The difference being? What would be “campaign spending”?
I’m hoping that at some point you will notice that I am not and have not been arguing that restricting the Hillary the Movie ads wasn’t a limit on free speech. I know that it was. Ibn Warraq taught me that in a previous thread. But I did object then and still do to his characterization as bookburners of people, including myself, who believe that such restrictions may be justifiable. Yes, both book burning and regulating campaign ads are limiting free speech but that doesn’t mean that it is not misleading to conflate the two.
I agree that you are right in the sense that you seem (to my untrained eye) to have accurately described the current legal situation. You won’t get any more arguments about that from me.
I don’t think we need to abandon the 1st Amendment. Just move from an absolutist view of the right to free speech to one willing to recognize the existence of other important rights, including the right to free and fair elections, that need to be accommodated when rights conflict. Also a pragmatic look at the situation is warranted I believe. Are there any outcome-based arguments against limiting campaign spending?
:dubious: And what, may I ask, is “Canadian culture”?
Og forbid it should have any slightest thing to do with poutine or peameal! :mad:
:dubious: Now that’s bullshit!
Respectfully, did you actually read Septimus’ post?
He didn’t ask me “meaningful questions”?
He asked me one question which was utterly silly as even you seem to acknowledge.
I was confused by the question because the non-citizens in the US are also protected by the First Amendment so it was irrelevant whether or not they were considered citizens or not and said as much.
Septimus lost his temper and made some foolishly snarky responses that implied he didn’t understand my response.
I then pointed out, what was painfully obvious to me and anyone with an understanding of the Constitution.
I am of course still waiting an answer to what were fairly simple questions but I doubt I’ll get them anytime soon.
You then got a bit upset at this comment I made here.
Your reply demonstrated that you clearly didn’t understand it.
Er… A number of people on this thread have rather vociferously been arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t protect corporations including yourself have very specifically argued that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to “corporations” and should only apply to “persons”.
Well, if what you’re saying is true than marches by the KKK, the NRA, the NAACP, and the Sierra Club, all of which are non-profit corporations as well as publications by such groups aren’t protected by the First Amendment and have no protections against governmental interference.
You also kept rather foolishly pointing to the regulations of various EU countries and others on “campaign finance”(without once, despite being asked to define it, “donations” or “electioneering”).
Yes, lots of countries which consider themselves liberal democracies and which we consider liberal democracies have laws which they feel are fine and they often it weird that we don’t have in the US.
Lots of countries have laws punishing things like “hate speech”, “genocide denial” and other types of things that we don’t have.
Based on your logic, since France does allow for the prosecution of historians for expressing their opinion in a magazine that the Armenian Holocaust didn’t constitute a genocide, then why can’t the US should also have laws whereby Ivy League professors can be prosecuted for saying they don’t think that the Trail of Tears constitutes a genocide or that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is a form of Apartheid?
Based on your logic, since the Netherlands, the UK, Australia, Canada, Israel, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Japan and countless other states have official state religions, why can’t the US?
Based on your logic, since the UK, Canada, Australia, and countless other liberal democracies have not only prayer in school but state-supported religious schools, then why can’t the US?
Based on your logic, why can’t the US have the same libel laws as the UK and why can’t, like Sweden, the US throw journalists into prison who are convicted of libel?
Based on your logic, since a number of liberal democracies have laws in which people are criminally prosecuted for “hate speech”, “defamation of racial groups” “display of Nazi symbols” or “denial of the Holocaust” then why shouldn’t the US?
Based on your logic, since a number of liberal democracies have all sorts of laws regulating the internet or pornography, then why can’t the US?
The answer to all those questions is the same.
The First Amendment.
If you feel the First Amendment is a mistake, then call for amending it but invoking the actions of countries that don’t have it adds nothing to the discussion.
Ok, this is comedy gold. The first Supreme Court case involving campaign spending, to the best of my knowledge, wasn’t until the early 70s, Buckley Vs. Valeo, and that decision was not reversed in any way by Citizens United and McCain-Feingold is less than fifteen years old.
Meanwhile, although corporate personhood had nothing to do with the case, corporate personhood was established more than a** century** ago.
