Again, most developed countries have limitations on how much advertising groups like PACs can do, and it doesn’t seem to stifle the debate. In fact, it enriches the debate because more people have heard more POVs, and (depending on the exact rules) it can prevent cheap tricks like trying to spread a lie when there is little time for your opponents to fully rebut.
But sure, you limit the amount of advertising and it’s an unstoppable slippery slope to beheading dissidents.
U S A ! U S A !
Of course you do!
You think you can handle speech, but others can’t. You want to ban speech so others can’t hear it because they don’t act on it the way you think they should.
You drip with arrogance.
Yep, USA! First Amendment! Deal with it.
Nope, I answered yours, and now you’re dodging mine.
Eat your heart out.
LOL. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true.
I’m not one of the stupid idiots you think most of the voters are, dude.
So?
I’ve never denied them.
You don’t seem to be capable of understanding. So here we go again:
The existence of a few narrow exceptions don’t justify huge ones.
The voters are not children that can be “manipulated.” If you think so, you hate democracy.
The VOTERS give them electoral results.
How many times do I have to explain this?
Sigh.
You can’t limit speech. Even if you think such limits don’t destroy democracy. Even if you think it helps democracy. You can’t do it. It’s not your choice. You can’t decide that speech is good or bad for democracy.
The voters do.
I know plenty about this, thanks.
If you like democracy, stop spitting on the voters and calling them stupid and claiming they need your help in making decisions on how to vote.
The voters are free from arrogant people who say they can’t govern themselves and need the government to decide what they should see and hear, thanks to the First Amendment.
Happy July 4th!
I’m am demonstrating why my position is correct. You are screaming without explanation that your position is correct.
There is a difference.
I don’t think voters are necessarily stupid idiots. I take no position on whether you are. You are obviously too emotional to approach this rationally.
There are currently limits to speech. So it is possible to limit speech and be in accord with the first amendment.
You have stated that the first amendment prohibits limiting speech. But I have just shown you where we limit speech. So you’re wrong.
You have not demonstrated that limiting political donations is a huge exception to speech.
I don’t think voters are children. Voters need to be 18. I think that advertising works. And that unlimited money in politics allows the very rich to get what they want more often than they otherwise would.
The voters can be swayed by advertising campaigns.
Once, if you did it with a compelling, intelligent argument. But shrieking isn’t that.
I’d be tired too if I were with anger over inchoate fears.
I have shown you that we do already limit speech.
How profound.
Then why do you keep saying that speech can’t be limited? If you know that, are you being dishonest when you say otherwise?
I’ve never claimed that. Please don’t misrepresent what I say.
Just a second, there! If he’s not allowed to misrepresent what you say, then you’re limiting his free speech, which is impossible! Gotcha! I win! Neener neener!
I’m PMimg Skald right now to ask for his flaming bee cannon.
False. Your entire argument depends on it.
So does that mean you can take away any speech you want, whenever you want? Of course not. That would mean there was no First Amendment.
If you want to make an exception, it has to be a really really good one. Yours fails completely.
I have, completely.
Look, you’re going to start yelling and screaming, and claiming you’ve proven everything, and denying what I’ve said, and say I’m yelling and screaming. We obviously have nothing more to say to each other. Let’s end this.
And that is their RIGHT. They can be swayed by whatever speech they want to be. Deal with it.
As I say, buying elections is a threat to the very integrity of our system of government. It is parallel to sedition and easily just as big an issue.
Also, could you please stop saying I said things I didn’t say? I’m not being dishonest with you, you’re the one not making any arguments.
Okay, one more chance.
You throw this silly term “buying elections” around.
Define that. What’s it mean? How does one buy an election? Who is the seller? How can one buy something that is provided voluntarily (a vote)?
You can’t just go throwing meaningless statements like that around and expect me to accept them.
You have repeatedly done the same thing to me, even after I’ve corrected you. So yeah, let’s have none of that.
So, if a guy wants something specific from a candidate, and writes him a half million dollar check, and that information is transmitted to the candidate Somehow, isn’t that bribery?
