Is monetary political contributions the same as speech?

[BrainGlutton]

@lance_strongarm

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.

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.

:rolleyes::dubious::mad: Limiting the money that can be spent on political advertising is not restricting or manipulating speech. Can’t you leave off with that nonsensical PRATT already?! I can’t believe I have to trot this out yet again . . . From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995) (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed for the better since it passed):

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974.

The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.”

Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.”

They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

Now, if that money does not buy influence over politicians (or, more importantly, is not useful for getting the pol the donor wants into office), then why do the donors spend that much, year after year after year?! These are people/organizations who ordinarily really, really hate to waste money.

From the same book:

Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.

And, all this was happening before Citizens United made it possible for corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political advertising directly, through PACs, without even contributing to candidates’ campaign organizations.

[BrainGlutton]

@drewder

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.

In France, AIUI, every candidate in a given election is allotted an equal amount of free TV time.

[Trinopus]

@drewder

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.

Who says that’s our wish? Why do you jump from “some limits” to “a limit of zero?”

What if “our wish” is that individuals can donate X, and corporations can donate Y, and no more?

[lance_strongarm]

@BrainGlutton

Don’t see how you could read it that way.

Money in politics is only mentioned briefly after a long list of other concerns.

Of course it is. The candidates spend the money on TV ads.

Donations and spending are entirely different things. Do you think spending of money by candidates on TV ads should be restricted?

[lance_strongarm]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes::dubious::mad: Limiting the money that can be spent on political advertising is not restricting or manipulating speech.

Yes, it is.

Nothing you quoted even comes close to arguing that it is.

As for the part you bolded - the idea that we can just ban ALL speech, or all speech by certain parites, and argue that it’s okay because it doesn’t depend on the content of the speech is silly nonsense that anyone can see through.

Imagine you are planning a protest march on Washington (against money in politics - let’s make it completely ironic). The government passes a law banning all spending of money on protests. You can have your protest, sure, but no spending of money on signs, banners, megaphones, communications (phones, internet, fliers, ads) to get the word out about the protest, megaphones, stages, PA systems, portapotties or buses. People can still show up and protest - they have that right, you know. Just don’t spend money on it.

What would you say to that?

[DrCube]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes::dubious::mad: Limiting the money that can be spent on political advertising is not restricting or manipulating speech. Can’t you leave off with that nonsensical PRATT already?!

Can you point out to me where this point has been refuted again?

@BrainGlutton

The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment.

“Free spending” isn’t the issue, nor is money speech. If you made a law prohibiting candidates for political office from using private planes during the campaign and forcing them to use airlines instead, I might think it was a dumb law, but I don’t see any first amendment or constitutional issues. Banning the spending of money on certain items isn’t a problem, it’s the ban on spending money on speech that we take issue with.

Making it illegal to spend money to broadcast a movie is the same thing as banning that movie. Please explain to me how that statement is wrong.

If the government made a law banning, say, the New York Times from spending money on printing presses, ink, distribution, journalist salaries, internet service or web servers, do you think that law would pass constitutional muster? What’s left of the first amendment when we allow that law to take effect?

[lance_strongarm]

@DrCube

If the government made a law banning, say, the New York Times from spending money on printing presses, ink, distribution, journalist salaries, internet service or web servers, do you think that law would pass constitutional muster? What’s left of the first amendment when we allow that law to take effect?

I have posed similar questions and seen you and others pose them, and I can’t remember a time when anyone actually answered.

[lance_strongarm]

@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.

You cannot continue to pretend that the two are different.

The ONLY reason people like you want to restrict spending on speech is the speech it produces. You don’t like the fact that the money allows someone to have more speech, or a larger audience, than you think they deserve. That’s your entire premise - that money brings speech that is somehow unfair or distorts the process. You wouldn’t care if the money was spent on doughnuts or beer. It’s the speech it brings that you are after.

[BrainGlutton]

@lance_strongarm

Donations and spending are entirely different things.

No, they’re not, they are two stages in the same process.

@lance_strongarm

Do you think spending of money by candidates on TV ads should be restricted?

Hell, yeah! Not merely restricted, but banned entirely! Let’s give them all equal free TV time like in France!

[dracoi]

@BrainGlutton

Of course it is. The candidates spend the money on TV ads.

But you can at least understand that there are two separate actions?
Action 1: contributing money to a politician.
Action 2: spending money on TV ads.

Action 1 is not protected in any way. In fact, most of the tax code has to do with restrictions and requirements for what happens when money changes hands.

Action 2 is the expression of free speech. If I run my TV ads using my money, that is my speech. That’s part of why current law says that a PAC must operate independently from the candidate, because if the candidate could tell me what to run, then they would effectively control my funds.

[lance_strongarm]

@BrainGlutton

Hell, yeah! Not merely restricted, but banned entirely! Let’s give them all equal free TV time like in France!

