# Let's explore the wisdom of publicly funded elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825 "2014-01-14T22:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/281 "2014-03-07T16:11:46Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I sure am glad people are out there pooling their money by giving it to groups that are running ads exposing legislators for their failures. > > I think it’s kind of funny how liberals on my side of the aisle tend to rail against money and speech and Super PACs, but then don’t say a word when their side does it. For instance: > > Gabby Giffords’ Gun Control Group Outraises All Other Super PACs > > [Gabby Giffords' Gun Control Group Outraises All Other Super PACs | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/gabby-giffords-gun-control-fundraising_n_4718939.html) I’m inclined to believe that Democrats are sincere on this issue. I’m also pretty sure that the last thing Mark Pryor wants is Gabby Giffords’ PAC running ads in his district attacking his stance on guns. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/282 "2014-03-07T16:20:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m inclined to believe that Democrats are sincere on this issue. I’m also pretty sure that the last thing Mark Pryor wants is Gabby Giffords’ PAC running ads in his district attacking his stance on guns. Maybe Pryor should get on board with that amendment to overturn Citizens United then. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/283 "2014-03-07T17:11:12Z")
I’m sure he already is. Congressmen in competitive districts and states have more reason to support restrictions on those who can shine a light on their voting record than most. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/284 "2014-03-07T18:22:53Z")
2sense, wolfpup, et. al., the challenge is for you to contruct an argument that justifies the policies you want (limits on certain speech) that doesn’t at the same time justify (and therefore give the government the power to enact) ANY limit on speech whatsoever. You can’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/285 "2014-03-07T19:37:38Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If you’re going to invoke the founders, you have to acknowledge that they adopted the First Amendment, which very clearly and without reservation or exception stated that they valued freedom of speech as among the highest values to be protected as a right. Even the greatest thinkers of the time were still people of their time. 2 centuries have passed and we’ve learned a few things. A lesser known founder was was a famous doctor named Benjamin Rush. Would you let him treat you with tinctures of mercury and frequent bleedings? > [@](#): > > And to try to make a disctinction between stupid and ignorant, and try to say the founders would have thought violation of speech rights was an answer to that, is not supported by the facts either. The founders clearly saw free speech as the solution to ignorance. I have not said that founders would be in favor of violating speech rights. _cough_Sedition Act_cough_ I was just making the distinction. Not everything is an argument for limiting speech. > [@](#): > > You can’t possibly separate the two. Especially since you are actually advocating giving more power to the government. **You** can’t separate the 2 because you believe that if one part of the government tells another part not to do something that makes that government less powerful. To me that just looks like the government has decided not to do that thing. It still _can_ do it if it changes its mind so its not losing any power by declining to exercise it at this time. Thus my concern for what is actually happening rather than more esoteric considerations. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > 2sense, wolfpup, et. al., the challenge is for you to contruct an argument that justifies the policies you want (limits on certain speech) that doesn’t at the same time justify (and therefore give the government the power to enact) ANY limit on speech whatsoever. > > You can’t do it. Just because you refuse to accept logical arguments doesn’t mean they haven’t been made. If the justification for regulating speech is some might be potentially corrupting then the limit on that justification is completely obvious. It fails to justify limits on speech which are not potentially corrupting. I’ve tried to get that simple concept across to you many times now. I’ve also tried to explain that just because a justification exists to limit speech doesn’t mean it must be limited. Sometimes there isn’t an acceptable way to do so. So, lets get back to my questions. Do you agree that campaign ads for a candidate, even if purchased by someone else, are potentially corrupting just as giving the money to the candidate to buy the commercials herself is potentially corrupting? Do you agree that speech can be potentially corrupting and that based on that reality some might, in good faith, seek to regulate outside campaign commercials? Can you cite three instances of a modern democracy starting to regulate speech and ending up a totalitarian state? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/286 "2014-03-08T00:16:45Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > You don’t know that the ends don’t justify the means. You refuse to examine either the ends or the means and have no basis to make that judgement. You continue to pretend that if you wave your magic constitutional wand at it it will all just disappear. Reality begs to differ. Ends don’t justify means in general. > [@](#): > > It’s not as if it will magically become true if you repeat it often enough. You haven’t provided any rationale for believing that is accurate. If both donations and the money spent on speech are valuable in reelecting politicians then how is it possible that both aren’t potentially corrupting? Once again - I don’t give a damn either way. If you declare that speech can be banned on this basis, you could ban ANY political speech, and this is absurd. I don’t support it, and I doubt you would either. > [@](#): > > How does a precedent for targeted and temporary speech limits become a precedent for arbitrary and unlimited speech limits? Again I see only a slippery slope under you. Because, duh, the government gets to decide what “temporary” and “targeted” means. > [@](#): > > Who is trying to ban it because it is valuable? Just because something is potentially corrupting doesn’t mean it should be or must be banned. We’ve been over this. But you would give the government the power to ban it. It would make that decision, not you. > [@](#): > > c. No it’s not fair but you can’t tilt at every unfairness like a windmill. Windmills? You want to violate a fundamental, longstanding right. No. > [@](#): > > Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. EXACTLY. That’s your problem. And what was that about ends and means again? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/287 "2014-03-08T00:23:01Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Even the greatest thinkers of the time were still people of their time. 2 centuries have passed and we’ve learned a few things. A lesser known founder was was a famous doctor named Benjamin Rush. Would you let him treat you with tinctures of mercury and frequent bleedings? Nice try. We’ve never ever amended the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights. Not once. > [@](#): > > **You** can’t separate the 2 because you believe that if one part of the government tells another part not to do something that makes that government less powerful. ? > [@](#): > > Thus my concern for what is actually happening rather than more esoteric considerations. Which just shows how naive you are. > [@](#): > > If the justification for regulating speech is some might be potentially corrupting then the limit on that justification is completely obvious. It fails to justify limits on speech which are not potentially corrupting. But ALL political speech is “potentially corrupting!” > [@](#): > > I’ve also tried to explain that just because a justification exists to limit speech doesn’t mean it must be limited. Sometimes there isn’t an acceptable way to do so. Jesus Christ. Do you not get that once you give government a power, it can use it how it wants, not just how you think it should be used? You can’t just say “here’s a sweeping power to regulate speech - please only use it in narrow, acceptable ways though.” > [@](#): > > So, lets get back to my questions. Do you agree that campaign ads for a candidate, even if purchased by someone else, are potentially corrupting just as giving the money to the candidate to buy the commercials herself is potentially corrupting? Do you agree that speech can be potentially corrupting and that based on that reality some might, in good faith, seek to regulate outside campaign commercials? I don’t CARE. None are justifications for regulation of speech. > [@](#): > > Can you cite three instances of a modern democracy starting to regulate speech and ending up a totalitarian state? A state that regulates speech is no longer a democracy. Not fully at least. We’re better than that. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/288 "2014-03-08T00:28:06Z")
Did you get lost? You replied to that post over a week ago. We’ve moved on. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/289 "2014-03-08T00:30:34Z")
Ah you’ve caught up. Okay. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/290 "2014-03-08T00:32:57Z")
Isn’t favorable media coverage corrupting? Is it fair that a lot of journalists can just call the White House and get a high level staffer or the man himself anytime they want? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/291 "2014-03-08T01:59:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Nice try. > > We’ve never ever amended the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights. Not once. I don’t understand your response. I’m saying that the founders are necessarily ignorant of the past 200 years of scientific advancement and that includes political (and medical) science. If you could timetravel Benjamin Rush here you wouldn’t ask his medical advice so why should his advice on politics matter? > [@](#): > > ? > Which just shows how naive you are. When you don’t understand an explanation, which you signified with that question mark, then it’s foolish to go ahead and make judgments about it. > [@](#): > > But ALL political speech is “potentially corrupting!” It’s not. We’ve been over this. Only things of value can possibly be corrupting. How many times am I going to be forced to point this out? If I tell my wife to vote for Obama, that’s political speech but it’s not of much use to any politician. > [@](#): > > Jesus Christ. Do you not get that once you give government a power, it can use it how it wants, not just how you think it should be used? You can’t just say “here’s a sweeping power to regulate speech - please only use it in narrow, acceptable ways though.” I understand perfectly that that’s how you see it. And I’m not singling you out, that’s how it’s commonly expressed in America where you very rarely see anyone question judicial review. But you have seen me disagree. You see the Citizens United decision as a limit on government power but from my perspective there has been no change in governmental power just because the government decided to no longer regulate outside campaign commercials. If it were to start telling tv stations again that they couldn’t air those commercials then the TV people would obey or they would go to jail. That is what power is- the ability to do something. The government isn’t any less powerful just because one part of it will no longer do something unless another part tells it it is OK. > [@](#): > > I don’t CARE. None are justifications for regulation of speech. I am not offering these questions as justifications for regulation of speech. So if it’s not a big deal to you could you please answer my questions? > [@](#): > > A state that regulates speech is no longer a democracy. Not fully at least. We’re better than that. So all of those examples of regulating speech leading to totalitarianism you said were from history were instead from your imagination? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/292 "2014-03-08T02:00:58Z")
