OK. I think this is mostly true for the Presidential campaigns. But for smaller campaigns, the disparity in money can be overwhelming sometimes, and publicly funded elections may level the playing field.
Not really. Unless an incumbent has become deeply unpopular, it takes more than even money to beat them. You have to account for the powers of incumbency, the name recognition, and the ability to hand out favors. A truly level playing field will give challengers more money than incumbents.
No, this is not always true. And incumbents, with the support of their parties, almost always have way, way more money than the challengers.
The fact that the result is the same is irrelevant though, because one is a human right, protected by the Constitution, that is essential to democracy, and one isn’t. Even if they have the same result.
I could go volunteer for a candidate and work hard to get him elected by going door to door, or I could bribe him. He’d might do something for me in return either way. Same result, entirely different methods. The latter is corruption, the former is democracy.
As we’ve discussed, if you use money spent on speech as a bribe, by coordinating it with the candidate (offering to pay to run the candidate’s ads, for instance) that would be corruption, and already illegal, because it’s the same effect as bribe, or at least an in-kind donation that busts the donation limits.
Please give a straight answer.
We keep backing up because you fail to see the stunning absurdity - and the consequences - of that statement.
But according to your logic, the government COULD do so. You couldn’t object that it shouldn’t have the power to do so.
So voters tend to CHOOSE incumbents more often, you mean.
(The money advantage doesn’t come from parties. Parties are a very small source of funds. It comes mostly as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some donors know that incumbents usually win, so they back them to stay in their favor, and/or they don’t waste their money on challengers likely to lose. It’s also a reflection of an incumbent having an established base of supporters because he’s had the time and opportunity to build it.)
Well, actually, “viral” means they didn’t need the media. The media picked up on them and perpetuated them, sure.
The media don’t decide what a gaffe is or how important it is. The viewers do. Viewers don’t simply swallow whole without critical thinking whatever the media spew at them. They also choose which outlets to view (listen to, read…) and what they think about the content.
Same with ads, of course.
Yes, and all of this is mostly true. But public financing might equal the playing field for these races.
Just because a fact doesn’t help your position doesn’t mean that it is irrelevant. The fact that money can be corrupting is completely relevant to campaign finance reform discussions. More than relevant, it’s the core assumption. If it wasn’t believed that money can be corrupting there wouldn’t be any damn campaign finance reform movement in the first place.
Why do you believe the US would no longer be a democracy if a person isn’t allowed to spend sixty million dollars on campaign ads for a politician? I hope I’m not putting words into your mouth. I believe that is what you mean when you say that it is essential to democracy that this not happen. What specifically would be the negative result?
WTF? You asked me what I thought and I told you.
This is the opposite of absurd. The only thing stunning is its obviousness. People want valuable things. That’s what “valuable” means. If something is valuable to someone then they might be willing to trade something to get it. Speech can be valuable. This is really basic stuff. Please don’t ask me to explain it again.
And what consequences do you imagine I am ignoring?
Is this a constitutional argument? I mean, are you making a distinction between saying, “I don’t want the government to do this” and “I don’t think the government is constitutionally empowered to do this”? If so (and I can’t make sense of it any other way) then count me out. No legal arguments for me. When I say that the government shouldn’t do so and that the government shouldn’t have the power to do so I mean the exact same thing. You are free to consider constitutionality, of course, but it has nothing to do with “my logic”.
I didn’t say that. It’s irrelevant because it’s irrelevant. Ends don’t justify means.
This is not a campaign finance discussion. Money spent on speech about politics is not financing a campaign. It’s not the same thing as donating to a candidate.
That doesn’t make the belief true.
Money is not corrupting in all cases, right? It’s not corrupt to buy groceries for yourself, is it? It depends on something else.
Money given to a candidate could easily be corrupting. Money spent on speech about a candidate could be too - if it is coordinated with the candidate just like an in-kind donation, for instance. Money spent on speech, just because someone wants to broadcast their speech, though, is not corrupting.
For one thing, you’d set a precedent for any and all regulation of speech. Which you admit, having said that you think speech itself could be corrupting and worthy of regulation.
Someone who wants to express their opinions wider would be forbidden.
You want specific examples? We already talked about that - do you really think people, like Micheal Moore, should go to jail for spending money to broadcast his opinions through films? Or books published (with money, you know) about politics close to election time could be confiscated, like the FEC asserted was its power under McCain-Fiengold?
I didn’t say it wasn’t valuable. I said you can’t ban it just because it’s valuable.
