A 30- day window that retricts political speech right before an election is an awful big 30 days.
The First Amendment makes no exceptions for “just 30 days.”
It’s free speech. Just allow it and move on.
No, it’s like saying a NHL player is allowed to play in a match… but only when the umpire isn’t looking.
I recognize that you substantively disagree with me; but just because we don’t agree doesn’t provide license for you to exaggerate and use words deceptively.
We are on the same page that “money is speech” is sloppy and misleading. Similarly, using words like “ban,” which implies permanence, is also sloppy and misleading. And let’s be clear: you are the one using word games. If you didn’t use such intentionally sloppy language, I wouldn’t have to point out that you are doing so.
Let’s move on.
Enough.
Get off the word “ban.” I’m off it. I deliberately stated my questions without that word in it.
Do you think a restriction on the ability to spend money on speech that makes it nearly impossible to broadcast that speech is justifiable simply because it is for 30 days instead of longer? Why?
I don’t think that making a “political” film is the issue at all – my beef is with materials that relate to advocating for or against a particular candidate, especially when the producer is more or less acting like a surrogate for another candidate.
Yes, I would be okay with fines, but not jail time, for an independent expenditures group attempting to use a film shortly before an election to advocate for a particular candidate under certain, but not all, circumstances.
As I have repeatedly said in this thread – I don’t know how to make it any clearer – I’m not particularly bothered by a filmmaker showing such a film in a theater where people pay to go see it. I do think it crosses a line if the film would be distributed in a way that makes it effectively an advertisement. An example of this would include distributing thousands of DVDs to voters in a targeted area, etc.
I do not believe that the simple act of producing a film – writing the script, hiring actors, shooting scenes, editing, etc is ever going to be a campaign finance violation. Frankly, I think it’s pretty silly of you to ask such a preposterous question. My issue is with the distribution of it, particularly to the extent that a film walks, talks, and quacks like a political advertisement.
lance, let me ask you a question: do you believe that people should be able to make unlimited contributions to a candidate? Do you think corporations, unions, and similar entities should be able to make contributions, perhaps unlimited, to a candidate?
It’s the issue in the case!
Yes - such as a political film.
As for surrogacy, the idea that any time you talk about a candidate it makes you a surrogate is just whack.
What circumstances exactly?
But you can’t possibly make that distinction! Not only is it still a total violation of the First Amendment, it is completely impractical. But never mind - it’s a total violation of the First Amendment. You can’t declare that someone can’t distribute DVDs just because you don’t like the fact that they talk about politics before an election. It’s just absurd that you don’t see that it’s a blatant violation of freedom of speech.
But if it were made a violation, would you oppose that? And would you agree that it is unconstitutional?
The whole premise behind your argument - or at least many who oppose the CU decision - is that it is okay to regulate money spent on speech. What possible grounds do you have for saying regulating money spent on making a film is different? Even if you don’t think it will happen, or wouldn’t want it to, how can you possibly reconcile it with your other views? If the government can regulate money spent on speech, then it could regulate money spent on making a film. Or publishing a book. Or…
Not unlimited. Donations are an entirely different thing. This isn’t about donations, it’s about spending.
Do you believe you have a right to spend your money on speech in any way you want at any time? What if you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate - are you a “surrogate” for that candidate? Should that also be banned 30 days before an election?
I think you’re living on another planet if you don’t believe that independent expenditures are being used to evade limitations on candidate’s campaigns.
Let me say this again: I recognize what the Supreme Court says, and what the law is, but I do not agree with it. I totally understand that the Court has made its ruling, but I think that the influence of campaign money on the very foundations of our elections and system of government is pernicious and getting worse. I cannot live under the fiction that everything is okay because the Supreme Court said the law means a certain thing.
Yes, I agree that prohibiting a filmmaker from making a film is not cool at all.
Are you saying that it is a slippery slope? That if we regulate money spent on campaigns, next we will be regulating money spent on baby food… and who is in favor of starving babies?
Christ, dude, you need to study a book of logical fallacies some time. You’ve made several good points in this thread, but they are buried within a deep forest of poor arguments. In fact, I think you may have inadvertently hit upon all the major informal fallacies so far – poisoning the well, equivocation, slippery slope… the list goes on and on.
