:smack: According to your cite, the vast majority had never heard of Insure Tennessee. How much popular support could the yea’s have had? Apparently, those in favor of Insure Tennessee did a pissst poor job of getting their message out but that’s just my opinion.
*The majority of Tennesseans — Democrats, Republicans and Tea Party members alike — support Gov. Bill Haslam’s plan to expand health care coverage using federal funds, according to a new poll released by a group advocating for Haslam’s plan.
Even without knowing anything about the plan, 44 percent of self-identifying Republicans polled support Insure Tennessee, compared to 16 percent who oppose the plan and 40 percent who are undecided, according to the poll.
…The results are slightly different than those reported by a Middle Tennessee State University poll. The MTSU poll found that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed had never heard of Insure Tennessee.
Of those who did know about the plan though, the two polls show comparable levels of support: the MTSU poll found of the one-third who know the plan, 49 percent like it, 11 percent oppose it and another 40 percent are undecided.*
So every time one of the network news shows mentions a politician, they have to provide equal time to that politician? I’m not seeing that as being very practical.
OK, at least you’re being consistent on that point. I disagree, but there you have it. Still, I can’t see that you’l be getting money out of politics. It’ll just go to focusing on issues instead of people.
Now, I as a candidate, can spend money on sending fliers out to people’s homes, right? Because if I can’t spend more than $200 promoting myself, how on earth are people going to learn what my positions are on the various issues?
It’s not just JM. It’s all the jurisprudence we have on the subject up until today. But then, you’re proposing we go in an entirely different direction, so I doubt that bothers you at all.
What’s that you say? That American jurisprudence has favored the interests of the rich and powerful over the rest of us? We on the left gasp with astonishment. If you have any other amazing revelations to offer us, perhaps now would be the time?
The root questions are comparatively simple: as things stand now, does a rich man have more political power than his less advantaged fellow citizen? Yes. Should something be done about that? To many of us, the answer is clear. Some others are sent scurrying to find a fundamental justification, its God’s Plan, or the Founding Fuckups, at any rate, it is sacred and holy and may not be tampered with. Feh, as they say in Lubbock…
Would any solution be complex and prickly? To be sure. Does that, in and of itself, mean that we do not try? Its possible, I suppose, that such a solution might disfavor the wealthy and powerful to an unfair extent. Not high on my list of concerns, to be frank, they have historically shown a native talent for protecting their interests. I think we need not fret for them, and if worse comes to worst, bake sales remain an option. Since they can buy Nabisco, if need be…
Putting aside the predictable knee-jerk right-wing distrust of government, yes, “the government” is correct. Even though there’s increasingly less distinction between governments and the corporations that control them, there are still some decent people in public service, and I’d rather trust someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders than the Koch brothers, Exxon, or Goldman Sachs.
The problem with your argument is that the government is already involved. It’s just like the passer-by who chooses to ignore a mugging or declines to help an injured person on the sidewalk: you can intervene or not, but either way is a decision that has direct consequences, perhaps someone’s life or death. “Free markets” are another analogy. Some might argue that a free market is one that the evil government stays out of, and one could certainly define it that way. But it would be a mistake to think that such a market would necessarily have market-driven pricing and free competition – it could easily gravitate towards a monopoly, with price-fixing, gouging, and ruthless quashing of any competition by the dominant players. An unregulated market is not the same as a truly free one, where innovative new players with better ideas and better products can freely compete. That often requires reasonable regulation, like anti-trust laws.
It’s exactly the same with political speech. By failing to intervene with meaningful campaign finance limits and other regulation, the government is implicitly allowing corporations and the super-rich to set an outrageously high bar to the cost of political speech, and anyone who doesn’t measure up is drowned out in public discourse and outbid in the lobbying game. This is hardly an argument that even needs to be made as the results are so plainly obvious.
I would specifically argue against an equal standard in political speech lest we elevate radical extremism to be on par with other ideas on an issue.
I don’t want to give equal time and access to the loonie fringe that cannot attract its own funding. If John Q. Wacko can’t garner support for his shoot first, ask questions later idea for dealing with immigration issues at the border then I certainly don’t want to be forced to give him a platform on the political talk shows.
