Wouldn’t it be fucking great if it didn’t work? These assholes pour millions upon million of bucks into sliming Obama and this time it doesn’t work. I’d be fucking dancing in the street. Death by giggling fits.
You should be able to speak as much as you like. But you shouldn’t get the election results you want based on how much is in your bank account.
It’s not very honest to suggest that’s what I’m saying.
I’m not allowed to engage in sedition. I’m also not allowed to yell fire in a theater.
You’re not bravely making a stand for freedom, you’re obtusely ignoring arguments that turn your position into ash.
You don’t appear to be that knowledgeable, actually. Since you don’t know that speech can currently be limited for a good reason.
And not becoming a plutocracy is a pretty good reason.
Try spamming every board and thread with the same message and see how far you get.
There have to be common sense limits on speech here just like everywhere else.
If the SuperPACs are coordinating with the candidates, and they are, they might as well be giving the money directly to the candidates. And the candidates, once elected, find ways to pay their contributors back. It is legalized bribery.
Read the link I posted. I do not believe that kind of thing is a right, and I think it is a natural result of our present broken system. I’m not sure what you are on about here.
I think $250 used to be the limit. Seems like a fine one to me.
Show me how this is relevant to the issue I am dealing with.
You mean the voters could actually gather information from all the many sources available, and use their brains to think about it? Is that even possible? No, you simply throw more ads up on TV and the voters do whatever they’re told. Like you like to say, advertising works! :rolleyes:
The analogy breaks down. This is a private board, it can make any limits it wants. And in the real world, we’re not talking about spam. We’re talking about political speech.
So try answering my question.
The voters decide what the election results are and why. Not you.
So? This isn’t about those.
Keep trying.
I’m going to say this yet again. I’ve said it many times, but it doesn’t seem to sink in. Pay attention.
OF COURSE I know speech can currently be limited for good reason.
YOUR reasons aren’t even close to being good enough.
Got it now?
Not liking election results is absolutely most unacceptable reason for limiting speech. If the voters want a plutocracy, it’s their choice.
Exactly; your analogy doesn’t work. You asserted that speech is not limited here and then asked a question about whether that is a bad thing. Well, in practice it is of course, so find another analogy.
In response to your second point I meant spam in the more general sense, so it could itself be political speech. For example, if I start 50 different threads all about cutting taxes, then I’m spamming this messageboard, but clearly it is political speech at the same time.
So if they were NOT coordinating, is it not legalized bribery? Yes or no?
Simple question. Is there a right to spend money on speech, as long as you don’t coordinate it with a candidate? Yes or no?
Why is $250 a magic number? What if 1,000 people in a local club all gave $250? That’s $250,000. They might expect something for their club in return. What about that situation?
Answer the question first. It’s a simple question. Can speech alone be bribery? Why would you not want to answer that?
Terrible false dichotomy. You support public funding, do you support rationing of speech?
Would public funding be available independently of how many ads the corporations had already run? If so, that’d just mean increased political advertising for everyone. If not, you’re advocating rationing. Which obviously means we have to limit newspaper editorials for fairness.
Oh, cobblers. I’ve used the word “fair” once in this thread (other than quoting you) and it was here:
The largest portion of campaign expenditures are on electioneering communications. Why are donations to candidates limited?
Nonsense. Commercial speech is subject to several regulations. One cannot advertise pornography at 9am on the Disney channel. One cannot advertise tobacco at any point on television. As it stands, the Supreme Court holds that when corporations sell candidates like products that isn’t commercial speech and can’t be subject to the same regulations. Instead, it’ll be subject to the same time place and manner restrictions that govern appropriate restrictions of the right to free assembly. Except I doubt we’ll see police using tear gas to keep corporations out of the public eye.
Of course. And voter opinions can be swayed by immense money advantages. Allowing just a few individuals to provide that money makes those few individuals more influential than millions of people.
Not good for democracy.
Because I have proven, beyond any doubt, that for compelling reasons the government may limit speech. So even if you believe that political donations equal speech, it is still possible under our laws to limit it.
