If money is speech, and speech is money...

[lance_strongarm]

@wolfpup

You don’t appear to have read Toobin’s analysis. First of all a book is fundamentally different because you make a conscious decision to go out and buy it, it’s not something shoved in your face.

Speech cannot be regulated because someone may not want to hear it or it is “shoved in your face.”

This is the whole freaking point about why the CU decision was such a travesty – there were straightforward grounds for a ruling supporting CU in the context of the existing law, done, thank you, next case.

So? The court decided to right a wrong.

Allow me to introduce the definition of democracy: rule by the people, a form of government in which all the people are involved in making decisions.

And the definition of plutocracy: rule by the wealthy, a form of government in which policies are predominantly or entirely determined by a wealthy ruling class.

Thanks for the lecture, professor.

The PEOPLE rule now. They have the vote. Money cannot vote.

Are we done here?

I cited Jeffrey Toobin’s legal analysis as evidence that your characterization of Citizens United is simplistic and incorrect. If you disagree with it, take it up with Toobin, or give us the detailed reasons why you believe the argument being made by a respected legal analyst is wrong.

Because he’s wrong.

Are you saying all respected legal analysts are right? Even the respected legal analysts who supported the Citizens United decision?

Come on, that was lame.

You misinterpreted my illustrative analogy. My hypothetical scenario was a town hall public meeting, not a council meeting. The scenario was that after being swamped by slick one-sided propaganda from the side of the developer, and having virtually no chance to hear the other side – because there’s no money to be made in parks and green space – the audience was swayed by the saturation of misinformation and foolishly voted in favor of the developer. You see, these were the voters!

Too bad.

You can’t regulate speech just because you don’t like who the speakers are, or that they have “too much” speech, or their motivation for the speech.

The voters are not stupid. They can figure out what’s going on behind slick ads. They do it every single day.

Sorry, no, you may not regulate speech. Get over it.

Trinopus asks what one could do about this kind of situation. In this hypothetical, one might start by having the chair rule that each side gets equal time to make their case. Indeed, in real life meetings those are often the ground rules. In a court case there are strict rules about how and when the defense and the prosecution present their evidence and make their arguments. In your world, you seem to regard this as “censorship” and “limits on free speech”. Obviously it’s the opposite – those sorts of rules and regulations exist precisely to provide a fair and just ability for all sides to be fairly heard. It’s also the very nature of a functional democracy.

Okay, so do you support rationing of speech in the real world? Everyone gets exactly 5 minutes and then they are fined if the use more? What?

How about on this board - should everyone have a certain number of words they can use before they run out?

[Trinopus]

@lance_strongarm

So now you want to “vet” people before they are allowed to speak? To make sure they are properly qualiified according to your standards? . . .

Seriously, man? I mean, seriously? I was speaking in opposition to the vetting of movies.

You appear to have severe difficulties here in reading comprehension: this is the third time you’ve misread what I’ve said to mean the exact opposite.

[lance_strongarm]

@Trinopus

Seriously, man? I mean, seriously? I was speaking in opposition to the vetting of movies.

You appear to have severe difficulties here in reading comprehension: this is the third time you’ve misread what I’ve said to mean the exact opposite.

Sorry, you’re right. I think I’m reading too fast after mistaking you for other posters. I’ll try to slow down.

[lance_strongarm]

@Trinopus

Seriously, man? I mean, seriously? I was speaking in opposition to the vetting of movies.

You appear to have severe difficulties here in reading comprehension: this is the third time you’ve misread what I’ve said to mean the exact opposite.

Okay, I went back again and read it, and I think your comment was non-specific enough to be read both as in support of or against. Just sayin’.

[Trinopus]

@lance_strongarm

Okay, I went back again and read it, and I think your comment was non-specific enough to be read both as in support of or against. Just sayin’.

Well…okay, I’ll do my doggonedest to be less ambiguous.

In any case, you and I actually agree re the specific legal concepts. I just happen to dislike them, emotionally. I see these as really bad things…except that (as you noted) the cure would be worse than the disease.