If someone wants to argue for imposing sharia law in the US and forcing women to wear a niqab then let him come up with his own way to spread his intolerant hate and don’t give him a seat as a supposedly equal and alternative view on a CNN roundtable on women’s issues.
No, and I’m at a loss as to how you extrapolated that from my simple statement: It’s quite another thing to say that the 1st amendment only protects political speech that costs less than X dollars. A $$ limit on speech seems made up out of whole cloth.
And your interpretation would NOT be originalist AFAIK.
I’m not suggesting that it’s the government’s job to guarantee every view an equal platform and that’s a complete misinterpretation of what I meant; what I’m saying I think is clear from post #224 and previous ones. The goal should be the moderation of gross inequality created by the tendency of big money to support its own interests to the exclusion of other points of view. Somehow conservatives always pervert this into supposedly being “censorship”; you have taken it to be the diametric opposite, namely that it somehow forces media to publicize fringe lunatics. It is neither of those things. Campaign finance laws simply try to make the political process more open and accessible and less of an exclusive billionaire’s game.
As for “attracting funding”, tell me who is likely to attract more funding: a politician who represents corporate interests, is loathe to enact environmental regulations (or industrial regulations in general) or actively wants to scuttle the ones that already exist, and wants to expand corporate tax breaks and cut taxes for the wealthy, or someone who represents the middle class and the broader public interest? Why is Congress so consistently in the pocket of corporations and the wealthy, and not just when Republicans are in control, but most egregiously when they are? Why are politicians like McConnell and Boehner so common and typical, and ones like Warren and Sanders so rare?
If what you are saying is that the First Amendment is silent on the matter of campaign finance regulation, I agree. It neither requires nor prohibits it, though it’s my contention that the broad principle of free speech argues for such regulation, in the same way that there are laws governing broadcast media and concentration of media ownership. Unfortunately, there are a number of wingnuts on the Supreme Court who think the First Amendment prohibits dollar limits on political campaign contributions and spending.
We still have limits on contributions to individual campaigns and political committees. The SCOTUS decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC did not change that. You do realize that, right?
Corporate donors, whether industry or labor union, cannot coordinate their expenditures with campaigns.
Corporations, labor unions, social or civic organizations, or any individual then has the right to independently spend to spread their views in support of or opposition to any particular idea.
Politicians may support any particular idea for a variety of reasons. Some may very well support pro-business policies due to a belief that such policies help promote needed job creation in the politician’s home district.
It seems like we are straying from the original issue, which was your post that said:
“Where does the First Amendment prohibit limitations on the corrupting influence of money on politics”
The answer to that is it prohibits limitations on speech and the press. There’s no escape clause for “the corrupting influence of money on politics”. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law, except as relates to the corrupting influence of money on politics”. If we want to limit the amount of speech that a person is allowed, then we need a new amendment.
The first amendment doesn’t, in my view, prohibit the government from limiting how much money we can donate to political campaigns. However, it does prohibit the government from telling me there is a limit to the amount of political speech I’m allowed.
Are you suggesting that there is a real danger that one individual could buy up all of the “desirable media” advertising space? At any rate, I’m not seeing any suggestions that campaign spending limits be put ONLY on what is used to advertise in “desirable media”.
I’m well aware of what Citizens United was about, and I’ve discussed it before. In fact I’m pretty sure I posted this link before about John Roberts’ incredible machinations to transform what was originally set to be a narrow ruling about whether or not the Hillary movie constituted electioneering under McCain-Feingold, into a stunning example of constitutional revisionism, judicial activism, and an all-out attack on historical protections against the corrupting influence of money in politics. It opened the floodgates to independent political spending by the entire sector of the moneyed classes – corporations, the super-rich, and all their subsidiary political organizations including dark money lobbyists.
You’re playing with words to try to make a distinction where there isn’t one. Let me put it more clearly. You’re OK with limits on how much you can donate to a political campaign, but you’re not OK with limits on how much you can spend independently to support that same campaign. What’s the difference between giving a politician a million dollars so he can use it to run ads promoting himself, and using a million dollars to run your own ads supporting him or his agenda, or undermining his opponent? Either way money is being used to try to influence the outcome of an election, and ultimately for those who have sufficient means to get public policy enacted in their favor, even if they do it by widely publicized lying about important issues. These things don’t bode well for democracy.
