# Is monetary political contributions the same as speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460 "2016-04-07T17:30:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/101 "2016-04-13T21:35:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Incorrect. No one is advocating censorship. You can say, write, and publish anything you want. No one who is opposed to C.U. is opposed to free speech. > > This is one more example of an egregious straw man fallacy. Should [Hillary: The Movie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie) have been banned? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/102 "2016-04-13T22:31:20Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Should [Hillary: The Movie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie) have been banned? The movie should not have been banned. I don’t know anyone who argued that, exactly. The question was over its funding, and whether that was permissible. No one here is arguing for censorship of content, only of regulation of corporate funding of political advertising. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/103 "2016-04-13T22:39:29Z")
But that’s a convenient way of avoiding the question. Saying “the movie shouldn’t be banned” but then continuing to suggest that “the movie shouldn’t be made” because it was funded by corporations is really saying the same thing: I’m okay with stifling political expression because it came from corporate coffers. In fact, the latter notion is worse as it censors speech before it even materializes. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/104 "2016-04-13T22:41:29Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > _Making it illegal to spend money to broadcast a movie is the same thing as banning that movie_. I don’t think anyone actually disagrees with that statement, do you? Well, do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/105 "2016-04-13T22:50:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is _ipso facto_ a negative effect regardless of whether the policy outcomes in such instances are good for the majority, which I am quite certain that they generally are not. No it’s not _ipso facto_ anything. The point is that the term “negative effect” is subjective. Introducing this in the OP is well poisoning. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/106 "2016-04-13T23:24:26Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > But that’s a convenient way of avoiding the question. > > Saying “the movie shouldn’t be banned” but then continuing to suggest that “the movie shouldn’t be made” because it was funded by corporations is really saying the same thing: I’m okay with stifling political expression because it came from corporate coffers. No, it isn’t. Saying “The movie shouldn’t be made” is merely an expression of disapproval. Saying “The movie should be banned” encourages government, the network or somebody to actually take action to ban it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/107 "2016-04-13T23:25:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No it’s not _ipso facto_ anything. The point is that the term “negative effect” is subjective. Introducing this in the OP is well poisoning. How could the rich always getting their way as against the majority’s way in public decisionmaking in a purportedly democratic republic possibly be anything **but** a negative effect? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/108 "2016-04-13T23:52:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How could the rich always getting their way as against the majority’s way in public decisionmaking in a purportedly democratic republic possibly be anything **but** a negative effect? Considering your paraphrase is inaccurate it’s pretty easy to rebut. You’ve moved from, \*"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they **generally lose**. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they \*\*generally \*_do not get it."_ to _“the rich **always getting their way** ”_. These are not the same. Probably an oversight, I’m sure. In any event, let’s look at the article: > [@](#): > > This is what the data shows: when the economic élites support a given policy change, it has about a one-in-two chance of being enacted. (The exact estimated probability is forty-five per cent.) When the élites oppose a given measure, its chances of becoming law are less than one in five. (The exact estimate is eighteen per cent.) The fact that both figures are both below fifty per cent reflects a status-quo bias: in the divided American system of government, getting anything at all passed is tricky. Assuming the study data calculations/conclusions are accurate, we’re talking 45% which you’ve characterized as “always”. This is so not even close that it’s funny. And that doesn’t speak to the study validity itself. But let’s look at your question itself as if it were an accurate portrayal of something because even though it is not, it’s easily rebutted - > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How could the rich always getting their way as against the majority’s way in public decisionmaking in a purportedly democratic republic possibly be anything **but** a negative effect? Because it’s good if you’re rich. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/109 "2016-04-14T00:18:09Z")
Come to think of it, the [Tillman Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907) of 1907 is still on the books. Some courageous prosecutor could do something with it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/110 "2016-04-14T00:21:52Z")
BTW, there’s a [big protest](http://www.salon.com/2016/04/13/a_crisis_point_in_our_democracy_why_progressive_leaders_and_thousands_of_others_will_risk_arrest_this_week/) going on in Washington all this week, against money in politics and a great deal else about our electoral systems. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/111 "2016-04-14T02:15:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, it isn’t. Saying “The movie shouldn’t be made” is merely an expression of disapproval. Saying “The movie should be banned” encourages government, the network or somebody to actually take action to ban it. Fair enough. But this discussion is all in direct reference to the _Citizens United_ ruling, making the government’s involvement a central concern. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/112 "2016-04-14T12:19:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The movie should not have been banned. > > I don’t know anyone who argued that, exactly. The question was over its funding, and whether that was permissible. > > No one here is arguing for censorship of content, only of regulation of corporate funding of political advertising. Not true. Banning the funding is banning the movie. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/113 "2016-04-14T12:23:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Incorrect. No one is advocating censorship. You can say, write, and publish anything you want. No one who is opposed to C.U. is opposed to free speech. > > This is one more example of an egregious straw man fallacy. That’s bs. People opposed to Citizens United are against freedom of the press. There is no way to honestly spin that otherwise. The ACLU says it better than I can. [https://www.aclu.org/blog/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution](https://www.aclu.org/blog/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution) ---
