Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections

Politics & Elections
101

Well, it worked, he was acquitted, though I fail to see the relevance.

With all due respect to the Founding Fuckups, the question of how best to realize an egalitarian democracy is probably better approached as a practical question than some quasi-religious exercise in fundamental principles.

The Bill of Rights is not the Ten Commandments, we can be entirely sure of the human origin. Free speech is very important, which is a bit short of sacred. All our human rights are in service to an ideal, the ideal of egalitarian democracy. A shared collective of the power of governance. It is not the smartest, it is not the most efficient, it is the most just, and that is the sole reason I value it above all others.

If someone can be allowed to use the crude power of money for political power, then they being permitted to rob the rest of us of our fair share. One person, one navel, one vote. Each of the Koch Brothers has…what?.. a thousand times the political power of any of us? Ten thousand? I could tolerate ten times, but it still isn’t right.

Piously intoning the First Amendment as if it demands that I accept such a blatant injustice is more theology than politics. The Bill of Rights is not holy writ, it is human writ and subject to compromise by reasoning people. It is more important that our rights be sturdy than they be shiny.

102

You’re preaching to either people who acknowledge that disparity or people who want it to continue. No matter how eloquent you are, they don’t want to change. Also they’ll take random liberals to task about their money that are pointless to the debate because really, they don’t want to debate this.

103

Shit, free speech has had its ass kicked from one end of the country to the other, still here. It waxes and wanes, sure, but if J. Edgar Hoover couldn’t kill it, it has little to fear from me and mine.

104

Well, they weren’t even trying to, were they?

Which is a strike against the FFs, not against egalitarian democracy.

105

Your personal attack is amusing but unwarranted. Better luck next time.

106

It’s an investment, right?

It’s obscene they are allowed to be that blatant about their regard for the principles of how democracy is supposed to work. Why do people put up with it?

107

This is extremely wrong. Democracy is not an end in itself, it is a means to secure the blessings of liberty for the people. The rights are the end, the form of government is the means. You’ve got it backwards.

108

Thing is, even if I agree that paid speech isn’t speech, I challenge you to construct an amendment to the Constitution that doesn’t just give Congress either a blank check to regulate and censor political speech, or creates a privileged class of citizens with unlimited speech rights while everyone else must limit the volume of their advocacy. Knowing what the problem is and coming up with a viable solution are two different things, and campaign finance advocates can’t even really agree on what the problem is, much less figure out a solution.

In many ways, campaign finance reformers are like people who fear terrorism. They are putting as much thought into how to address the campaign finance system as those who supported the Patriot Act. THey don’t seem at all concerned about how government would use the power to regulate political speech unless an amendment is finely crafted to make sure they can’t discriminate.

109

Don’t fret over it, addy, the rich and powerful of America are people of stern moral fiber, they will shoulder these burdens and, somehow, carry on.

110

Remind me again who it was that decided the goal was “egalitarian democracy”? That may be the goal for YOU, but it isn’t for others. And as you well know, “egalitarian” can mean different things to different people. Hell, “democracy” can mean different things to different people-- Electoral College, anyone? We know for a fact that the country was not designed for “one person, one vote” in terms of how Congress is actually made up or how the president is actually elected. It would difficult enough to get rid of the EC, but the Senate, as it exists now? Good luck with that!

111

Please don’t sacrifice our rights in pursuit of our political ideals. :frowning:

112

It is a means to secure a great deal besides liberty.

That is why conservatives don’t really like it.

113

[shrug] We do not have “natural rights.” “Natural rights” would depend on “natural law,” which does not exist. We do have constitutional/legal rights – and those are whatever we collectively decide they are.

114

The American people, 'round about the time Andrew Jackson became POTUS. Of course, at that time it just meant equality/franchise among white men regardless of wealth, but it was a good start.

115

Regardless of their source, they should not be sacrificed.

Voting rights, speech rights, privacy rights, property rights (there’s more, but these come to my mind quickly) are more important than political goals. I believe these rights are inherent needs of sapient creatures. We have political systems to protect these rights, but the need is there whether or not a political system supports them.

I do not trust our political system to recognize these rights unless we’re vigilant. “We” gave an inch on privacy rights so the government could better protect us from terrorists. And look at the mile of privacy they took from, for a small gain in security. Not a good trade off.

And some people want us to give an inch on speech rights so that the rich have less political influence. What will happen? I fear the government will take a mile of speech rights and the rich will still have a huge amount of political influence. Not a good trade off.

The answer for inequality (in influence or property) is not to take from those who have, but give to those who have not. I don’t know how to best accomplish that, and the insulting snark between the political right and left does not solve any problems.

116

Stop, stop, you guys are killing me here! Laugh? I thought I’d surely die! For better than two hundred years, we have fucked with the speech rights of all kinds of people! Pacifists, suffragettes, all manner of disaggreable opinions, and Communists, Socialists? Threw their free speech rights to the ground and gave them a jolly good rogering!

But now we are talking about rich white guys, and suddenly we must not besmirch the pristine purity, the virginal sanctity of free speech!

So, you’re going to be here all week? Any recommendations about veal?

117

Yes, because every injustice of the past justifies current and future injustices. :rolleyes:

Does the government reading our mail in the past justify it reading our emails now? Does the government denying us suffrage in the past justify the hoops we have to jump through now?

Making progress against a headwind is hard enough; why must you throw out anchors as well?

118

if you want to go back to 1950s conceptions of individual rights, then advocate for that. Since it’s now 2015, we live in a society where free speech is a lot more sacred, as are all other constitutional principles pertaining to individual rights.

119

No, just liberty. You can get all the other stuff from other forms of government just as easily. Probably easier, actually.

120

So, then, these individual rights are not set in stone from time past, but somewhat flexible, then? They have changed since the fifties, advanced, progressed, and the Koch Brothers are simply leaders urging us forward to a new paradigm? Gosh, when you put it that way…it still stinks. Doesn’t stink as bad as the agenda that they hope to support with all this, where the world is their toilet but we are still free to drink from it.

The individual perspective is not the only valid viewpoint, here. There is the collective aspect to be considered as well. Its not the freedom to speak that is under consideration, but the freedom to be heard, the freedom not to be drowned out. I can still mount a soapbox and outline my ideals and goals, but if the other guy can park a sound truck with Godzilla sized Marshall amps on the same corner, that is not a level playing field.

I think that, to a large degree, the arguments offered about speech rights are a smokescreen, it is is really much more about the sacred rights of private property, that central right, the Crown Jewel of rights, the axle upon which our nation turns. There are other rights, of course, but they are grace notes, embellishments and enhancements, not the true center of all that is property rights.

Can a man do whatever he wishes with his private property? No, we limit that. Because the river flows through your property does not give you the right to poison it. And because you have a metric buttload of money, that does not grant you the right to shout louder, longer and more persistently than your political opponent.

The political arena belongs to all of us. If you can buy a bigger share of that, then equality in that arena is damaged. And no, we are not forbidden to tread there, the sacredness of the value of free speech is quite flexible, as friend adaher helpfully pointed out. True, the individual right to speak is important, even central. But it does not outweigh our collective right to hear. And be heard.

Naturally, I am concerned that Obama’s liberal Beige Shirts will stomp on the Koch Brother’s freedoms and rights, but history tells us that the rich and powerful can take care of themselves right handily. So that worry ranks about as high as my concern that the NE Patriots will establish an unbeatable hegemony in the NFL. Perhaps even a bit less, if such is possible.