See above - books and films banned. Just for starters.
Yes, we know your logic flies in the face of the Bill of Rights.
But fine, you don’t want legal arguments. I just threw it in as an extra. I believe in freedom of speech, regardless of its legal status. Carry on.
2sense, re the “straight answer” I asked for. Here are the questions again:
You said
I replied:
Your answer was unclear to me. So could you start with a simple yes or no to the first question, followed by a justification. I’d like to know why you think spending money to run ads on a TV network is somehow different from spending money to buy and run an entire TV network.
Thanks.
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.
Really?
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?
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.
If we think these things are bad (and we do) then why would we seek to ban them? And if we don’t then how do we get to things like this from, say, a law outlawing outside campaign commercials?
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.
a. No, I wouldn’t.
b. Because I don’t want to live in a world where you have to worry what the government hears you say about politics.
c. No it’s not fair but you can’t tilt at every unfairness like a windmill. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
d. There are a multitude of differences between spending money on a TV network and spending money on TV ads. Most relevant would seem to be that I think it’s too much of an intrusion of governmental power to try to regulate political content on a TV stations 24/7/365.
No, I’m still here. The reality is that your policies would destroy democracy and are rooted in contempt for it.
Yes. This confusion on your part is part of your problem. When I spend money on my speech, it’s mine, not some politician’s campaign.
Because it’s nonsensical to say speech alone is corrupting. By that definition, pretty much all political speech would be corrupting.
A precedent that allows the government to limit speech at all, and to determine what “targeted” and “temporary” means, gives it unlimited power to regulate absolutely any speech it deems “corrupting” or whatever.
I don’t understand either of those sentences. Sorry. Please clarify.
You are. If speech is valuable to a candidate, speaking is giving something of value to him/her, and that’s assumed to be corrupting, according to you. It’s just like a donation or a bribe.
But you want to give the government the power to ban it, and to decide when it is corrupting.
But that’s exactly what you’re advocating! EX-ACT-LY!!! I can’t believe you actually said this.
How dare you invoke " too much of an intrusion of governmental power."
If all you can come up with is “its too hard” then that’s pretty weak. If you COULD regulate it, would you?
I repeat my contention: if you want to take big money out of the electoral process, the answer is actually… LESS direct democracy. Bring back the old “smoke filled rooms” and let the party leaders pick their candidates.
Instead of having primaries, let the Democratic national committee meet with black leaders, feminist leaders, union leaders, environmentalist leaders and other standard liberal interest groups and together, come up with a candidate who’s acceptable to all (or most) of them.
Meanwhile, the Republican party bosses can meet with the Chamber of Commerce types, the spokespersons of the Religious Right, the foreign policy hawks, etc. and come up with a candidate acceptable to all of them.
The result would PROBABLY be better candidates, and DEFINITELY a lot less money spent.
I’m not sure how that advances democracy, especially when one party dominates a district or state, or why it makes spending less money a good thing. But it’s an idea.
Sigh.
OK this is a discussion of campaign finance reform. Look at the thread title. Just because you want to ignore the reality of money spent on campaigns by outside parties doesn’t mean that isn’t campaign spending.
What part of this simple logic chain are you failing to understand?
A. Political speech can be valuable in reelecting politicians.
B. Politicians dearly want to be reelected.
C. So politicians may be willing to do something in exchange for that speech.
This is not an explanation. You are just stating what you want to be true. Why does passing a law to have the government do one thing give it power to do another thing?
It’s the same issue I just explained. You have established no causal relationship between intended limitations and these greater unintended limitations.
I have not been assuming valuable speech will be corrupting. I have been noticing that valuable speech, like anything of value, is potentially corrupting. Just because something is potentially corrupting doesn’t mean it should be or must be banned. We’ve been over this.
I have never said I wanted to ban personal speech no matter how valuable. I’ve clearly stated that I don’t think that is a good idea.
No, this is what you have been pretending I am arguing. If you put more effort into reading my words and less in building strawmen you wouldn’t be so suprised.
If you get down off your high horse you might find it easier to smell the roses.
What’s weak is your analysis as usual. I’m not saying it is too hard for the government to do it. I’m saying it would be worse to have a government that forces you to watch your lip than it is to live with the inherent inequities.
No, Campaign finance has a specific meaning. You can’t redefine it. That only confuses the issue.
D. Therefore any speech could be banned.
Did you miss that part? of the chain? Because that’s the part that ruins it.