If he gives it to him personally, yes.
If he gives it to his campaign, not necessarily. It’s going to help him win office, not buy him a yacht - no conflict with the public interest there. He may want something specific in exchange for his money - or he may simply want to help the candidate win because the candidate has promised to do what he wants with our without the money.
But, as you know, this is not about giving money to a candidate at all. It’s about speech on behalf of a candidate. And speech can be accomplished with or without money.
If I pay you to post 1,000 posters about how great a candidate for mayor is, and tell him what I did and ask him for a favor, to you that’s bribery. So suppose I just go out and post the posters myself? No money involved at all, just speech. Yet the effect is the same. Is that bribery too? That’s why I ask if speech alone can be bribery.
And to take this further, suppose I’m the president of a club and I urge my members to vote for a candidate. They do and he wins. I go to the candidate and tell him what I did, and what my members did - no money involved, just speech and votes. I ask for something in return. Is that bribery?
One sets up a system to buy elections when you allow unlimited political donations.
America has a huge disparity in how much money is held by the richest and poorest. For instance, the “top one percent” holds 42% of the country’s wealth. The bottom 80% own 7% of the country’s wealth.
If you allow unlimited spending, you set up a system where that top one percent literally can outspend the rest of the country. This allows them to blanket their message in advertising, and perhaps more importantly simulate “ground game” by hiring people to go door to door (which used to be done via volunteers, so it was necessary to have a message that resonated with people, but recently Walker’s 8 to 1 advantage allowed him to just pay people to go door to door and get the vote out).
If the richest people can dominate the public sphere, and you get ten commercials for every one your opponent runs, you’re going to win some elections. This is because advertising works. It isn’t a sure thing, because some districts are simply too safe to be swayed by advertising.
But many aren’t too safe. A small electoral advantage (from unlimited money) creates a situation where the candidates chosen by the wealthy are going to be more likely to win over time. This will drive policy to favor the wealthy. Specifically, fewer regulations on their businesses and fewer taxes on them personally. Keep in mind that every tax cut will drive up the deficit or cut a program that doesn’t favor the richest people in America, further damaging the country.
Also remember that when you didn’t have environmental regulations you could set Lake Erie on fire.
Also, as it happens, this will be a Republican advantage, so you can say hello to other Republican ideas that they will now have the power to legislate. Gay oppression laws, reduced access to birth control, banned abortion, privatization of whatever programs they can get away with. And a whole lot more.
So, allowing the very wealthy to create an un-level playing field (moreso than before anyway) is a bad thing. It is against American values, and would cause significant damage to our democracy. So, it rises to the level where limiting spending (if you think spending is speech) is worthwhile, because of the damage not limiting it would do to the public good.
Remember, sedition is illegal. Why? Because it threatens the continuing government of the US. Unlimited political spending does the same.
And now Lance will scream something along the lines of, “First Amendment!!1111 Your’e an arrogant communist!!” 
They have meaning for anyone that’s honestly listening to what I’m saying.
You’ve never corrected me that I’m aware of. You keep pretending that it’s impossible to limit speech (which assumes that political donations are speech) even when I show you multiple examples of the US limiting speech.
I’ve thoroughly addressed all your claims, repeatedly. You keep repeating lies about me. Please don’t participate in a conversation to which you have nothing more to add.
My claims center around the idea that we currently limit speech if the need is great.
Do I? You’re the one who keeps saying I think voters are stupid. I don’t. Well, not all of them, certainly some people are stupid and they get to vote too.
I just answered your question in detail and this is the response?
And I have explained in detail my response to that, several times. Go back and read the thread. I’m tired of going over it with you.
Yes, you think the voters are stupid. You’ve made that very clear.
You’ve added nothing new. You repeat the same arguments, ignoring my replies and corrections. I see no point in continuing this.
You really haven’t.
Please don’t misrepresent what I say. I’m not being dishonest with your stances.
You haven’t corrected me. You have repeated your position.
I have the advantage of being factually correct. We currently limit speech. The question is if unlimited political spending meets the criteria of limiting speech (if you accept that political donations = speech).