Like walking-around money? Bribes to officials? No, those aren’t protected by free speech.
And you’ve changed the subject AGAIN.
Do you believe that EVERY time someone speaks about a candidate they are working on a candidate’s behalf? Do you believe ALL cases of speaking about a candidate that involve money should be regulated just in case some are being used to evade the limits?
But what you are saying is not that you disagree with the court’s logic - you’re saying you don’t like the First Amendment.
“Not cool” isn’t good enough. It is forbidden. And by your logic - that it is okay to regulate speech through money, it would be allowed.
Are you saying we should give the government vast powers to ignore the First Amendment and just hope they don’t abuse them further?
Bullshit. I know my fallacies. You’ve been trying to nitpick so you can evade the questions. Your whole argument is corrupt to the core. You don’t like the First Amendment. It’s that simple. You think the government should regulate certain speech because you don’t like the fact that money is involved with it. That’s a crock.
Talk about your fallacies. We both know I wasn’t talking about that. Please stop playing games. And please stop ignoring questions. Heres’ the rest of mine:
What if you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate - are you a “surrogate” for that candidate? Should that also be banned 30 days before an election?
Actually, it’s for longer than just “30 days”. It’s 30 days before ANY primary or caucus not just the main election. In short, if the FEC determined that Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 911 for the purpose of “advocating for or against George Bush”(AKA electioneering) then virtually all of 2004 it would have, at the very least, been empowered to ban all advertising for the movie.
Good point, thanks.
Am I supposed to only post replies to your questions? You know, in a debate, sometimes I get to say what’s on my mind.
Again with lame questions. Is killing a person ALWAYS murder? No. Is giving money to a candidate ALWAYS legal? No. You’re asking absolutist questions, and it is silly.
More poisoning the well. Yawn.
Aaaand you’re back to word games. It’s like Ted Cruz, who criticizes Obama for not saying “radical extremist Muslims.” Yawn.
Another ridiculous question.
I think I’ve been very clear with my responses, but I’m not going to spend time writing out thoughtful responses to silly questions.
I said various stripes of PACs are surrogates for candidates’ official campaigns. Where you get the idea that voters are surrogates… well, another silly question. But just because you get soooooo upset when you ask a rediculous question and don’t get an obvious response: No, people can put a bumper sticker on their car any time. Because it beggars my wildest imagination why you think a voter is a PAC.
So the other question you didn’t repeat was – and I’ll rephrase it slightly so it makes more sense – whether people can spend money on things that are legal to spend money on: the answer is yes. But I should caveat that if people want to spend money on things that they aren’t allowed to spend money on, then they can’t do that.
So will I be able to get together with my friends to have a bake sale, and pool our money to create a giant tupee-shaped banner labeled “Trump the Stumpy Chump”, to drag below the hot air balloon we will rent for the purpose? We are thinking of doing it sometime in the last 30 days before the election, so, need answer fast, we have to bake the cookies and reserve the balloon.
At this point, I’m just going to give the answers that folks want me to give.
You will all be shot on sight by the FEC Delta Force.
I would like to make a crowd-sourcing campaign to fund a YouTube TV series parody of Apocalypto, starring a super buff Ted Cruz look-alike.
Are we a PAC? Where exactly will your censors intervene? The crowd-sourcing platform? YouTube? The publisher? Individual donors? What if all of the hosting, organizing, and funding is done outside of the US?
The censors will intervene as soon as the thought occurs to you. All mental activity relating to Ted Cruz is a thought crime. Those who confess are sentenced to spending a week with Ted Cruz. Those who don’t confess and are found guilty are sentenced to roaming the Alaskan countryside, with your only warmth provided by burning the Constitution.
There is no more YouTube in the future, because cat videos are no longer protected speech.
Not only replies - but yeah, replies.
For God’s sake, explain how the hell those things apply to this situation please.
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. No.
More circular argument. We are discussing whether the law should allow people to spend money on things, not what it currently allows.
You are dodging the questiions again. I think I’ve made my point. 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.
Stop trying to insert yourself into democracy. It is not your business how others vote, or why, or what speech the listen to or use to make their decisions. It is not your place to say that voters made the wrong choices based on speech, or “influence.” That’ why we have freedom of speech.