I made no reference to any elections. Do you even know what a PAC is?
Regards,
Shodan
Can I spend more than that to make a movie about the perils of Climate Change? How about a documentary on the Meat Slaughtering Industry? The social ill of abortion? The need to legalize marijuana? The rampant gun problem plaguing the US?
Oh, he would, and the Kochs wouldn’t; that’s the difference.
That’s an assumption. the ACLU has pretty strong opinions about campaign finance reform:
And while Soros supported McCain-Feingold, he strongly defends independent expenditures:
Gosh, doesn’t that just happen all the time? A whole argumentative point of view is destroyed by a single, rather simple…nay, simplistic!..question. You’re a real killer when you go into “gotchaya” mode, John.
Sure you can! You can even make a documentary about Obama the child-molesting meth addict. And spend all the money you want for it, and if a theater wants to show it or a tv company wants to air it, they will get in touch with you. Hell, maybe even pay you for it!
But what if you spend ten million making it and an additional fifty million trying to get tv stations to air it? (Remember that to air is human…) Isn’t that functionally different, in both the intent and the procedure?
The Koch Industries ad on the SuperBowl (more on that never…) was a total crock of corporate shit, all about how wonderful, bright and cheerful they are. And I’m cool with that, got a good laugh out of it, because I know who they are!
But if they added a bit there about how voting for Senator Throckmorton, or the Republican Party might mean that they could stop the liberals from shooting that puppy…I don’t want to hear about how it was made by the Free Americans for Free Liberty, or some such crap. I want to know who’s talking to me, who’s lying to me.
Is that some kind of problem?
So you just want disclosure? That’s perfectly legal. No amendment required. If you want limitations, that’s where you run afoul of the law.
No amendment is actually required anyway. Shit, addy, how many times you seen that old trick used around here, anyway?
“Well, sure, if you guys think you are so right, go and get a Constitutional amendment, and then we’ll talk!”.
Yeah. Right. Hugh Betcha.
Why do you need an amendment if all you want is disclosure. THe Democrats already tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act. It failed because too many affected groups wanted carveouts and you can’t horsetrade speech rights. But as long as it applies equally to everyone, there’s no constitutional problem with disclosure.
Well, by Og, you’ve convinced me! There is no need for a Constitutional amendment. Thanks for showing me the light!
If all you want is disclosure, why do you think you need one? And if you did, wouldn’t it just say, “Congress shall have the power to require full disclosure of all paid political advocacy?”
Thank you, Brain Glutton. If you INTJ Dopers manage to let INTP septimus fight your ignorance on just one matter, let it be that Problems need to be diagnosed, first. Only when that’s successful, do the tradeoffs involved in solutions become debate-worthy.
Instead, some reason backwards: “Freedom of speech is an axiom or theorem, just like the SAS rule of triangles. Therefore, getting money out of politics is impossible. Q.E.D.”
Instead, open your minds! Once we can admit (independent of any “axioms” we may think we know) that selling politicians to the highest bidder is not good democracy, then we can look for solutions.
To many right-wing Americans this will seem like hyper-Marxist fantasy. But (or do I repeat myself? :rolleyes: ) much of it is already the case in Europe.
So, you’d outlaw my “Vote Obama” poster, but allow the Kochs to buy as much global warning denying ads as they can afford? 
Something I wonder. The people who tend to support the idea that money is speech and should be unlimited seem almost gleeful about it, rubbing it in the faces of those who disagree.
Do you actually like the idea that a small number of people can exert a great amount of political power, which in turn they use to further give themselves even greater power?
Or do you consider it a necessary because to compromise on that would go against our values?
To give an example of what I mean: I absolutely support the rights of neo-nazis to have marches. I think it sucksthat anyone would do such a thing, and that there are people who subscribe to those values. And I think that their speech is harmful to society. What they do is a bad thing. And yet it’s a worse thing for society to be able to limit who can speak. And so letting neo-nazis spread their message is a necessary evil in the pursuit of the greater value of free speech.
Do you view giving greatly disproportionate political power to a select few in the same light? That it’s harmful, and damaging to society, and yet we must accept it because it’s in line with a greater principle? Or do you actually believe that it’s a positive thing, that there’s nothing wrong with it? Or do you simply think that it’s okay because you feel as though it empowers your tribe more than it does the other tribe?
It’s hard to take people seriously on their concern about money in politics when they don’t seem concerned at all about the corrupting effect of the money coming OUT of DC. Which is usually defended by “But that’s democracy!”
Well, free speech is liberty, and liberty is the whole point of democracy, not allocation of money to various special interests to buy their support.
Yeah! Like doling out money to the EPA so they can hassle and harass the Duke Bro…sorry, Koch Brothers on behalf of special interests! Like people who breathe and drink water.
You miss the point, so I’ll take the high road and assume I was unclear. Under Bob’s proposal, it’s unclear that it COULD happen. If it can’t happen, then we got ourselves un gran problema, amigo. So, hows about we let Bob answer? It’s his proposal, after all.
I would limit the law to spending on political advertisements. They’re the 600 pound gorilla in the room. What we have learned over the last 50 years or so is that negative ads work tremendously, and now we’ve got legions of PACs hiding behind the “not affiliated with any candidate” skirt.
So my proposal would be that no person could contribute more than $200 to any candidate or PAC, in total. Cut the money out of the PACs and we’ll see elections won on merits and ideas rather than “Tell Senator Ballscratcher to stop forcing Boy Scouts into homosexual Muslim marriages! Not affiliated with any candidate”.
Actually, you’ll see elections based on whether Bill O’Reilly or Rachel maddow makes the more convincing case for their favorite.
The real debate won’t be between the candidates, but between the media camps, which will then have complete power to decide how the debate will be conducted and who it will favor.
Sure, John, but we are talking about elections, here. Your post veers off into documentaries, propaganda for causes, stuff like that. Which is an interesting subject, but nonetheless, it is another subject. A different subject.
I’ll take the high road as well, I’ll accept that maybe you really believe that all political speech is somehow at risk if we attempt to control campaign finance. Do you? Is that your point?
ETA: shit, ninja’d again. If only I could think faster, and still be right!
“Campaign finance” needs to be defined in an amendment better than just that term, which can be expanded as surely as “Interstate commerce” to cover pretty much all speech.
BCRA defined banned ads as those “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate” 90 days before an election or sooner. Which still allowed big money independent spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate expressly as long as they did it before August(which is actually a pretty critical time to define your opponent), and they could still run ads in the 90 day period as long as they didn’t “expressly” advocate or oppose a candidate.
How broadly would you ban campaign ads, and in what forums would you ban them? Are you proposing regulation of the internet now?