(It’s a little like the Electoral College. Emotionally, I hate it and wish we had a nationwide direct vote. But on the basis of reasoning, I can see why it came about and how removing it would be harmful. Emotions don’t have to jibe with reasoning: often as not, the two are in conflict.)

(My heart belongs to Bernie, but my head is for Hillary.)

[PatrickLondon]

@lance_strongarm

The problem lately has been that coordination is hard to define and see, and our enforcement is weak anyway.

Our system essentially works on the candidates’ agents policing each other, and keeping an eye on what they must be spending, and checking that against the published accounts for anything on which they can tie each other up in expensive cases before the electoral tribunal.

@lance_strongarm

You mean if just anyone publishes a book they wrote about a candidate that praises him (or criticizes his opponent) it’s counted against the candidate?

If your system counts any speech on behalf of a candidate toward a limit on spending, how the hell does that work? So anyone could go around publishing books about him and that limits the amount the candidate can spend? That’s not only unfair, it sounds unworkable and rife for abuse. The fact that someone else talked about me shouldn’t limit my speech. But maybe I read this wrong.

I mis-spoke: people who want to act as campaigners independent of the individual parties and candidates have to register separately and have their own expenditure limits. It would be up to the Electoral Commission and the tribunals to say whether any particular speech about someone counts as campaigning for them. Also, you have to remember that expenditure limits only apply for the specific period in which an election is called and any given person is a candidate. The complicating factor is that your campaigns go on for so long. The election period to which our limits apply is usually of the order of six weeks.

[lance_strongarm]

@PatrickLondon

I mis-spoke: people who want to act as campaigners independent of the individual parties and candidates have to register separately and have their own expenditure limits.

Ah, thanks. This was the essence of the issue in our Citizens United decision. It was, as with any expenditure limits on speech, a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

[wolfpup]

@lance_strongarm

Are we done here?

Yes, I do believe we are.

I think actually we were pretty much done at the point that you declared that the Princeton Gilens-Page study is “wrong”, “STUPID”, and “confused” (and also “idiotic”). We certainly were done at the point where you declared that Jeffrey Toobin’s carefully detailed legal analysis of Citizens United is “wrong” despite the wide characterization of that decision as one that has re-shaped the political landscape of the United States. We were done at about the time that you declared that no other country in the world except the US has freedom of speech, that all other countries with campaign finance laws are wrong and use flawed thinking, and that voters who perceive a loss of true democracy are whiners.

We’re done here because you flippantly dismiss and ignore the fact that in no other country in the world is the corrupting influence of money so recklessly infused into every aspect of public governance, nowhere else does it so egregiously usurp the democratic right of voters to be fairly informed. In no other country in the world does the Supreme Court function as an unelected proxy for its political appointers and their ideology. In no other country in the world is the Supreme Court so bitterly divided along ideological lines. I mentioned a few landmark recent campaign finance rulings before. Here’s how they were decided: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life 5-4; Davis v. Federal Election Commission 5-4; Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett 5-4; *Citizens United v. FEC * 5-4; McCutcheon v. FEC 5-4. Every one decided with the same ideological split. Every one contrary to the democratic principles enshrined in every democracy in the world. Every one with strong dissent from the progressive side.

Nowhere else would a Court vacancy become such a central election issue, or indeed an election issue at all, because elsewhere judges are quite properly regarded as apolitical and act accordingly, more concerned with impartially interpreting the constitution and the law than with promoting political agendas. But here it’s understandably a huge election issue, because as always, ideology and vested interests is what it’s really about, with fairness and justice being merely a facade. Because with a shift in balance of this unelected de facto second legislature, the fear of the plutocracy is that with the loss of their ideological majority, ideological rulings like Citizens United might be overturned. And of course for them, it is a perfectly valid thing to fear.

But you not only argue that these things are all good and proper, but maintain that there’s not even anything here to debate. And in case there was any lingering doubt about that at all, you wrap it up with a statement so bizarre that it would normally be regarded as parody:

@lance_strongarm

… The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.

Yep. At least this states the issue correctly instead of all that blather trying to get around it.

So yes, we’re done here.