You don’t pass a law to give the government power to pass a law. You give it the power through the Constitution, or precedent based on interpretation of it. And that power doesn’t only apply to one specific law. To say the government has the power to ban political speech by corporations 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold) doesn’t restrict it to that. The government could say 90 days, or at all times. It could apply it to all other groups, or perhaps even individuals, depending on the ruling. You can’t give government general power and just hope it stays specific in the way you want.
So write me a constitutional amendment that would limit the government’s power to just what you want and nothing more.
But you would give the government the power to determine whether it is or not. You wouldn’t have that power, the government would. So ANY speech could be banned.
That’s nice. The government might not agree with you.
It’s not a strawman. You just don’t seem to understand what you’re advocating. You can’t just declare that your particular whims are the only possible exceptions and expect the government never to go beyond them.
But you want to give the government the power to tell you that you can’t say that.
“Campaign finance refers to all funds raised in order to promote candidates, political parties, or policies in elections, referendums, initiatives, party activities, and party organizations.”"
That’s from Wikipedia, the first Google hit. The 2nd hit gives your preferred more narrow definition of donations only. So it’s not that I invented a new definition. The term is used both broadly and narrowly and you are insisting on the narrow definition because it suits your argument. IOW, mere semantics.
Noticing that speech might be valuable and that valuable things might be corrupting (and that we might ban potential corruption) only means that we might consider banning some speech not that we should or must ban any and all speech.
I’ve already explained that I believe that rights should be balanced. If the right to free and fair elections is being protected by regulating campaign ads for 60 days then there is no justification to further impair the right to free speech. If it’s not then further limitations might be considered. IOW- policies should be reality-based and not just based on ideology.
Governments might misbehave, yes. That’s an argument to watch them not to neuter them.
Good for them. Then quote their words and argue against what they are saying. If you are going to quote my words then I ask that you argue against them and not whatever it is that you believe the government might agree to.
I don’t expect that the government will never go beyond my wishes. A government will do as it wants and thinks it can get away with. That’s how governments work. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t advocate for the government to do the things I think are helpful.
As long as you don’t use the confusion to make an argument or confuse things, whatever.
I won’t consider any ban on speech based on it being corrupting.
It is simply ABSURD to say that speech can in any way infringe on the right to a free and fair election. It’s loony. Anyone can vote for anyone they want.
Watch them, and then what? Use your freedom of speech to call them on it? Not if it’s already gone.
Your words don’t tell the whole story of the implications of your arguments though.
Then you don’t believe in rights, or limited government, at all. You think we should give the government unlimited power and then try to keep it from using it. Good luck with that.
I realize campaign finance isn’t changing because the people who control the decision making parties don’t want it to change. I suspect the OP does to. But in the spirit of the discussion, can’t the government soft-ban private advertisements by simply requiring that they air a lengthy disclaimer, so lengthy that the cost of producing the commercial balloons to such a high degree that the ad is no longer cost effective?
This would not be a violation of the first amendment, because they can still say whatever they want about whichever candidate (Vote Bush! Palin sucks! Obama’s a muslim! McCain’s a nazi!), they just have to say “The following advertisment is paid for by _______, a subsidiary of ________ and is not subject to extensive fact-checking. Subsequently, any and all claims made in this commercial are merely that, claims, with no requirement to provide evidence of their veracity. No ‘facts’ cited in the following advertisment should be interpreted as ‘true’ without independent research. The following is presented merely as the opinion of the aforementioned sponsor. Bush sucks.”
I’d bet 95% of the voting public would walk out or change the channel by the time they heard the familiar, monotone “the following advertisment…” and considering the cost of a 30 second commercial, having a huge chunk of that time taken up by a very lengthy disclaimer would render it too expensive for too little effect. But no one’s rights are infringed upon - they can still make the ad if they feel they must, and there’s no tax being levied against it. Just a disclaimer, which we already require for all sorts of things (consider “Buy this miracle drug! P.S> this drug will obliterate you in every way imaginable…”).
So a lot of the negatives (specifically the compelling, albiet upsetting 1st amendment argument) go away.
No, because judges can overturn such nonsense. They can see through attempts to get around the Bill of Rights.
This is akin to a “literacy test” or “grandfather clause” that, while appearing to have nothing to do with race and just a technicality, were designed to keep blacks from voting in the Jim Crow South.
Any attempt to hinder the ability of people to say what they want is a violation of the First Amendment. Judges aren’t stupid.
But I give you creativity points.
Eventually, you’ll just give up and just live with freedom of speech. Respecting rights for those you don’t like is hard sometimes, but you must do it.