Oh, come off it, John! You knew perfectly well that I was employing a hypothetical to illustrate a point. No more dishonest a tack than you employing “Person X” and “Person Y”, as you just did.
(Perhaps you didn’t know that “Cool story, bro” is a phrase the young folks use to imply that the someone is making shit up dishonestly? Does that insinuation bolster your case somehow, or are you simply grumpy from not getting enough fiber?)
I made a point, John, and rather than address my point, you cast asparagus. Your many fans, me included, will be disappointed.
Allow me to grossly oversimplify: do the Koch Brothers have more political power than you or I? Is that the result of a simple fact of money, and its utility? And is that fact an injustice, an insult to ideals of an egalitarian democracy? One person, one navel, one vote. I hold that those premises are true, and something should be done about it.
And yet you still aren’t answering the question posed.
**
To Repeat:**
And to answer your broken record gothcha question. I would prefer a world in which George Soros’s money doesn’t give him the undue political power he currently enjoys. If Soros was the only donor in play I would prefer he kept his money out of politics. However, I’m am smart enough to recognize that unilateral disarmament might feel good but is disastrous policy, so it not hypocritical of me to be willing to accept Soros’s contribution so long as Koch is in play.
Is the reverse true? Regardless of their legal ability to do so, if Soros’s money were off the table, would you prefer that the decided not to didn’t buy politicians so as to keep money out of politics?
If Soros’s money were off the table, someone else’s money would be in play. It’s my opinion that you can’t keep money out of politics. Whatever rule you devise, someone will figure out a way to circumvent the rule.
You would also have to control all of the media outlets. Will MSNBC and FOX still be allowed to pontificate in favor of their preferred candidates and bills while they trash any opposition? Or doesn’t media money matter?
I’m not asking them to decide what is false. Whether Fox wants to air fauxcumentary about Hillary being Satan’s love child or the undisputed queen of goodness and light, Hillary should have equal time to rebut the charges.
I draw the line at candidates. You want to spend money against or for abortion rights, knock yourself out. But if you mention a candidate or a party, whether pro or con, then the sponsors of the ad would be subject to the $200 limit. Once it’s spent, no more money for or against any candidate could come from you.
This interpretation of the First Amendment has resulted in the best government money can buy. I focus on the ends, and if James Madison didn’t think of it 230 years ago, I’m not concerned.
Your side is. And that last sentence needs to be stated more precisely, since obviously the answer to Koch brothers propaganda is not more Koch brothers propaganda; what you undoubtedly mean to say is that the answer to political speech that you may not agree with is to ensure that there is political speech on all sides of the issue – a free, equal, and healthy exchange of ideas.
Is that what you think you presently have? Is that what you think Citizens United advances, and that the Koch brothers and their ilk are exploiting? The idea that having no spending laws provides equal access to everyone is a ridiculous delusion called invidious equality. And as I said before, free speech plus a few hundred million dollars allows you to buy and own political systems; free speech by itself allows you to annoy passers-by on street corners. No one has ever satisfactorily refuted that basic problem, or its consequent result of corporate-controlled state and federal governments. Other than weak attempts to equate things like social media with multimillion-dollar national saturation advertising campaigns, which is humorous in the degree to which it tries to downplay if not entirely ignore the value of all lobbyists, PR, and advertising agencies, and the fact that public persuasion is among the nation’s largest industries.
The proof is everywhere you look – a Congress entirely beholden to corporations and the wealthy, with public approval in the single digits, the large and growing gap between the super-rich and everyone else, accelerated by tax laws favorable to the wealthy. The only way to not see this is willful blindness.
Maybe because incumbents more readily attract funding than challengers, and familiar names have an advantage over unfamiliar ones.
Are you suggesting that the wording of the First Amendment must be interpreted such that any campaign finance law of any kind, any variant of a broadcast Fairness Doctrine, any truth-in-advertising law, and for that matter any law against slander or libel, must all be deemed unconstitutional? Now that’s Originalist!
You can pass laws creating consequences for speech that does harm. Where you have to hurdle a HUGE bar is in preempting speech. Problem is, proving that actual harm is being done by independent political spending is also very difficult. To limit speech, you have to prove direct harm to someone, which you cannot do. We do not limit speech because “it’s better for society” or some such justification.
Even if you could, you still wouldn’t be allowed to actually censor political speech. Instead, you’d have to let the Koch commercials run, then find someone to arrest. Marching people off to jail for the crime of running political ads will cause support for such measures to evaporate overnight.
Let’s see how that works out in real life. You could donate $200, I could donate $200, and the Chinese or Canadian governments could funnel $200 thru each of it’s 10,000 operatives living in the U.S… That sounds fair. :smack:
It has also resulted in a government that cannot arrest you for posting something they don’t like on a discussion board. Which would change in a hurry if you gave them the power to censor political speech.
Mr. Obama, through “prosecutorial discretion”, is granting some 4-5 million illegal aliens SS numbers. Under your plan, can they each give $200 to a candidate?
That last sentence stands - The answer to political free speech is more political free speech. Unless you believe that the Koch Bros or Soros would actually fund their opposition??? :rolleyes:
The Koch bros have created an organization that collects money in order to fund acceptable candidates. The liberals whine that the Koch bros are spending too much money. Yawn. I believe that the liberals are just looking for an excuse as to why their acceptable candidates aren’t getting elected or re-elected. I suggest it’s their basic political platform and a lack of being able to deliver on hopey changey.
Your side wants to control political free speech. They don’t seem to truly appreciate having opposing view points. The question is, who’s going to control political free speech? The government? I don’t think that’s a good idea. The courts? Only if they have to. We The People? Ya, I’m good with that. Maybe WTP could pool our money with like-minded people in order to have a larger impact.
The bill did have popular support. And life doesn’t necessarily go on very long if you are one of the 280,000 Tennesseans without health insurance – or even if you have insurance but live in one of the rural communities whose hospital will now be shutting down.
