Yes, I have.
Yes, you are.
Yes, I have.
Sigh.
This STILL isn’t about political donations. I’ve explained that many times.
And I’ve never said we don’t limit speech - and explained many times why you are confused about that.
There’s no point. Give it up.
So we do limit speech. Which means that for some hypothetical problem that is important enough we can limit speech.
So, if unlimited political spending leads to a large enough problem we can limit speech.
The question is, how much of a problem does uncontrolled political spending cause.
I say, really big and provide an argument for why.
You say, no problem at all, and provide no argument for why or rebuttal for my argument.
See the problem?
Yes. I’ve said so.
Okay, keeping in mind that political speech enjoys the very highest level of protection.
Oh, and thanks for admitting that money is speech. 
You say, no problem at all, and provide no argument for why or rebuttal for my argument.
See the problem?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I see the problem - I’ve spent a great deal of time rebutting you and all you can say is that I’ve provided nor argument or rebuttal. Why should I rebut you again when you seem to have missed it the first dozen or so times? You should go read the thread again. Until you get over this, stop wasting my time.
I’d be angry and dismissive too, if I were fighting for a plutocracy.
You’re doing that circumstantial ad hominem thing again (and you’re also completely wrong, because you don’t know me).
This is why I’ve asked you to stop posting if you can’t provide substance.
I have backed up my arguments. We can limit speech for good reason. This is a fact.
One of those reasons is sedition, because it threatens the government of the US.
Allowing the ultra wealthy to sway elections also threatens the government of the US.
So that really would put the ball in your court for why it’s a good idea to allow the ultra wealthy to sway elections.
The VOTERS decide whether to elect those who the ultra-wealthy favor, and whether this “threatens the government of the U.S.”
NOT you.
It’s already completely fucking loony that you compare election results with sedition - sedition is pretty much the opposite - but I’ll skip past that part.
Do you get it now? Or are you going to keep jumping up and down about how you don’t like the choices that a majority of voters keep making yet somehow you want to “protect” democracy?
This IS democracy. You lost. Get over it and try again next time. Use your freedom of speech to try to convince voters to see it your way.
And the voters can be swayed by huge money advantages. When those advantages come from a single donor, that’s a distortion of democracy.
Try **bolding **for emphasis, it will make you look less angry.
Of course you’ll skip past it. Because you have no argument. You’re shouting, not debating.
Protecting democracy is what I’m advocating. If money didn’t distort the process we wouldn’t have campaign finance laws. You want elections to go to the highest bidder. That’s not a good thing.
What exactly do you think I’m doing right this second? 
You’re just repeating your empty assertions, ignoring my replies.
This is over.
Can’t wait for the next election, when they voters will decide all this instead of you.
No, they didn’t. Five supreme court justices did.
In other words, advertisers?
Honestly, how do you think you come across when you attempt to scry and interpret elucidator’s cognitions?
They do demonstrate the inviolable tenets you hold sacred are not so, though.
Yeah, five people kicking a bill down the well against the wish of the populace.
Let’s go over this one more time:
The voters can be swayed in any way they wish.
Got it?
That doesn’t even make sense.
Nope.
It’s shocking that you don’t understand the basic principles of our government, such as the fact that the Constitution limits what government can do, even when a majority of voters want it. I am serious - it is shocking.
Now, the reason most people oppose Citizens United is because, like you, they don’t understand it. They believe the crap that has been reported about it, such as the lie that it involves corporate personhood, or that it involved donations to candidates. I’ll bet if I explained it to someone before revealing the name of the case, they’d answer differently.
Oh, really? So candidates could just hand them money to sway their vote?
Sigh.
The voters may be swayed by any speech, advertisement, argument, information, etc. they wish. Got it now?
So I guess you are INFURIATED that it is illegal that candidates cannot simply buy votes. Money is speech after all and here we are forbidding it!
Yeah, I’m sure there’s an effective frequency where people subject to enough propaganda will eventually change their minds. Worked with public healthcare.
Lance hasn’'t declared victory for more than 24 hours. Shouldn’t somebody check on him?
Nobody has ever said money is speech. Not me, not any court.
Spending money on speech is protected just like the speech itself. That’s what the courts said, and I agree. And it makes perfect sense.
How do you know you weren’t affected by propaganda in your opinion about the issue on this thread? And does that make your opinion worth less?
You should get out of the house more.