# If money is speech, and speech is money... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2016, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523 "2016-02-08T08:52:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/142 "2016-02-10T15:09:17Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > For God’s sake, explain how the hell those things apply to this situation please. You asked if certain things are always the case - that if someone agreeing with a candidate “always” means they are a surrogate. That was one of your questions. The only rational answer is no, that pretty much no matter what the question is, it is usually impossible to conclude that something is “always” or “never” the case. If you don’t like accurate answers to your questions, you need to stop asking such silly questions. > [@](#): > > You are playing the game where you point out that there are exceptions, and then you think that means they justify any damn exception you care to make up. I provided a response to two very poorly thought out questions. A rational person could not possibly answer such absolutist questions in the affirmative. I don’t understand why you’re getting upset with sensible responses to questions that sound like they are thought up by a bad lawyer on a courtroom procedural during cross examination. > [@](#): > > You are dodging the questiions again. For the most part, I think you’re expecting me to answer in a certain simplistic, childish way, and when I don’t, you get frustrated that not everything in the world is black and white. Certainly most of your questions for me imply that there is only one possible answer to your questions. > [@](#): > > You can’t answer the core question here - how can you possibly justify restrictions on spending on speech on First Amendment grounds? It can’t be done, because there’s no way to say you’re not trying to restrict speech itself. You care about the volume and source of speech, and the “undue influence” it brings. You simply cannot regulate speech based on those things under the First Amendment. I’ve addressed this several times during this thread. You may disagree with my judgment, but surely you aren’t implying that I haven’t explained my views. For example: > [@](#): > > Here’s what the Supreme Court said: “A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” > > I find that logic impossible to argue with, but I disagree on the principle at stake. I am totally fine with limiting the amount of money that can be used for certain types of political activity, because I believe there are yuuuuuuge benefits to society for maintaining a more level playing field for political activity relating to elections. In fact, as time goes by, I’m more and more convinced that public funding of elections is a far more just and democratic method of electioneering. . . . > > My general belief is that as money has become more and more important for running political campaigns, not only are candidates more obligated to spend more time raising money (and less time doing their jobs as elected officials if they are incumbents), but also that large donors, whether directly to a campaign or indirectly through supporting Super PACs, are going to be a greater and greater risk of corruption and influence. As far as my disagreement with the phrase I just coined, I think it is proper to limit the influence of money to preserve a more democratic election process, even if that means that a few people/corporations with very deep pockets have their speech impinged in the process. . . . > > Because I think the explosion of money in the electoral system has disastrous consequences for the integrity of the system. > > Take the current state of affairs: it is totally illegal for a candidate to coordinate a campaign with an independent expenditure group. Does anyone think that this law is being complied with in any serious way? Sure, Candidate A’s campaign manager can’t call up the Super PAC and say, “We want TV ads that show the candidate’s leadership on rabies vaccinations.” But Candidate A sends out a Tweet to the whole world saying, “Get the word out! Our candidate is a leader on rabies vaccinations!” … > > It’s a joke, and I think every American is more and more distrustful of the role of money in politics. Something otta be done… > > When we have an electoral system that is essentially built to insure that wealthy people or organizations can have unlimited influence, then several things happen: > > 1. An arms race for money occurs among candidates. Especially for incumbents, who are supposed to have a day job to do. Today, the average candidate for Senate must raise about $15,000 per day, every day in their election cycle. Fundraising is a distraction from governance. Think about this: many politicans put out some kind of version of their official government schedule for people to look at. How often do they put out a schedule of how many fundraisers they are going to each day or week? If there’s nothing wrong with the increasing amount of money in politics, why are politicians acting like it is shameful to disclose how much time they spend fundraising? > > 2. People are increasingly disillusioned by the system. In 2001, 25% of Americans opposed Congress passing new campaign finance reforms. A recent poll found that nobody said that no changes were needed to the system, and 85% thought that “fundamental” or “complete” changes were needed. > > 3. The situation is getting worse, not better, and I think it has an impact