**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:** [April 14, 2016, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/114 "2016-04-14T12:28:05Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Incorrect. No one is advocating censorship. You can say, write, and publish anything you want. No one who is opposed to C.U. is opposed to free speech. > > This is one more example of an egregious straw man fallacy. Forbidding someone from using their resources to exercise their speech rights is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. If someone is fined for spending money to publish a book or produce a film, to say that’s not akin to censorship is crazy doublespeak. To say otherwise leads to ridiculous conclusions, such as the idea that the government could, for instance, pass a law forbidding the spending of money to buy a Bible, but say it’s not a restriction on religious liberty because you are still allowed to possess a Bible, or pass a law forbidding a woman from paying a doctor for an abortion, but saying it doesn’t violate Roe v. Wade because she can still have an abortion. If you don’t want to call it “censorship,” fine. It’s not censorship. It’s still a blatant violation of the First Amendment. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2016, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/115 "2016-04-14T12:29:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > BTW, there’s a [big protest](http://www.salon.com/2016/04/13/a_crisis_point_in_our_democracy_why_progressive_leaders_and_thousands_of_others_will_risk_arrest_this_week/) going on in Washington all this week, against money in politics and a great deal else about our electoral systems. I wonder how much MONEY the protestors spent to organize it? ---
**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:** [April 14, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/116 "2016-04-14T12:31:08Z")
You are absolutely free to make any movie you want. You just can’t spend any money on cameras, lights, actors or anything else. Freedom! (eyes rolling) ---
**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:** [April 14, 2016, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/117 "2016-04-14T12:42:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. That is wrong essentially, ontologically and definitionally. The democratic principle compels that any collective decision of the majority must be implemented, but it does not compel that any collective decision of the majority must therefore be classified a wise or beneficial choice. Even the most zealous small-d democrat must admit that sometimes the people can choose unwisely or unjustly. I didn’t say that. I said the choice of the voters is the choice, not that it is wise. The government may not restrict or manipulate speech based on the notion that the voters didn’t make a wise choice. > [@](#): > > 1. To reduce this to “who the voters are choosing” is outrageously disingenuous and preposterous. As you know very well, a lot of vetting and wealth-primarying happens out of sight long before the voters get to pick one of two choices on the ballot, and the likes of you and me are never involved in that process and rich power-brokers are, and candidates extremely threatening to established business interests are only rarely allowed to make it that far. That’s why Sanders stands out as such a fluke; as his showing to date has demonstrated, it is not because nobody really wants left-progressives in office. So? What’s that got to do with speech rights? If you have a problem with all that, by all means feel free to discuss it. Don’t claim it’s a reason to restrict speech or try to further manipulate the process. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/118 "2016-04-14T12:45:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > BTW, there’s a [big protest](http://www.salon.com/2016/04/13/a_crisis_point_in_our_democracy_why_progressive_leaders_and_thousands_of_others_will_risk_arrest_this_week/) going on in Washington all this week, against money in politics and a great deal else about our electoral systems. Now that I’ve read the link, I see that the protests don’t have that much to do with money in politics. And, while most people deliberately or mistakenly mix up the two all the time, those quoted seem to be concerned with donations to candidates, which as we all know by now is not the same as spending on speech. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/119 "2016-04-15T00:54:33Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Now that I’ve read the link, I see that the protests don’t have that much to do with money in politics. Don’t see how you could read it that way. > [@](#): > > “The number-one obstacle is all of this work is our broken democracy,” she said, especially on climate solutions. “It has been so hijacked by big money. I am sure that everyone has seen the data. The U.S. senators who reject the fact that humans have caused climate change have received on average seven times as much campaign cash from oil and gas [interests], as those who actually acknowledge the science… The other thing is there are so many new obstacles to real people participating in our democracy.” > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And, while most people deliberately or mistakenly mix up the two all the time, those quoted seem to be concerned with donations to candidates, which as we all know by now is not the same as spending on speech. Of course it is. The candidates spend the money on TV ads. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/120 "2016-04-15T01:01:48Z")
So lets say you get your wish and nobody gives any money to any politician. How do they get elected? A senator for California would need to go out and knock doors from the day she is elected till the next to even make a dent in meeting voters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460.md?page=7)