So suppose the SCOTUS were to overturn Citizens United by a 5-4 decision. Would you find that equally outrageous?
Okay, let’s clarify - Citizens United was not about campaign finance. It had nothing to do with money going to candidates. That was the flaw of behind the law that was overturned - the idea that Congress can limit free speech by simply declaring it to be the same thing as a donation to a candidate. It’s not.
Wow!
Laws written by Congress are OFTEN overturned as unconstitutional! It’s happened perhaps hundreds of times in our history, perhaps thousands.
Reasonable people can disagree about the Constitution. It doesn’t mean they are stupid if they simply disagree with your interpretation. (That premise may say something about your thought process though).
Nobody said it was easy.
Nobody said it was obvious.
Citizens United wasn’t allowed to promote and broadcast their film because the FEC said their rules didn’t allow that. I was under the impression that the FEC rule had been based on the wording in a section of the laws collectively known as Campaign Fianance. The movie isn’t an actual campaign contribution (money to a campaign) but was intended as a contribution to (or against) a political campaign.
The law may have defined it as a contribution, but it wasn’t one. There was no check written to the campaign.
The law was premised on the idea that spending money to broadcast an opinion praising a candidate (or in this case, criticizing an opponent) is the same thing as a donation, simply because it benefits the candidate. And the fact that it involves spending money is what prompted them to make that connection.
Now, if you were to call up a candidate and get his/her ad and go pay to broadcast it yourself, that would be considered a contribution, as “coordination” of spending. But that’s not what was happening here. It was simply the expression of an opinion about a political candidate, and the spending of money to broadcast it. There is no way that should be a criminal act in the U.S. There’s simply no way to justify regulating that under the First Amendment.
Some people have complained that the links between Super PACs and candidates are too close - former campaign staff running them, candidates appearing at their events, etc. But as I noted, coordination is already illegal. Congress needs to better define coordination, and give the FEC the power (and will) to investigate it better.
Stop the spending so my POTUS can remain in office.
I imagine this is satire, but I’ll respond anyway.
The voters decide who is elected. Not money.
That’s my basic contention. CONGRESS needs to pull their collective head out of their collective asp holes (Yes, the holes that asps live in) and write better, more comprehensive, and constitutional laws.
If these elected representatives can’t seem to do their job properly then “we the people” have a duty to replace them with representatives who can.
But we can’t - we’re helpless dolts who only do whatever TV ads run by billionaires tell us to!
Do you not believe in advertising? You’re manipulated by advertising every day. And misinformation and character-assassination can be very potent. Look at what Romney did during the primaries.
Not every election can be swayed by money, Nancy Pelosi will never be unseated because her district is safe. But there are many districts and senate seats that are much more evenly matched and money and advertising can sway them.
If you can sway 1% of elections by spending 5 to 1 (or more), you allow billionaires to get 50-odd seats in the house. It builds a systemic advantage that allows a handfull of billionaires to dictate policy.
He doesn’t believe in advertising because people on TV have told him it doesn’t work, and the people on TV wouldn’t lie to him, would they?
You can’t say it on TV if it isn’t true.
Uh, no, I subscribe to the idea that I’m not a drooling idiot who is “manipulated.”
But hey, if you have that little respect for me, yourself, and the rest of the voters, you shouldn’t be calling for bans on speech - you should be calling for the end of democracy. After all, people who can be “manipulated” shouldn’t be running things anyway.
No, the voters decide. The fact that some elections are close and some aren’t doesn’t change that. The voters, not money, determine the outcome of elections. They are responsible for their decisions, including what TV ads they choose to believe.
Have some respect for your fellow human beings. Stop the arrogance.
Do NOT speak for me.
Of course advertising works. But it’s still the responsibility of the voter.
If you’re fat from eating too many Big Macs, do you blame McDonald’s ads? That would also be a childish thing to do.
The voters are not idots. Don’t be so damn arrogant.
Money doesn’t always sway elections. Here is Sunny California, Republican Billionaire Meg Whitman, who spent $144 million* of her own money*, still lost to longtime putz Jerry Brown in the last race for Governor.
Personally, I think it was her stance on keeping pot illegal that sunk her.
No, money doesn’t sway *every *election. As I said, you can’t take a safe district and turn it over with money, but you can sway close elections. Are you really suggesting that your one example finds that it sways no elections? That off the hundreds of House and Senate seats available there aren’t some number that are close enough to push? Does that sound reasonable to you?
How about this in sunny Cali, the cigarette tax on the ballot originally polled at 70% and it lost thanks to almost 50 million in ads by the cigarette companies.
So, did Californians suddenly start liking smoking, or did money sway voters?
But how is that possible? Are you saying the voters are independent thinkers who don’t simply do whatever they’re told?
The arrogance lies in believing that voters are immune to manipulation by outright misinformation or negative ads.
Most voters aren’t well-informed, and a concerted advertising campaign can move them. But no, via magical thinking you demand that it have no effect.
Prove it.
Remember, simply pointing to an election and correlating money with winners doesn’t prove it, since the winner might have won without the money anyway.
Key word: voters.
The voters have *the right to be swayed if they want to. * They CHOOSE who to vote for, and they CHOOSE why. They can vote for any reason they want. You have no right to declare that their choice is wrong. You have no right to claim that money, or ads, or speech is the wrong reason for voting for someone. You have no right to declare that the outcome of the election wasn’t the right one.
The voters decide. If you don’t like that, too bad. That’s democracy.
Your type of reasoning must think that aspirin treats all illnesses. No one is saying that the most money always wins. But more money will sway elections your way.
Surely you can understand that concept?