on not just the electoral system, but the governmental system. A professor at American University said last week that his study found that the Congress is now more partisan than at any time since 1860 – that’s eighteen fucking sixty, as in the start of the Civil Freakin’ War. Plus, Americans’ approval rating for Congress is in the tank. Not just recently, but for the last six years, the approval rating for the first branch of government has been in the teens or lower, virtually continuously; while historically it has bounced around from about 30 to maybe 50 percent since 1974. > > It is stunning to me that you don’t seem to see any connection between money and politics and the integrity of our government. . . . > > So I take it that you acknowledge that I’ve pointed out real problems in our government and system of elections, except that instead of recognizing how big campaign money has made it worse, you seem to be arguing that people have gotten dumber over the last 14 years (in between the polls I’ve cited). . . . > > I disagree with the ruling, but I respect that it is the law. I generally agree with the aspects of Buckley v. Valeo that recognize that there is a link between certain political campaign activities and the possibility or appearance of corruption. Now that I’ve recaptiulated what I’ve already posted, I think any calm and rational person can see a clear pattern to my posts and way of thinking, even if they disagree with my opinion. That is that I believe that money has a corrupting influence in politics, either by personal malfeasance by politicians (which is relatively rare in a criminal sense), or more subtle and pernicious (in that its not possible for a sane person to dispute that there is a connection between money and access to elected leaders), and most importantly in my opinion, that the explosion money in elections is alienating that vast, vast majority of voters from both the electoral process and the confidence in government. As I’ve said several times before, I recognize what the law is, and I don’t dispute the interpretation of it, but I am saying is that it is quite clearly leading us down the path of making all the problems I just listed much, much worse. The First Amendment is very, very important; and without a doubt the most important liberty we have – but I do not share your somewhat fundamentalist religious faith as though God is speaking to use through the Bill of Rights: “So long as we hold total and obedient faith in these writings, the Almighty will provide and everything will be okay.” Well, no, because clearly an out-of-control campaign finance system is a problem, as indicated by the poll I posted in which 85% of Americans basically want to throw this system out. I can say similar things about the Second Amendment – yes, I recognize what the law is, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t point out that guns are another serious problem in our country. If we extended your fundamentalist faith in the First Amendment to the Second Amendment, one might conclude that adding more and more guns to the country would be just fine, because the Second Amendment is such an important part of our foundational law. I don’t agree that’s the case. I suppose you just don’t think campaign finance laws are broken. For all I know, you could run a Super PAC and think you’re the modern-day equivalent of Jefferson by wrapping yourself in the flag and thinking that under the First Amendment, there can be no problems. You might think that by taking corporate money and washing it through a nonprofit in order to benefit Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or Barack Obama that you are upholding the finest traditions of the country that our forefathers fought for. I don’t see it that way. I think money is eroding the link between good governance and the people - it’s getting worse, and something ought to be done in a very careful way to restore and embolden the link between the government and the governed. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/143 "2016-02-10T15:18:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I provided a response to two very poorly thought out questions. A rational person could not possibly answer such absolutist questions in the affirmative. Of course they could. You just can’t face the logical conclusions of your own position. > [@](#): > > I believe that money has a corrupting influence in politics, either by personal malfeasance by politicians (which is relatively rare in a criminal sense), or more subtle and pernicious (in that its not possible for a sane person to dispute that there is a connection between money and access to elected leaders), and most importantly in my opinion, that the explosion money in elections is alienating that vast, vast majority of voters from both the electoral process and the confidence in government. Yes. But you have yet to explain how you think the government has the power to limit this “corrupting influence” by limiting spending on speech without violating the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > The First Amendment is very, very important; and without a doubt the most important liberty we have – but I do not share your somewhat fundamentalist religious faith as though God is speaking to use through the Bill of Rights: “So long as we hold total and obedient faith in these writings, the Almighty will provide and everything will be okay.” Well, no, because clearly an out-of-control campaign finance