You may not, but this topic links contributions to speech, its a valid extrapolation.
That’s what I’m asking you, do you think the line further extends to simply giving cash to a politician and saying “Hey, I’ll give you this if you do this for me”. Political donations and campaigning are on that same line. Why are you for one and not the other, presuming you’re against bribery. Help me understand why you draw the line at bribery and what the reason is
Is donating to your candidate speech?
I don’t think anyone actually argues that “money is speech”. That’s what the opponents of free speech say to make the free speech supporters look stupid.
But money is an important and necessary component of mass communication. 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? Some people just do their best to obscure that simple fact when discussing this subject because the people spending money on things like “Hillary: The Movie” hold political positions they disagree with.
Personally, I think donating money to an organization whose entire goal is to publish ideas that I support is definitely speech, or at least should be protected as such. And in my opinion, a politician’s campaign is one such organization. The Supreme Court differs, however. That’s why there are super PACs. Donating more than $X to a politician’s campaign fund is illegal, but donating as much as you want to a group that agrees with that candidate and wants to get them elected is not. In my opinion, there isn’t much difference between a candidate’s campaign, and another organization with the exact same goals as the candidate’s campaign. But since the effect of donating to a super PAC is exactly the same as donating to the campaign, I don’t care so much.
I am unclear on why you keep insinuating that pooling your money with other similar-minded people to buy ads counts as a bribe? Who is being bribed? The television studios? Donating to a political campaign is the exact opposite of a bribe. A bribe is money paid to change someone’s actions or behavior. Donating to a campaign is money paid to support actions or behavior that have already been demonstrated, and that the donor just wants to help continue.
The Straw Man fallacy is…fallacious. That’s what the word means. The Straw Man debating technique is an example of a fallacy.
That’s improperly conflating two kinds of undesired outcome. I hold interfering with the democratic process to be undesireable, but the charge made upthread was that we (liberals) oppose “money as speech” because we don’t like the specific outcome (too many of “their” candidates winning and not enough of “ours.”)
I rebutted that, upthread, by noting that, yes, political advertising has also been used to advance candidates and issues I support…but I’m still opposed to it.
The charge that the opposition is based on interest is pure twaddle. The objection is to money taking the place of original social discourse.
It’s an influential effect. It may or may not be coercive. That’s subject to definition and debate.
(It’s known that the paint-color in a room has an effect on people’s emotional states. If a series of negotiations are held in a red-colored room, the discussions are more emotional and more contentious, and deals are harder to come by, than if the same discussions are held in a green-painted room. If someone were to capitalize upon this in an organized way – say, painting police station interrogation rooms red in order to cause suspects to be more emotional – this would be an example of an undue influence and a bad form of social manipulation. Would it be “coercive?” I can see arguments both ways.)
Interesting melt-down. Do you often lose control of your emotions and your reason in this fashion? Is it your conventional debate technique to make things up and hurl them at your opponent, even when they bear no resemblance at all to your opponent’s actual stated views?
Do you comprehend the difference between swaying and influencing an audience, and the audience “being dumb or gullible?” Do you have any comprehension of the function of modern advertising? Do you think that Coke and Pepsi think their audiences are “dumb or gullible?”
You’re young.
Advertising is effective. Coke and Pepsi spend their millions (billions?) on it for a very good reason: it influences people’s opinions.
(It doesn’t control people’s opinions in every case. Your tampon example is an obvious case. However, if you were in the market for tampons, advertising has been shown to influence people’s decisions regarding brand names. A brand that advertises widely will have better sales than a brand that doesn’t.)
This is not at all the same as “people are too stupid to think for themselves.” I’m very sorry for you if you cannot tell the difference. Thousands of studies – and trillions of dollars of actual market experience – show that advertising actually does influence people’s decisions. Double-blind studies have borne this out again and again.
Do you really think Coke and Pepsi are too stupid not to know it, if their efforts are completely wasted?
There have been numerous studies of political campaigns, showing opinion-poll swings that are exactly paralleled by advertising investment. Again, do you think politicians and interest groups are stupid, and that they’re spending all this money to no effect?
Who cares if there is an effect - that’s the whole fucking purpose. Politicians go stump to try and persuade you to vote for them. Holy shit, influence!
Politician: “Vote for me” = ok
Citizen: “Vote for Politician” = ok
Citizen: [spends money] to make movie to say, “Vote for Politician” = holy shit evil!
No politician wants to limit donations, they want to limit donations to the other guy which is why they attack types of donations such as attacking union contributions or corporate contributions. There will always be a way to influence politicians one way or the other and those who have been most successful economically will also be the most successful at influencing politics since the skillset required for both is very similar.
Money isn’t the problem with politics it’s power. If you limit the power of government the incentive to corrupt politicians will also be limited. Limiting most decisions to city/county level would limit it further still. It’s much harder to buy up thousands of mayors and city councils than a president or a senator or two.
Nm
This message board should be censored as it is disproportionately in favor of certain topics and people in the political sphere. That’s not fair.
Seems stupid doesn’t it? Yet that’s what the anti Citizens United folks are advocating.
But the fact that no court or legislature has EVER said that contributions are speech, and nobody else as far as I know, has already been pointed out here. There’s nothing more to discuss on that. It’s a massive straw man that is easily dispensed with.
I frequently get emotional when people say arrogant, irrational things that attack the core of democracy and free speech - especially when they are so desperately confused and wrong that they claim they are supporting democracy when all they have is contempt for the people they claim to support.
More arrogance.
You may NOT suppress speech based on the idea that other people are “swayed” by it. That’s the entire purpose of speech. You may NOT decide that your judgement about speech is better than theirs about it. No. The First Amendment says you can’t do it. Get used to it. The answer is no. You are not smarter than everyone else.
I don’t care.
Do you think they are? Are YOU dumb or gullible when you watch a Coke or Pepsi ad?
SO WHAT? That’s what it is supposed to do. Duh.
What is wrong with that?
The reason people see you as saying that the people are too stupid to think for themselves is when you advocate limiting advertising. When you do that, that’s exactly what you are saying - that people are too stupid to think for themselves.
Gosh, speech convinces people of things sometimes. Imagine that. The Founding Fathers would be appalled that people are expressing opinions and others are listening and some of them are being convinced by some of the messages! What’s next - people choosing how to vote based on the information they gather from speech? The horror!
Basically you are arguing against people who believe in freedom of speech for them but not you.
Yep. And this is where one of them blurts: “Fire in a crowded theatre! There are exceptions to free speech, and therefore I can make up any old ridiculous, blatantly unconstitutional exception I want!”
As an aside: Is it even illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater? I thought that was just an example Justice Holmes made up about when it might be constitutional to restrict speech. But has it ever been illegal? If so, is it still?
I had to look it up again - yes, it was just a hypothetical Holmes used in an opinion (the actual case was about anti-war pamphlets). And Holmes’ opinion was later overturned.
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.
There are laws against incitement, disturbing the peace, making false alarms and threats, and other restrictions on speech.
This, of course, has nothing whatever to do with opposition to C.U., but is just another straw man offered on this thread by people who seem unable to debate the matter on its actual merits.
When people start making stuff up and saying, “Oh, yeah, you believe this,” you can tell they’re dead out of ideas and are reduced to pounding the table and yelling like hell.
(The real opposition to C.U. – also Hobby Lobby – is that corporations should not be granted civil rights, only property rights. Corporations do not have religious beliefs, and corporations can’t vote – although, would you believe it, I’ve heard right wing hate radio talk jocks argue that they should be given a vote!)
“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. 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.”
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.
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.
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.