It doesn’t lead to totalitarianism, but if you give government the power to regulate political speech, they will use it in ways you don’t agree with. You have to decide if the tradeoff is worth it. In Britain, they don’t just limit campaigning for candidates over the airwaves. They limit advocacy on any issue of controversy. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/293 "2014-03-09T19:26:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The federal government should be very powerful within the realms it has been ceded power. And elected officials should be accountable for everything the federal government does. One of the biggest threats to democratic legitimacy today is the unelected bureaucracy enabling elected officials to claim ignorance when the bureaucracy misbehaves or is incompetent, and enough voters believe them that accountability is lost. I don’t see this as a major concern. I think that if there had been evidence that the IRS decisions were politically motivated people would have taken notice even over the noise of the unending paranoid partisan accusations that are the lifeblood of the GOP. People couldn’t hold Obama to account for it (thanks to the “wisdom” of term limits) but it would have cost the Democratic Party some support. > [@](#): > > When accountability is lost, democratic legitimacy is lost. Who do we vote out of office when the IRS does us wrong? Or the EPA? Or the FBI? According to a lot of people, no one. But if that’s true, we no longer vote for our leaders. We just vote for powerless figureheads. I haven’t heard any of these people speak but I think they are wrong. The Presidency is not becoming more of a figurehead. On the contrary, as the deliberately inefficient legislative branch becomes more and more dysfunctional the executive branch is more and more left to act on its own. > [@adaher](#): > > Isn’t favorable media coverage corrupting? Is it fair that a lot of journalists can just call the White House and get a high level staffer or the man himself anytime they want? I think it’s corrupting both for the politicians and the journalists. Certainly important journalists have far more access and influence than average but I’m not sure how to judge the fairness of the situation nor do I see the question as anything other than academic. > [@adaher](#): > > It doesn’t lead to totalitarianism, but if you give government the power to regulate political speech, they will use it in ways you don’t agree with. You have to decide if the tradeoff is worth it. > > In Britain, they don’t just limit campaigning for candidates over the airwaves. They limit advocacy on any issue of controversy. Certainly you have to expect some compromise in policy discussions. One of the main issues I have with judicial review is how it works against this. Opponents of a policy don’t have to argue on the merits, as **lance strongarm** so resolutely resisted doing so here. They can use constitutionality to argue that the government isn’t allowed to do things they can’t demonstrate it shouldn’t do. And the language of rights, being somewhat arbitrary concepts, lends itself to obstructionism through absolutist interpretations or plain old caviling. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/294 "2014-03-10T13:26:55Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > It’s not. We’ve been over this. Only things of value can possibly be corrupting. How many times am I going to be forced to point this out? If I tell my wife to vote for Obama, that’s political speech but it’s not of much use to any politician. Of course it’s of value to a politician. It may gain Obama your wife’s vote. That’s valuable. Pretty much ALL political speech benefits a politician in some way. > [@](#): > > You see the Citizens United decision as a limit on government power but from my perspective there has been no change in governmental power just because the government decided to no longer regulate outside campaign commercials. No, the government didn’t decide that, a court forced it to stop, because it said the Constitution forbids it. > [@](#): > > If it were to start telling tv stations again that they couldn’t air those commercials then the TV people would obey or they would go to jail. No they wouldn’t. The law was struck down. Nobody would go to jail. > [@](#): > > That is what power is- the ability to do something. The government isn’t any less powerful just because one part of it will no longer do something unless another part tells it it is OK. Why, yes, it is. > [@](#): > > So all of those examples of regulating speech leading to totalitarianism you said were from history were instead from your imagination? Drop the “totalitarianism” crap. A violation of a right doesn’t have to be total to be wrong. Regulation of speech is a violation of both human rights and an assault on democracy. The people will decide what speech to believe or accept. Not you. Very simply concept. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/295 "2014-03-10T13:37:02Z")
2sense, would you say a law regulating only the practice of religion for Jews, but leaving other religions totally free, would be acceptable just because it doesn’t go very far? It falls short of “totalitarianism?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825.md?page=14)