[lance_strongarm]

@wolfpup

Yes, I do believe we are.

I think actually we were pretty much done at the point that you declared that the Princeton Gilens-Page study is “wrong”, “STUPID”, and “confused” (and also “idiotic”). We certainly were done at the point where you declared that Jeffrey Toobin’s carefully detailed legal analysis of Citizens United is “wrong”

LOL - you’re still hanging your hat on the idea that a “carefully detail legal analysis” has just got to be right, because it’s “carefully detailed.”

despite the wide characterization of that decision as one that has re-shaped the political landscape of the United States.

So what if it re-shaped the political landscape?

We were done at about the time that you declared that no other country in the world except the US has freedom of speech, that all other countries with campaign finance laws are wrong and use flawed thinking, and that voters who perceive a loss of true democracy are whiners.

Okay.

We’re done here because you flippantly dismiss and ignore the fact that in no other country in the world is the corrupting influence of money so recklessly infused into every aspect of public governance, nowhere else does it so egregiously usurp the democratic right of voters to be fairly informed.

Listen to yourself!

You want the government to control speech with the stated goal of assuring the people are “fairly” informed.

What nonsense! That’s more like how dictators justify their total control of speech.

YOU don’t get to decide whether the people are “fairly informed.” The people decide. If they think they don’t have enough info, or the right info, they can seek out more.

In no other country in the world does the Supreme Court function as an unelected proxy for its political appointers and their ideology.

Nor did they in this case.

In no other country in the world is the Supreme Court so bitterly divided along ideological lines.

So what? That doesn’t make one side more right.

I mentioned a few landmark recent campaign finance rulings before. Here’s how they were decided: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life 5-4; Davis v. Federal Election Commission 5-4; Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett 5-4; *Citizens United v. FEC * 5-4; McCutcheon v. FEC 5-4. Every one decided with the same ideological split.

And? So 4 justices are wrong often.

Every one contrary to the democratic principles enshrined in every democracy in the world.

Bullshit. Citizens United was solidly in favor of demcoracy. You are not.

Every one with strong dissent from the progressive side.

Waaaah.

You don’t get to control speech. Get. Over. It.

Nowhere else would a Court vacancy become such a central election issue, or indeed an election issue at all, because elsewhere judges are quite properly regarded as apolitical and act accordingly, more concerned with impartially interpreting the constitution and the law than with promoting political agendas. But here it’s understandably a huge election issue, because as always, ideology and vested interests is what it’s really about, with fairness and justice being merely a facade. Because with a shift in balance of this unelected de facto second legislature, the fear of the plutocracy is that with the loss of their ideological majority, ideological rulings like Citizens United might be overturned. And of course for them, it is a perfectly valid thing to fear.

You’re doing that thing again where you think split decisions proves something. The other side fears you as much as you fear them, you know.

But you not only argue that these things are all good and proper, but maintain that there’s not even anything here to debate. And in case there was any lingering doubt about that at all, you wrap it up with a statement so bizarre that it would normally be regarded as parody:

Sorry about that. Maybe you should find a way to ban my speech!

So yes, we’re done here.

Good. I hope you feel better after that.

You can’t regulate speech. Read the First Amendment. Someday perhaps you’ll even understand why. In the meantime, you’ll have to make do with being told you can’t.

[lance_strongarm]

I know you said we’re done, but I thought I’d post this in light of your claim to the title “progressive.”

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | American Civil Liberties Union

I suggest you read it. It’s even a “carefully detailed legal analysis” so that’s good.

[UltraVires]

With regards to the argument that it is not a ban because it is only for a 30 day period prior to the election, could we do the same thing with other recognized rights? No abortions, gun purchases, or marriages in the month of January only. The rest of the year is fine. We have a good secular reason for these laws: a month off to allow people to reflect on these serious choices. Would those laws be constitutional?

[adaher]

If they apply to a specific time, place, and manner. If BCRA was limited to TV ads it probably would have stood up. It was the contention that it could be applied to books and movies that probably got under the justices’ skin.