Cool - so you are now banned from spending money on political speech. No bumper stickers, signs, buttons, etc. and since you’re busy using the internet to talk about political issues, you need to either stop or cancel payment to your ISP.

Before you go, though, please answer the other questions posed in this thread about spending on protests marches or on newspapers.

[Bone]

@DrCube

Can you point out to me where this point has been refuted again?

It hasn’t. But **perhaps **with more haphazard **bolding **of random words **it **may be. It will definitely require more emojis, and a minimum of 4 rationalwiki links and 2 Michael Lind references. After that I may be persuaded.

[lance_strongarm]

@DrCube

Should Hillary: The Movie have been banned?

Oh, please. You have every right to make and screen any movie you want.

You just can’t spend any money on cameras, actors, lights, editing or that sort of thing.

So stop whining!

[octopus]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes::dubious::mad: Limiting the money that can be spent on political advertising is not restricting or manipulating speech.

Actually that is as pure of an example of an oxymoron as possible. It’s scary seeing doublespeak in real life.

[octopus]

@DrCube

Can you point out to me where this point has been refuted again?
“Free spending” isn’t the issue, nor is money speech. If you made a law prohibiting candidates for political office from using private planes during the campaign and forcing them to use airlines instead, I might think it was a dumb law, but I don’t see any first amendment or constitutional issues. Banning the spending of money on certain items isn’t a problem, it’s the ban on spending money on speech that we take issue with.

Making it illegal to spend money to broadcast a movie is the same thing as banning that movie. Please explain to me how that statement is wrong.

If the government made a law banning, say, the New York Times from spending money on printing presses, ink, distribution, journalist salaries, internet service or web servers, do you think that law would pass constitutional muster? What’s left of the first amendment when we allow that law to take effect?

You won’t ever get a straight answer to that question. It’s been asked in the numerous threads this assault on freedom comes up. You have to realize that the motive is not liberty. The motive is to cripple individuals and institutions that don’t support the left.

[DrCube]

@Trinopus

Who says that’s our wish? Why do you jump from “some limits” to “a limit of zero?”

What if “our wish” is that individuals can donate X, and corporations can donate Y, and no more?

So if the government passes a law saying you can write one book critical of the government, but you’ll go to jail if you write two of them, that’s cool? That’s “some limit” not “a limit of zero”.

Or maybe if the law said you could only spend $5000 on publishing your book (and that counts writing, editing, marketing and publishing costs) if it is critical of the government? It’s a limit, but not zero.

Would these rules be okay with you? After all, they’re not outright bans. They’re just sensible limits.

[Trinopus]

@DrCube

So if the government passes a law saying you can write one book critical of the government, but you’ll go to jail if you write two of them, that’s cool? That’s “some limit” not “a limit of zero”.

Or maybe if the law said you could only spend $5000 on publishing your book (and that counts writing, editing, marketing and publishing costs) if it is critical of the government? It’s a limit, but not zero.

Would these rules be okay with you? After all, they’re not outright bans. They’re just sensible limits.

The latter is different from the former, and, also, take note that we’re wanting to apply these limits to corporations, not to individuals. When you say, “You can write one book” you’re addressing an individual restriction, which no one here has promoted. This makes the your post a bit straw-ish.

[DrCube]

@Trinopus

The latter is different from the former, and, also, take note that we’re wanting to apply these limits to corporations, not to individuals. When you say, “You can write one book” you’re addressing an individual restriction, which no one here has promoted. This makes the your post a bit straw-ish.

What is the meaningful distinction? Do the articles of incorporation let themselves out of the file cabinet at night and program a special robot to write books or make movies?

No. All books are written by people. All movies are written by people. All ads are written by people.

Groups of people are still people.

[Trinopus]

@DrCube

. . . Groups of people are still people.

But a group of people is not “a person.”

Or, at least, that is one of the positions held in this debate. Simply declaring it to be so is a poor form of debate, but that’s what we seem to have come down to.

Some of us believe that it is permissible to put limitations upon “a group of persons” that would not be acceptable to put upon “a person.” Others disagree.

Since the issue is, in fact, not agreed upon, it’s fallacious to affirm the consequent and say, “You’re in favor of limiting individual rights” when – in our opinion – we aren’t.

[octopus]

@Trinopus

But a group of people is not “a person.”

Or, at least, that is one of the positions held in this debate. Simply declaring it to be so is a poor form of debate, but that’s what we seem to have come down to.

Some of us believe that it is permissible to put limitations upon “a group of persons” that would not be acceptable to put upon “a person.” Others disagree.

Since the issue is, in fact, not agreed upon, it’s fallacious to affirm the consequent and say, “You’re in favor of limiting individual rights” when – in our opinion – we aren’t.

You advocating censoring just corporations or you a fan of censoring other groups of people such as unions, religious institutions, political parties, families, etc? Why should a mosque be able to print or pay to print an unregulated amount of Korans? Why should unions be able to protest and collect dues from unwilling people? Why should political parties be allowed to mobilize unpaid volunteers?