This confuses me. For some reason, it’s illegal to sell my vote. But if money is covered under free speech, surely there isn’t that much difference between someone giving me a hundred dollars of free speech to convince me to change my vote (or 50, I’m not picky) and them using well-reasoned arguments to change my mind. Wouldn’t the concept of money as speech mean that laws forbidding the buying and selling of votes are unconstitutional?
It’s not true that “money is covered under free speech”. In the US, funding a political campaign is protected by constitutional guarantees of the right to free speech, but it doesn’t follow that every expenditure of money will be similarly protected.
Money is not speech, money enables speech. Allowing the government to forbid people from spending money to make political statements gives them the power to effectively ban all political rallies, just for starters.
Okay, so that distinction is made. But I’m still left wondering what the constitutional basis is for the law against selling your vote.
You can talk a woman into bed, but woe betide if you offer a straight cash transaction.
You started a debate predicated on the idea that your ability to sell you vote ought to be constitutionally protected. How about starting with a discussion of what in the Constitution makes you think that such a right exists?
Voting isn’t speech; voting is the exercise of political power.
I don’t know that I agree with this. Don’t people often say as a rallying cry, “Vote! Make your voice heard!” I think voting may be the epitome of political speech.
However, there are many restrictions on all our rights. I don’t see the prohibition of selling your vote as any different.
That’s just rhetoric. A vote has the same sort of power a court order or arrest warrant has - it can compel people to obey, or face legal consequences. Speech, OTOH, is just words. Nobody has to listen to it.
Maybe in a philosophical sense, but not a constitutional one. If the First Amendment protected voting, the other amendments relating to the right to vote would be unnecessary.
How you make the leap from “spending money to make political statement” to banning rallies is mind-boggling.
That is a logic fail and needless to say it wasn’t the basis of any of the gutting of campaign finance laws – not Citizens United, and not McCutcheon. The basis of Roberts’ thinking was clearly revealed in the latter, when he stated that except for strict quid pro quo bribery, money doesn’t corrupt democracy – which has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard come out of the Supreme Court.
Depends on how much and how it’s offered. Here’s a classic monetary exchange in seven words: trophy wives of the rich and famous. Also their mistresses.
Your vote can be bought with hollow promises unlikely to be fulfilled, but guaranteed payment is illegal. Great system.
Setting aside the legal basis of the SCOTUS decisions, how is that a ‘logic fail’? If the government can limit spending on political speech, they can set the limit low enough to preclude holding a political rally, as they involve significant expenses.
It’s not; it’s a pretty straightforward syllogism.
[ul][li]No group may spend more than X amount of money promoting a political point of view[/li][li]Holding a rally to promote a political point of view costs more than X amount of money[/li][li]Ergo, no group may hold a rally to promote a political point of view.[/ul]QED.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Depends on how much and how it’s offered. Here’s a classic monetary exchange in seven words: trophy wives of the rich and famous. Also their mistresses.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree entirely. But I also still stand by my statement – sure as your depends on how much and how it’s offered reply doubles as a fine reply to the OP.
What’s the constitutional basis for your view that selling your vote is a protected right?
Voting is a right, sure, but it’s also a responsibility. In a democracy, voters get to choose the executive and the legislators, instead of the king choosing them. In doing so,the voters are exercising political power, and for voters to sell their votes is just as objectionable as any other political power being sold to the highest bidder by whoever is charged with exercising it. It’s the corruption of the republic.
This GD is largely based on semantics and verbal gymnastics IMHO.
You can’t sell your vote because we believe democracy is based on the principal that every person should have an equal say in electing their leaders. Regardless if you are broke or Bill Gates, your vote is equal. Allowing people to buy votes would skew the political process in favor of the wealthy even more than it is now.
Money is not “speech”. Money is a form of communication used to convey the value of goods and services, relative to each other. Spending money is not an exercise in free speech.
Your argument is absurd on its basic premise because there are laws limiting campaign spending, and there have been for a long time. What’s been happening is that the current conservative-thinking court has been weakening and gutting the rules, but the ridiculous “slippery slope” argument never made any sense and completely ignores the legitimate purpose of political spending limits. Most countries have far stronger campaign finance laws than the US, and democracy marches on, political rallies and all, more vibrant than ever. It’s in the US wealth-driven political oligarchy that democracy is questionable.
That’s quite true, the analogy is apt. Roberts thinks money might be a corrupting influence in politics if, and only if, you meet a politician in a dark alley and offer him a bag of money to support your pet project. But it’s perfectly OK to offer him a bag of money with a nod and a wink to “help” his campaign. It’s perfectly OK to to spend bags of money saturating the airwaves with propaganda about how your pet project is the key to happiness and prosperity, and the lack of it would bring on darkness and despair. Because no one has ever been influenced by anything they hear on TV (especially on Fox News!). :rolleyes:
You’ve made some wild assumptions here, and attributed arguments and claims to me that I’ve not made. Again, my claim was:
That is, in fact, true. Note that I spoke of “spending” generally, and not “campaign contributions”.
Yeah, I didn’t think this one through so well. I guess what bothers me about this is that any number of factors can individually affect who I want to vote for. Why couldn’t a lump sum of money also apply? Well, tragedy of the commons, obviously. I’m sorry, this was a dumb thread.