Time= 30 days before an election
Place= the public airwaves
Manner= advocating the election or defeat of a candidate

That’s pretty narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

If they apply to a specific time, place, and manner. If BCRA was limited to TV ads it probably would have stood up. It was the contention that it could be applied to books and movies that probably got under the justices’ skin.

Time= 30 days before an election
Place= the public airwaves
Manner= advocating the election or defeat of a candidate

That’s pretty narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

Even if this did fit in the definition of “manner,” which it obviously doesn’t, you can’t just declare that a restriction on speech is “manner.” It’s still protected by the First Amendment.

[adaher]

I agree, but according to Supreme Court jurisdiction, infringing the 1st amendment isn’t totally verboten, such laws simply have to survive strict scrutiny. When the justices initially upheld the law, it was because it was meant to further the compelling government interest of avoiding the appearance of corruption. But the FEC was stupid and applied the law in a way that didn’t further any compelling government interest at all, and so they got smacked down.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

I agree, but according to Supreme Court jurisdiction, infringing the 1st amendment isn’t totally verboten, such laws simply have to survive strict scrutiny. When the justices initially upheld the law, it was because it was meant to further the compelling government interest of avoiding the appearance of corruption. But the FEC was stupid and applied the law in a way that didn’t further any compelling government interest at all, and so they got smacked down.

Okay. But I don’t think getting around the First Amendment by simply declaring that “manner” gives the government to regulate speech related to elections would, or should, survive strict scrutiny. I think it’s a joke.

[adaher]

I don’t think so either, but it’s important for both sides to remember just how narrow the dissent in Citizens United was. BCRA never prevented the Kochs from influencing elections, because the Kochs are individuals. It never even prevented corporations, except within 30 days of an election, and then only if they explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. BCRA was written in such a way as to maximize its chances of surviving a challenge in teh Supreme Court that was actually pretty liberal at the time. If a stronger law than BCRA can’t get past the 2001 Supreme Court, then it can’t get past any court.

Plus Buckley v. Valeo back in 1976 already established that individuals could spend as much as they wanted.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

I don’t think so either, but it’s important for both sides to remember just how narrow the dissent in Citizens United was. BCRA never prevented the Kochs from influencing elections, because the Kochs are individuals. It never even prevented corporations, except within 30 days of an election, and then only if they explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. BCRA was written in such a way as to maximize its chances of surviving a challenge in teh Supreme Court that was actually pretty liberal at the time. If a stronger law than BCRA can’t get past the 2001 Supreme Court, then it can’t get past any court.

Plus Buckley v. Valeo back in 1976 already established that individuals could spend as much as they wanted.

You are talking about its chances in court. I’m talking about how I would rule if I were a judge. The courts might accept your idea, but they would be full of shit if they did. It would open the floodgates to allow the government to regulate in any way whatsoever any speech that happened to be about elections.

[Bone]

@adaher

If they apply to a specific time, place, and manner. If BCRA was limited to TV ads it probably would have stood up. It was the contention that it could be applied to books and movies that probably got under the justices’ skin.

Time= 30 days before an election
Place= the public airwaves
Manner= advocating the election or defeat of a candidate

That’s pretty narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

Time, Place, and Manner refer to intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. Being Narrowly tailored is but one of the three prongs.

@adaher

I agree, but according to Supreme Court jurisdiction, infringing the 1st amendment isn’t totally verboten, such laws simply have to survive strict scrutiny. When the justices initially upheld the law, it was because it was meant to further the compelling government interest of avoiding the appearance of corruption. But the FEC was stupid and applied the law in a way that didn’t further any compelling government interest at all, and so they got smacked down.

This is wrong too. Depending on the nature of implication of the 1st amendment, the level of scrutiny may be different. Strict scrutiny isn’t a requirement.

[adaher]

You’re right, I was just being as simple as possible.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

Plus Buckley v. Valeo back in 1976 already established that individuals could spend as much as they wanted.

For the record, as you know, Buckley established that anyone can spend as much as they want, or at least set out that broad principle. BCRA blew right through that. If candidates can’t be subjected to spending limits (per Buckley) then certainly independent speakers can’t be.