False.
There are limits on direct donations, yes, but NOT on how much candidate spend. The donations limits are designed to prevent corruption - NOT to control speech.
There are NO limits on what anyone in this country - individuals, groups, candidates, corporations - can spend on speech.
God help us if we ever decide that we have “too much” freedom of the press or speech in this country and feel the need to take back some of it.
Well, that’s kinda bullshit, because the law struck down by Citizens United didn’t address content, it did pick out a certain source of speech for persecution.
But in any event, he’s completely full of crap anyway. Freedom of speech means you can have as much speech as you want. It cannot be rationed in the name of “fairness.”
No - and no court ever said that. But it DID say that spending money on speech is part of the right of speech, just like any other right.
And this makes perfect sense.
You wouldn’t say the government can ban spending on, say, a defense attorney? You have a right to an attorney - just not one who works for money.
Or religion? You can read the bible, but don’t bother trying to buy one because spending money on it is illegal.
Or the press? Print any news you want, just don’t spend money on paper or ink.
Or abortion? You can have an abortion, just find a doctor who works for free.
Or guns? You have the right to bear arms, but the gun has to be a gift because you can’t pay for it.
Yes, spending money on a right is a right.
Oh, right, then. I have the right to vote. Do I have the right to buy more votes?
You think freedom of speech is properly understood as quantitative?
Wow. Different regions of the country really are different. Thanks for that link.
No. Vote-buying - paying someone to vote a certain way - is illegal.
You can spend money on speech all you want.
No. I’m not the one saying that. Others, like Lind, are claiming that we must limit the quantity of speech in order to make everyone’s quantity more fair.
Yes there are. For instance you can not give $10k to Barack Obama with the stipulation that he must give a speech on how hydroelectric power is a blight on the US. So, a limit on the expenditure of money for speech.
LOL.
Seriously?
Whatever. If you want to call it that, fine. Doesn’t change the fact that there are no limits (nor should there be) on spending money to express your own opinion. Back on track.
This is why the First Amendment is bad.
See also here for more in-depth analysis.
Well, there was no such thing, hardly, as campaign advertising when it was written, in fact there was no advertising industry at all. If the Founders could have foreseen . . .
Sure there are. You can’t express your opinion through the medium of an elected candidate.
The Founders would have had no problem with advertising.
Sure, if you accept the preposterous and self-serving definition of a candidate as a “medium.”
So if you want to make that your own exception, fine. I’m not going to play that game. Other than that, there are no restrictions.
The number one problem is incumbency. No rep should serve more than 10 years (5 terms), senators no more than two terms. The other issue is that they forget who they work for. Banks are one of the largest contributors to politicians-that is why (after decades of the internet) still have no effective Federal laws against identity theft. Every law is crafted to favor the banks, at the expense of the public.
It’s not that the 1st Amendment is bad. It’s a necessary right in our current legal setup. It’s how we deal with rights in the first place that’s the problem. Instead of taking a utilitarian view that the government restricting speech is very very rarely a good idea and working from there what the exceptions should be we enshrine the concept of unrestricted speech as a “right” and act as if that itself is the important thing rather than the outcomes it produces. We argue whether or not an exception can be allowed under the law. It’s completely backasswards. Rather than discussing the pros and cons of an exception people opine about what men two centuries in their graves would think about it. Ridiculous. Constitutional lawyering should be a minor, rarely used profession instead of our national past time.
My suggestion to stemming the corruption is to prevent people from lobbying or taking jobs in industries they regulated for a decade after leaving Congress, restricting campaign commercials on the public airways and drastically increasing public funding of campaigns and putting that money back in the hands of party leaders. The problem of corrupt political bosses is better dealt with by opening up the major parties to competition by moving to proportional representation rather than handing matching funds to candidates. Strong parties aren’t a bad thing when you actually have a choice of more than Tweedledee or Tweedledum.
Says you.
A majority of voters say otherwise, over and over.
I don’t think so.
Huh?
You can’t just rewrite the Constitution to suit you.
Okay.
Let’s leave aside the fact that this is unconstitutional - why? What would it achieve? How would you do it “fairly?”
Public funding puts the money in the hands of the government.
Well, I love PR too, but it will never happen.
lance, what 2sense is saying is that the way you think about the constitution is too reverent. The First Amendment was written in broad terms for political reasons. An absolutist take is just not good law.
I am not an absolutist. But I think he wants to take it FAR beyond what you say. Only a specific case from him explaining what he thinks should be allowed can say for sure.
The primary aspect, however, should be a sense of absolutism. If not, there’s no point in having a bill of rights. Rights should certainly be more absolute than relative, or else they aren’t rights.
I know that there are plenty of people out there who want to blatantly violate the First Amendment, and even want to (for the first time in our history) take back some of it.
I don’t know what you mean by “written in broad terms for political reasons” but it’s a red flag to me.
We don’t NEED to violate the First Amendment to fix our system anyway. And it would do more harm than good. It’s there for good reason.