Um, yes, it means we should not try. Liberty is a very easy concept. Government doesn’t restrict us unless absolutely necessary. And the less we define as necessary, the weaker that government is and the less likely it is to infringe on our rights.
Fairness is a lot tougher. Now granted, there have been a lot of things liberals have been right about in this vein: civil rights, for example, labor rights. Sometimes the case for fairness has been stronger than the case for liberty, most often because the unfairness itself was a dire threat to our liberties. I see no such dire threat to liberty in the ability to “buy elections”, even if I conceded the concept. How are elections “bought”? By spending money on advertising which persuades the public to see things your way. Which you have to admit, is a pretty indirect way to buy an election. Is it purer if the political class just lies their asses off to persuade the public to see things their way? Is that more pro-democracy?
And that’s the other problem. You’re not only worried about fairness here, you’re worried about democracy. So now we’re into all kinds of levels of complexity. How do you construct a system that is fair, pro-democracy, and doesn’t infringe on our liberties? You don’t. You just sacrifice our liberties, which was the whole point of democracy in the first place. All citizens must ask permission to speak on political issues in an effective way. Unless they are of a privileged class entitled to speak out and reach the masses at will. This privileged class won’t be the moneyed elite, although they will all be very, very rich nevertheless. I’m just not sure what is gained by this.
But if you are going to try, you first have to at least define the problem! What is the specific problem you are trying to solve? Anti-Citizens United advocates speak about campaign finance reform the way GWB talked about fighting terrorism.
THe political class are the politicians and their challengers who would supposedly be entitled to a megaphone, at taxpayer cost, to spew their BS, while a group of citizens with a different view would be subject to an intimidating amount of red tape in order to buy a tiny megaphone to oppose them with.
There is a huge difference. When you give money to a candidate, you are directly doing him a favor. When you spend money independently, you are directly appealing to the public. That’s not a threat to democracy, it IS democracy.
What you’re basically saying is that freedom of the press doesn’t exist. If you have a “printing press”, you don’t have the right to use it to influence public opinion, because not everyone has one or can buy as much ink as you.
Ah! Well, that explains everything, which is to say it doesn’t explain anything in particular.
I googled the phrase, seems to be found most often in cutting edge journals of modern political thought, like Daily Caller and, of course, the widely admired Washington Times. And these viciously oppressed “citizens with a different view”? Might they, by any chance, bear a strong resemblance to the oppressed Tea Party stalwarts victimized by sharia law infected IRS?
No, there is no substantive difference in its effect on the political system and the ability of the wealthy to control it, and that’s the tragedy of Citizens United. No one could seriously suggest that the Koch brothers $900 million of propagandizing represents democracy; what it represents is the usual plutocracy cynically manipulating the democratic process to its own ends. Democracy requires that the different views on issues have a genuinely fair chance of being heard, a fair chance for lies and distortions to be exposed, and a fair chance for the public to be reasonably informed and interested in being politically engaged. The present system is none of those things; far too many voters are ill-informed (cf.- Fox News watchers) and compared to other first-world nations far too many are politically apathetic. ALL of them are exposed to far, far too much one-sided propaganda from those who can afford to finance it. The lower income levels are the most uninformed and misinformed and apathetic of all, which suits the Republican moneyed crowd just fine.
Since I believe the exact opposite, it’s truly bizarre that you got that from anything I said. The press does have a unique position of public influence, and rightly so, because the press is what enables an informed public, an essential pillar of democracy. And that’s why the press has a long tradition of ethical principles and integrity, embodied in storied institutions like this one, established by Joseph Pultizer and to this day the training ground for distinguished journalists and the administrator of the Pulitzer prizes and many others. Sure, those principles get transgressed from time to time, and we have the ongoing travesty of Fox News and other more minor propagandizing partisan rags, but by and large I would sure rather trust the mainstream media than trust the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson or Exxon Mobil. It’s also the reason that we have laws on concentration of media ownership, which should be much stronger. The media is, to borrow a phrase, the last best hope of mankind to be able to sustain democracy. Your friends the Koch brothers sure as hell are not.
