Among voters, I’ll grant you, but apparently it is a partisan issue among lawmakers, according to this WaPo article…
And let’s not forget that Citizens United (the organization, not the ruling) was conservative and took the matter to court because regulations at the time didn’t allow them to broadcast an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary.
So? That doesn’t suggest that the two sides can have different views on it philosophically, which apparently is the case. See above. Knock yourself out with your list, though, for all the relevance it won’t have.
No one has based their reasoning on “undesireable” outcomes. That’s a straw-man that has recently been flung across this debate, but it’s fallacious.
More to the point is whether people can be swayed without their permission, and even against their will. A lot of political advertising is cheap appeal to base emotions, intended to last only long enough for votes to be cast (or money donated to buy more ads.)
If, in an undisturbed state, the citizenry would hold different views, then advertising money is “unnatural.” This is of concern to many of us: it allows magnates to buy and sell representation, and to craft legislation to benefit special interests.
I, personally, agree with many of the special interests that political money buys and sells. The “undesireable” slander is a foolish one. Some of us are trying to adhere to a higher moral position than our own self-advantage, and not buying and selling people’s opinions is one of those higher moral views.
Could you please cite a recent political ad or ads that forced people to vote against their will, and then contrast it with a set of ads that did not do that? Then explain how the difference could be legislated against. TIA.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re using the term fallacious incorrectly, but that’s not really the point. The reasoning has been presented. See the OP:
Here I think BG is saying something to do with anti-democracy, but who can really tell since it’s just a drive by link.
And here, you make the point that elections can be bought and that is undemocratic.
Let me lay it out for you:
Since the opinion of voters can be swayed by advertisements (undesirable outcome), *then elections can be bought. which is completely undemocratic *(evidence of anti-democracy or an election being bought).
The italicized portions are quoted from you. Hardly a strawman when it’s your own statement.
Unless you are talking about some coercive force, this is nonsense. Voters could simply experience a moment of true clarity in the expression of their will, their focus being honed by the outreach efforts during a campaign.
How the hell is that not democratic?
The voters decide who to vote for. If they want to vote based on ads, that is their choice. They still decide.
No its not. Its the heart of the argument.
If the outcomes aren’t undesirable, there’s no point in having this discussion.
If they can (and of course, that would have to include YOU - does it?) then there’s no point in letting people vote in the first place.
The idea that we need to let the government manipulate what people see and hear so they won’t be swayed is the opposite of democracy and free speech. If you believe that, you’re not upholding democracy, you oppose it.
Who are you to say the voters are too dumb or gullible to know what they want?
Who the hell are you to say opinions can be bought and sold? Is yours bought? No? Why not? Are you somehow smarter than the rest of us that you can resist the brainwashing effect of ads you think everyone else is vulnerable to?
This is a good time to note that the ACLU supported the Citizens United decision.
Much as it has supported other decisions that are contrary to public opinion, including the right to burn the flag or for neoNazis to have the right to speech and assembly. You do what’s right, not what’s popular.
Do you think total free speech is simply just speech, or money, or do you think its more likely to be speech + money + power/influence/etc?
Free speech is simply the lack of government interference in what people can say, publish or broadcast. Nobody owes you a megaphone simply for existing. The important aspect of free speech is that no authority can prevent you from using it (or books/pamphlets/editorial sections/commercials/radio/etc). You have the freedom to use a printing press. You don’t have a claim on anyone else’s printing press, nor do you have the freedom to commandeer one.
Whether or not you possess the money, power or influence to convince anyone by your speech is a completely different matter. You have the freedom to try. But nobody guarantees you success.
And to add to this, you are free to pursue additional means to make your voice heard by joining with others to pool your resources, such as creating, joining or donating to a political group.
Then is bribery considered free speech? Nobody’s preventing you from bribing your Congressman, so anyone should be able to?
What are you talking about? He wasn’t talking about donations to anyone. And bribery is illegal, has never been considered speech, and is not a constitutional right.
Once you bring money into things and remove regulations to stop it, you blur the line between donations and bribery. I just want to know if the people arguing for money as speech see a line between free speech and bribery. If so, where is that line?
We’re not talking about donations!
This line of conversation - the post by DrCube - is discussing speech and spending money on speech. Nothing about donations.
Furthermore, nobody - no court, and nobody here - has ever said that donations to a candidate are speech. And no regulations on donations to candidates have been removed either.
Free speech is free speech.
Of course, you use your money, power, influence, etc. in communicating that speech but your right to speech should still be fundamentally free, shouldn’t it? Trying to separate your speech from your other attributes is probably impossible even if you tried, but certainly undesirable.
The issue with Citizens United is that there’s a continuum of money and speech that starts with me putting a $1 bumper sticker on my car, extends through a $10 yard sign, a $1000 newspaper ad, a 10,000 billboard, a $100,000 TV spot, a $1,000,000 concerted ad campaign. Where would you draw the line? All of these are examples of using money as part of our free speech.
But as with corporations, cars, yards, billboards and TVs aren’t people so they have no speech rights!
This is the silliest thing I have read in a good long time.
I see ads all the freaking time for tampons. By your reasoning, I should have a crap load of tampons because people can be ‘swayed without their permission’ to do things that they would not normally do, like buy tampons when they don’t use them.
However, I have no tampons. Interestingly, I just asked a couple male coworkers and they don’t have tampons either. Why is this? Additionally, my wife does have some tampons. Interestingly she has just the number she needs and no more.
Your post comes down to the standard ‘people are too stupid to think for themselves’ shtick. While an ad depicting a crying child might make you abandon all reason and run out and support whomever is named in the ad, that is not the way most people work. Stop thinking you are smarter than everyone because you aren’t.
And regarding this:
You could use that for any form of communication. If a politician says something during a debate it is changing the ‘undisturbed state’ of the citizenry. And, since we all know pols lie on a routine basis, that would be as bad or worse than advertising, don’t ya think?
And, hate to say it, but politics is all about cheap appeals to emotion.
Precisely.
And let me add to this - IF someone does work that way, that’s their choice! It’s not anyone’s business to say they voted the wrong way for the wrong reason and therefore certain ads deemed too manipulative or whatever should be banned. That cuts at the heart of freedom of speech and democracy.
Bribery is not speech. Paying to air a commercial that supports your favorite candidate is not bribery. Pretty clear line to me.