I can’t see that connection.
The Supreme Court says so . . . but, no, definitely not.
So if I want to print a pamphlet in favor of a particular candidate, what are you going to do about it? Throw me in jail?
The ability to argue publicly for or against a particular candidate or issue is not a fringe side effect of the first amendment, it is the entire point of the first amendment.
Barring political speach is simply censorship. It means the end of liberal democracy.
Barring campaign contributions != barring political speech.
In France they have a system where nobody is allowed to buy political advertising. Instead, every TV station is required to give an equal amount of free air time to each candidate in a race. Does that mean France is not a liberal democracy?
I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s got to be something different between giving money and pure speech. How else could someone arrest me if I gave money to Al Qaeda?
This sounds like the way to go.
A similar plan is the voluntary one that a lot of candidates take where they limit contributions accepted to $200. But then the people who want to curry favor have gotten around that with soft money to the party or by sponsoring ads for particular programs that only appear on that candidate’s platform. But you can be sure they let the candidate know he’s supposed to feel indebted to them.
It does if only candidates are allowed to buy political advertising. If unions, corporations, Swift boat veterans or just average Joes aren’t allowed to express their political views then France is definitely not a liberal democracy.
And if just anyone is allowed to buy political advertising then the law is little more than empty pork barreling. Politicians get free advertising and their supporters can then go and buy unlimited advertising on their behalf.
I’m afraid Lemur is essentially correct. Since campaign contributions are used primarily for the purposes of getting the candidate’s view out to the electorate any curtailing of campaign conmtributions effectively becomes a curtailing of the right to free speech.
I’m sure anyone who wanted to get around any restrictions on campaign funding could simply contribute to the advertising and fundraising pool of a “third party” group. That group could then proceed to set up telemarketing centres, invite the candidate to speak at rallies and appear in TV ads and everything they currently do using campaign funds. Without infringing on the third party’s rights to free speech I can’t see any practical way to limit campaign funding. At best such attempts would be an empty gesture.
I don’t think so. However I do think the ability to pour unlimited amounts of money into a private ad campaign that supports a candidate of your choice is something every one should have the right to do. Obviously within the context of the law. For example you can’t erect a huge bill board that blocks out the sun and violates zoning laws.
I agree.
And if that campaign involve shiring the candidate to speek for you on a tour, and paying his travel expenses, accomadation etc? It would be hard to see that could be legally curtailed.
And if that is allowed then I can’t quite see how any law could practically curtail campaign donations.
There certainly is. But what if you were giving money to an organization that supported the goals of Al Qaeda solely through the press? No money was ever used for violent means, just for publishing ideas.
By my figuring, keeping people from doing that would be infringing on their free speech.
No such restrictions in France AFAIK. Can any French Dopers help us out here?