws against a non-issue to siphon votes from Democrats. I think that’s the same kind of impasse we’re meeting here.
Okay, I understand now. Thanks. Sometimes people have ulterior motives in politics. Surprise! Doesn’t change the merits of their case.
Could the government ban the practice of donating money for legal defense funds, like this?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15221041&postcount=1
Having legal representation is a right - but money isn’t legal representation. Right?