There isn’t much that could be done with FoxNews (sic) as they don’t use the public airwaves. However, should they air a Benghazi schlockumentary on the Fox network itself, they should be required to provide equal airtime to the offended party to rebut the false claims.
In my scenario, Richie Rich could only contribute $200 to his own campaign, same as Tommy Poorhouse.
I’m not as worried about social media tipping elections as I am television ads. Everybody knows that the Tea Party Facebook shares that your halfwit brother-in-law shares don’t influence many people.
Oh, so basically, your response is that I’m making shit up? Would that mean that you think political advertising has no appreciable effect, then, and these guys are just pissing their money away? Or what, perzackly?
So that if one side gets to spend say, ten times as much money, it wouldn’t matter, wouldn’t make any difference?
Not even a little difference, say, a few percentage points? Keep in mind, I’d be just tickled half to death to think so, but I don’t think so. Perhaps you’ll share with me the facts that lead you to that conviction?
But thanks for the math correction, nice of you to be helpful to a boor of little brain…
The Koch’s Americans for Prosperity just scuttled our (Republican) governor’s proposal to expand Medicare in TN - after months of negotiation and just two hours of debate. So I hope they’re getting their money’s worth.
But which side is trying to limit political free speech? The answer to political free speech is more political free speech.
If the Soros organizations can spend as much money as they wish in order to influence elections, then the Koch organization should have the same freedom. If the New York Times and MSNBC can spend as much money as they wish in order to influence elections, so should every other organization.
Oh, so your issue is equality! Excellent, now we have something we can work with, equality is our issue too! If money is political power, then the guy who has more money has more power. We don’t think that’s quite fair. Good to know you’re with us on that! (Rather a surprise, frankly, but whateverness…)
Apparently, Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee sent out a mailer saying -
“STOP Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in Tennessee by calling your legislator NOW!” the mailer says, going on to call Medicaid expansion “the central component of Obamacare.”
Apparently, the voters called their legislators and the legislators responded to the concerns of their constituents. And the bill died.
How many other organizations, non-Americans for Prosperity organizations, were also against this bill? None? Some? Most of them?
Politics is a bitch. Speak up. Pool your money with like minded people and get you message out.
Well, first, it wasn’t about the removal of a representative democracy. It was about the removal of rule by a privileged few – you know, like the Koch brothers – against what Jefferson was referring to when he said that “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Do you think the American Revolution was really about the creation of a new, homegrown, anti-democratic aristocracy? Well, like it or not, ya got it anyway.
So you conveniently forget dark money organizations? Or the fact that advocacy ads are just as influential as direct campaign ads?
Where does the First Amendment prohibit limitations on the corrupting influence of money on politics, as Jefferson and many others had feared? Except in the delusional brain of Antonin Scalia and his ilk?
So, the government is going to decide what is “true” and what is “false”? And your OK with that in a Bush/Cheney administration? Not me.
Let me get this straight. I, as a private citizen, can spend as much as I want of my own money advocating for certain political causes, lets say “abortion rights”, but as soon as I declare myself a candidate for office, I can only spend $200? Am I understanding you correctly?
So, you’re an Originalist now?
I’m not sure I understand the question. The amendment says “no law”. It’s one thing to say “you can’t give more than X amount of money to Person Y”, but quite another to say “You can’t spend more than X amount of money on political speech”. That would seem to my untutored brain to be a “law” prohibiting speech. The 1st amendment has never been interpreted to apply only to speech that doesn’t cost the speaker any money.
elucidator: I apologize. I didn’t realize that the numbers you used were NOT made up. May we perhaps see their source?
You may prefer that the IRS, WH, DNC, MSNBC, etc. become the designated decider of which political free speech will be allowed in the future but I prefer more of a run-what-ya-brung type of political campaigning. Make your case, if you can, and let the voters, or those designated by the voters, decide.
Lots of money has been spent by supporters of both of the main political parties. Currently, the voters have handed control of both Houses of the U.S. Congress to the Republican/Tea Party party. Some claim this is a result of money spent. I believe it’s a result of the failure of Democrat party leadership to meet expectations. And that opinion didn’t cost you one red cent.