Very wealthy people being able to put a toe on the scale and flip things to their side by unlimited spending isn’t good for democracy. It’s dangerous, because it means that the richest people will decide policy. Even more than they do now.
I’m making my case. I can’t force you to understand.
Turning the US into a plutocracy run by monied interests plenty important. When corporations got to do what they wanted we had children in mines and you could set Lake Erie on fire.
Ah, so we get to the nut. You don’t *care *if the country destroys itself. Again, sedition is about overthrowing the country. It is limited. Turning the country into a corporate hellhole is equally dire. And should be limited as well.
No.
yes, but it is reasonable to limit the amount spent.
$250 is a drop in a the bucket, sir. They can expect what they like, or hope for what they like. If you are talking about them aggregating their contributions in some way, I would oppose that too. One thousand $250 donations are drops in the bucket. A $250,000 donation is a bribe.
Sure, speech can be bribery. Such as, “Put this little rider in the next bill you can that gives my company a break on tariffs for these chemicals, and I’ll give you a half a million dollars in campaign donations through CorruptPAC.”
Now, you asked a lot of questions, it’s time you answered a few, if you can manage it. Do you honestly believe that a wealthy person/corporation who writes a check does not expect some fairly specific actions on the part of the Congressman in return? Do you think it is beyond his means to clandestinely communicate what he wants? Do you think the SuperPACs are telling the truth when they say they “do not cooordinate?”
Sure, they could easily be telling the truth. GeeDubya did not endorse the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry, why should he?
The VOTERS decide. That IS democracy. You don’t seem to get that.
No, you haven’t even come close to proving that.
No, the VOTERS are deciding. You don’t seem to get that. When someone wins an election, it means the VOTERS decided.
And the voters put a stop to that.
No, I care very much. I just don’t believe we need to destroy our democracy to restore it.
So why don’t you just propose not having elections any more, since you think the voters are making such stupid decisions?
So why are you talking about coordination when you believe its bribery even without it?
No, it’s not. Just as you cannot limit how much speech someone expresses, you can’t limit how much they express by limiting how much money they spend. You can’t use word limits, time limits, space limits, etc. nor spending limits. No limits on speech.
No, I’m saying what if 1,000 club members each send their own $250, in separate envelopes, and each ask for something for their club? No aggregation. What about that?
But you said money isn’t speech!
Can SPEECH alone be bribery, as in “you do this for me, and I’ll say nice things about you.” Yes or no?
Sometimes they want something specific, yes. Sometimes they just want the guy to win and do whatever he says he’ll do and that’s enough.
You just said coordination doesn’t matter above.
It’s July 4. I am celebrating our freedom from tyrants and those who think they are smarter than the rest of the people and think this justifies manipulating democracy and speech to “fix” the outcome of elections.
We don’t think we are smarter than all the rest of the people, we’re just pretty sure we’re smarter than you.
And swaying the VOTERS with unlimited money is a bad thing.
I have proven it utterly and without reservation.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves sedition is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves yelling fire in a theater is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it is claiming something you product cannot do is limited.
These are facts, and no amount of hysterical denials on your part can change them.
Yes. And manipulating the voters with unlimited money is a bad thing.
And we’ll have it again, if unlimited political money allows monied interests to get the electoral results that promote their profitability over public good.
You have not rationally demonstrated that limiting the amount of money in political campaigns destroys our democracy.
In fact, the very argument is utterly stupid, because there are already limits on our speech and it did not destroy our democracy. In fact, the argument is doubly stupid, because until Citizens United helped create Super PACS, there were limits and it did not destroy our democracy.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and are emotionally over-reacting because you perceive some weird assault that isn’t there.
Because I love democracy. You are the one advocating its death.
As I thought, you somehow neglected to answer my questions, after I answered all of yours. I cannot say I am surprised.
Sure you can! And if you say it loud enough, often enough, with enough talking heads nodding in solemn agreement, people will believe you. The gostak distims the doshes! Damn right they do!