system is a problem, as indicated by the poll I posted in which 85% of Americans basically want to throw this system out. The First Amendment protects us from people like you, and from those 85% too. > [@](#): > > I suppose you just don’t think campaign finance laws are broken. For all I know, you could run a Super PAC and think you’re the modern-day equivalent of Jefferson by wrapping yourself in the flag and thinking that under the First Amendment, there can be no problems. You might think that by taking corporate money and washing it through a nonprofit in order to benefit Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or Barack Obama that you are upholding the finest traditions of the country that our forefathers fought for. I don’t see it that way. I think money is eroding the link between good governance and the people - it’s getting worse, and something ought to be done in a very careful way to restore and embolden the link between the government and the governed. I think your views are corrupt and insulting to the people. You think the voters are idiots who do just what TV ads tell them to do. You think all that speech is a bad influence and those idiots are powerless to do anything about it. You think you know better than they do who should really be elected. You think the people don’t know when politicians aren’t working in their interests, for whatever reason, and that they can’t fix it. And there’s nothing stopping you from saying the same thing about speech that does NOT involve money. So yeah, if that’s me wrapped in the flag, cool. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/144 "2016-02-10T18:34:48Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I think your views are corrupt and insulting to the people. You are the one who called voters “whiners” in post 56. I’m not the one who is literally insulting voters. > [@](#): > > You think the voters are idiots who do just what TV ads tell them to do. You think all that speech is a bad influence and those idiots are powerless to do anything about it. You think you know better than they do who should really be elected. You think the people don’t know when politicians aren’t working in their interests, for whatever reason, and that they can’t fix it. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/145 "2016-02-10T18:38:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You are the one who called voters “whiners” in post 56. I’m not the one who is literally insulting voters. I was insulting only the voters who blame their problems on money. In other words, it was more an insult of you. Sorry. > [@](#): > > Cite? This whole thread. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/146 "2016-02-10T18:53:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’d say your analogy is bullshit, since Citizens United overturned a law that simply banned spending by certain groups. What an absolute load of crap once again. A legitimate and indeed a critical determinant in applying campaign finance law is the distinction between art and entertainment and flagrant electioneering. The District Court for DC found that **the film had no purpose other than to discredit Clinton’s candidacy for president** , a fact which was blatantly obvious. But the eventual _Citizens United_ ruling was the usual 5-4 prevalence of raving ideology, continuing its track record of incredible judicial activism damaging the most fundamental national institutions. The idea that attempting to get all sides in an election campaign to play by the same rules is “censorship” is a recurring laughable myth from the far right. In the big picture, it’s not even about limiting spending, it’s about equal access, and that can be – and is – largely achieved through equal public funding of election messages, so that private money becomes somewhat redundant even if unrestricted. This policy is, naturally, anathema to the American right, which is wholly and unswervingly dedicated to serving the interests of money, but the reality is that some combination of public funding and private money restrictions constitutes the policy in the following countries: _ **Every single advanced democracy in the entire world** _. And thus any argument against that reality becomes an argument that must invoke the mythology of American exceptionalism, and must furthermore try (as you have done elsewhere) to deny the dominant role of money in formulating public policy, dominant to such a flagrant extent that sometimes backroom lobbyists literally draft legislation (the tobacco industry and AHIP have been notorious for that). Such an argument thus becomes both irrationally dogmatic and in denial of reality and thus logically bankrupt. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But you do shine a light on the fact that limits on news media ownership are probably unconsitutional too, at least for non-broadast media. In fact, I wonder if there are such laws for non-broadcast media in the first place. Oh, hell, why take the long way around – just simply declare that democracy itself is unconstitutional and turn the country over to the Koch brothers. [It’s almost there already](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307970655). Save yourselves lots of trouble. > [@adaher](#): > > That’s also true of billionaires and corporations. No, it isn’t. The objective of commercial media is to attract a profitable audience and may also have journalistic principles around establishing truths and exposing corruption, and the objective of true public media (that is actually publicly funded) tends to be even more independent of ulterior interests and guided by a public-interest mandate. The combination of private media under diverse ownership and public media provides a vital diversity of opinion. Billionaires and corporations may not be completely homogenous in all their interests, but both are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving and increasing their wealth, and corporations have a fiduciary duty to do so. You have to go pretty far down the ladder of top 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% before you start seeing much diversity on matters like progressive taxation and social services. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/147 "2016-02-10T19:11:35Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I was insulting only the voters who blame their problems on money. In other words, it was more an insult of you. > > Sorry. > > This whole thread. Oh for heavens sake. Warning issued. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/148 "2016-02-10T20:28:18Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The idea that attempting to get all sides in an election campaign to play by the same rules is “censorship” is a recurring laughable myth from the far right. You mean far right groups like the ACLU? > [@](#): > > Billionaires and corporations may not be completely homogenous in all their interests, but both are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving and increasing their wealth, and corporations have a fiduciary duty to do so. You have to go pretty far down the ladder of top 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% before you start seeing much diversity on matters like progressive taxation and social services. In other words, censorship of certain political speech is acceptable, because you have decided that the speakers are saying the wrong things. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/149 "2016-02-10T20:46:18Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What an absolute load of crap once again. A legitimate and indeed a critical determinant in applying campaign finance law is the distinction between art and entertainment and flagrant electioneering. The District Court for DC found that **the film had no purpose other than to discredit Clinton’s candidacy for president** , a fact which was blatantly obvious. But the eventual _Citizens United_ ruling was the usual 5-4 prevalence of raving ideology, continuing its track record of incredible judicial activism damaging the most fundamental national institutions. What an absolute load of crap once again. “Flagrant electioneering” is just as protected - and in fact enjoys the highest level of protection - under the First Amendment as any other speech. It’s really that simple. > [@](#): > > The idea that attempting to get all sides in an election campaign to play by the same rules is “censorship” is a recurring laughable myth from the far right. In the big picture, it’s not even about limiting spending, it’s about equal access, and that can be – and is – largely achieved through equal public funding of election messages, so that private money becomes somewhat redundant even if unrestricted. Fine, but this isn’t about public financing - nor is it even about campaigns. It’s about private spending by everyone else. Should everyone - you, me, every group that wants to speak about politics - have public subsidies to pay for their speech for equal access? Perhaps, but you tell me. > [@](#): > > This policy is, naturally, anathema to the American right, which is wholly and unswervingly dedicated to serving the interests of money I’m a lifelong Democrat. Oh, and the ACLU supported the Citizens United decision. Not exactly known as righties either. > [@](#): > > but the reality is that some combination of public funding and private money restrictions constitutes the policy in the following countries: None of which have a First Amendment. > [@](#): > > And thus any argument against that reality becomes an argument that must invoke the mythology of American exceptionalism, and must furthermore try (as you have done elsewhere) to deny the dominant role of money in formulating public policy, dominant to such a flagrant extent that sometimes backroom lobbyists literally draft legislation (the tobacco industry and AHIP have been notorious for that). Such an argument thus becomes both irrationally dogmatic and in denial of reality and thus logically bankrupt. For god’s sake, stop saying money has power. It has no power. It only helps when the people let it. And don’t invoke back rooms - this is about speech, it’s hardly secret. What is logically bankrupt is the idea that you want to restrict money but not speech - since the only thing you care about is the speech - the influence on voters and the “access” that the money brings. And it’s also logically bankrupt to say a restriction on speech is meant as an improvement of democracy and trust in the voters, rather than contempt for those. Oh, hell, why take the long way around – just simply declare that democracy itself is unconstitutional and turn the country over to the Koch brothers. [It’s almost there already](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307970655). Save yourselves lots of trouble. No, it isn’t. The objective of commercial media is to attract a profitable audience and may also have journalistic principles around establishing truths and exposing corruption, and the objective of true public media (that is actually publicly funded) tends to be even more independent of ulterior interests and guided by a public-interest mandate. The combination of private media under diverse ownership and public media provides a vital diversity of opinion. Billionaires and corporations may not be completely homogenous in all their interests, but both are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving and increasing their wealth, and corporations have a fiduciary duty to do so. You have to go pretty far down the ladder of top 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% before you start seeing much diversity on matters like progressive taxation and social services. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/150 "2016-02-10T20:48:15Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Oh for heavens sake. > > Warning issued. I did not intend this as an insult. I was simply reflecting his words when explaining who I was criticizing - a subset of voters whose position he shares. I didn’t use the word insult in my original comment and I didn’t mean it to be one. Perhaps a smiley would have helped but I thought it was clear. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/151 "2016-02-10T20:51:00Z")
Sorry, missed this one. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Oh, hell, why take the long way around – just simply declare that democracy itself is unconstitutional and turn the country over to the Koch brothers. [It’s almost there already](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307970655). Save yourselves lots of trouble. I mean, come on. Someone donates money without you knowing who it is, and someone else uses it to talk about politics, and that’s “declaring democracy itself unconstitutional?” Where do you get this stuff? It’s just speech. It wont’ hurt you. Ignore it if you don’t like it. Everyone else can ignore it too. Voters aren’t robots who do whatever they are told in TV ads. If you think they are, that’s your contempt for democracy. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/152 "2016-02-10T21:17:21Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > You mean far right groups like the ACLU? If you’re referring to _Citizens United_, yes, exactly. The idea that the ACLU is far left or something is right-wing claptrap that goes back to the McCarthy era. The ACLU is issues-focused, so trying to impose a political alignment on them is like getting anatomical information about the elephant from one of the three blind men. And among their hot button issues is free speech absolutism to such an extreme degree that it aligns them with extreme libertarians and far-right nutjobs like the Constitution Party, all of whom agree that _Citizens United_ was just a terrific decision, a tour de force of judicial wisdom from five conservative/libertarian justices, notwithstanding vehement and lengthily detailed dissent from the rest and shock and surprise among policy watchers and constitutional scholars here and observers around the world. A decision so profoundly stupid that for the first time in history AFAIK a Supreme Court ruling was overtly criticized in a State of the Union address. > [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > In other words, censorship of certain political speech is acceptable, because you have decided that the speakers are saying the wrong things. Apparently the words “a more fair and level playing field, in which all voices can be heard” which I’ve repeated in various forms multiple times, mean to you that I just want to shut someone up. Strangely, however, this fundamental tenet of democracy that you find so hard to understand is understood and implemented in electoral policy in every advanced democracy on earth. Hell, they’re even implemented in the US to the extent that campaign finance laws do exist, they’re just spectacularly inadequate in an environment whose whole fundamental structure caters to the influence of money. At this point I have to assume that the constant reference to “censorship” is just the disingenuous result of not having a real argument. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/153 "2016-02-10T21:36:03Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > None of which have a First Amendment. Are you just trying to set a record for being wrong in absolutely _ **everything** _ you say? I’m not going to go through the laws and constitutions of every democracy in the world that controls and mitigates money in politics, since they all do, but just as an example, from the [Constitution of Canada](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html): 1. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: Gosh, that might even sound familiar to you! 😃 All your other points have already been addressed. As I said before, your argument has become purely dogmatic and is now just going around in circles. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/154 "2016-02-10T22:47:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If you’re referring to _Citizens United_, yes, exactly. The idea that the ACLU is far left or something is right-wing claptrap that goes back to the McCarthy era. The ACLU is issues-focused, so trying to impose a political alignment on them is like getting anatomical information about the elephant from one of the three blind men. And among their hot button issues is free speech absolutism to such an extreme degree that it aligns them with extreme libertarians and far-right nutjobs like the Constitution Party, all of whom agree that _Citizens United_ was just a terrific decision, a tour de force of judicial wisdom from five conservative/libertarian justices, notwithstanding vehement and lengthily detailed dissent from the rest and shock and surprise among policy watchers and constitutional scholars here and observers around the world. A decision so profoundly stupid that for the first time in history AFAIK a Supreme Court ruling was overtly criticized in a State of the Union address. Nice try. It doesn’t reflect the ACLU’s actual statements about the case though. Not even close. > [@](#): > > Apparently the words “a more fair and level playing field, in which all voices can be heard” which I’ve repeated in various forms multiple times, mean to you that I just want to shut someone up. If you oppose Citizens United, then that’s exactly what you want to do. > [@](#): > > Strangely, however, this fundamental tenet of democracy that you find so hard to understand is understood and implemented in electoral policy in every advanced democracy on earth. Hell, they’re even implemented in the US to the extent that campaign finance laws do exist, they’re just spectacularly inadequate in an environment whose whole fundamental structure caters to the influence of money. At this point I have to assume that the constant reference to “censorship” is just the disingenuous result of not having a real argument. We are better than even those advanced democracies. We don’t suppress speech. You need to deal with that fact. I have never used the word censorship. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/155 "2016-02-10T22:49:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Are you just trying to set a record for being wrong in absolutely _ **everything** _ you say? I’m not going to go through the laws and constitutions of every democracy in the world that controls and mitigates money in politics, since they all do, but just as an example, from the [Constitution of Canada](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html): > > 1. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: > > Gosh, that might even sound familiar to you! 😃 > > All your other points have already been addressed. As I said before, your argument has become purely dogmatic and is now just going around in circles. Yes, we’re going around in circles when you keep trying to argue that the US should settle for the lower standards of other countries. We have a First Amendment. It is far better than the protections other countries have. It recognizes that speech is more than a useful thing, it’s a fundamental right. You cannot use suppression of speech as a tool to “even out” access to speech. The First Amendment protects us from people who think like you do. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/156 "2016-02-10T23:20:32Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes, we’re going around in circles when you keep trying to argue that the US should settle for the lower standards of other countries. > > We have a First Amendment. It is far better than the protections other countries have. It recognizes that speech is more than a useful thing, it’s a fundamental right. You cannot use suppression of speech as a tool to “even out” access to speech. > > The First Amendment protects us from people who think like you do. There may be some misunderstanding here. Wolfpup has on repeated occasions made it clear he believes that SCOTUS has ruled that burning crosses on the lawns of black families is protected speech. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/157 "2016-02-10T23:24:01Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > There may be some misunderstanding here. > > Wolfpup has on repeated occasions made it clear he believes that SCOTUS has ruled that burning crosses on the lawns of black families is protected speech. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/158 "2016-02-11T00:06:25Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > We are better than even those advanced democracies. We don’t suppress speech. Not according to the voters in their respective countries when asked about campaign finance reform. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/159 "2016-02-11T00:17:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Not according to the voters in their respective countries when asked about campaign finance reform. Well then they must have been mislead my those with undue influence over public opinion (since they disagree with me). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/160 "2016-02-11T02:24:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Not according to the voters in their respective countries when asked about campaign finance reform. They were wrong. Or they were using the same flawed thought process you use to rationalize violations of the Constitution. It happens all the time. Even a majority of Americans can favor violations of the Bill of Rights sometimes. That’s an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/161 "2016-02-11T02:27:30Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > Well then they must have been mislead my those with undue influence over public opinion (since they disagree with me). Great point! If only someone would step in an fix that imbalance and save the voters from their own ignorance caused by undue influence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523.md?page=9)