Do you not realize just how hypocritical and ignorant your comment appears.
Er… Did you actually read the excerpt from Lind’s book or did you just post it because you think he’s a respected scholar and quoting him will make people agree with you.
The excerpt deals with contributions to candidates.
Citizens United had nothing to do with contributions to candidates.
Instead it had to do with the right of people not running for political office to agitate on behalf of or against other political candidates.
Ok, this is a remarkably stupid argument for a journalist to put forth.
You’re arguing that since “we” consider France “a free country” and France has such restrictions why shouldn’t we?
France also has rather broad laws allowing for the prosecution of academics and journalists guilty of “genocide denial” and “group libel”.
Does that mean the US should adopt such rules?
Sweden throws journalists in jail who are found guilty of libel and “we” think it’s “a free country”.
The UK has in the past forbidden the BBC from broadcasting the interviews of MPs who were members of Sinn Fein and “we” consider the UK “a free country”.
I thought journalists were supposed to celebrate freedom of the press, but based on your logic, we should dramatically crack down on it.
Would you mind explaining it?
Er, where do you want me to start? Do you want to go with the African and Asian immigrant cultures that contribute to diversity? The Anglophone/Francophone divisions? The satire-based humor (with flavorful bouts of deprecation)? The disturbing affinity for the British? The political outlook, which I think I generalized quite well in my previous post? The poutine? Why would I care about that when German stop sign fries are better? 
REALLY bad analogy. It is not the disembodied KKK, NRA, or NAACP that is allowed to march or publish, but the human members of such organizations.
I am taking no side in the current discussion, (other than to note as a Moderator that EVERYONE needs to tone it down), but you need to do a bit of fine tuning on that analogy if you want to make it work.
Okay, then, it’s the owners and employees of a corporation that allow it to express speech rights.
There, took care of that.
By the way, many non-profit, political groups like the ones above are incorporated. Citizens United is one. There are many others. Just because they have a certain legal status doesn’t mean they don’t have any rights or can be treated differently.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
I don’t see why it matters one bit to the discussion. But if you agree that both are limits on free speech, that’s a start.
What rights are conflicting here?
We have free and fair elections. We don’t need to limit anyone’s speech to make them more free or fair.
Think about it - you’re saying that speech is hindering free and fair elections. Really?
No pragmatic outlooks are allowed. You cannot limit speech. I demand it. If that sounds absolutist, so be it. You are trying to rationalize a blatant violation of free speech, involving speech that has the highest level of protection and never allows for exceptions. All the reasons you’ve offered simply don’t stand up.
Campaign spending is money that a campaign spends, meaning a candidate for office spending it.
If a candidate buys an ad, that’s campaign spending. If you go to a sign shop and buy a sign that supports that candidate and put it in your yard, that’s not campaign spending, that’s you spending money on your own speech. Do you really think your right to do that should be limited in any way? Would you really say that a limit on your right to buy such a sign wouldn’t be a limit on your free speech?
Well, no. Corporations cannot give money to candidates. They can sponsor PACs that use voluntary donations from employees or shareholders, but the donations to the candidates are limited to $5,000.
And there are plenty of other sources of campaign funds besides corporate PACs. There are many other PACs, and there is individuals. 2/3rds of campaign money comes from individuals, not PACs.
And so what? The voters are forced to vote for whoever spends the most money. They CHOOSE to.
Maybe, maybe not. But this is not whether we live up to some other country’s standards of free, but our own.
If you want to roll back the rights we’ve preserved in our Constitution, propose an amendment. We have never amended the Bill of Rights to take away a right before, and I doubt we ever will.
The voters can do that any time they want to. Nothing stopping them.
You just don’t like the fact that the voters make certain choices. That is why your views are fundamentally anti-democratic.
We have total choice. We can elect whoever we want to. We CHOOSE those who support the plutocracy.
Your argument boils down to “the people are too dumb to make the choice that I prefer, so we need to control what they see and hear.” It couldn’t be more spiteful of democracy. It’s how dictators think.
A bunch of quotes, half of which you’re applying wrong, doesn’t change that.
Let’s make this personal. Suppose you care deeply about a candidate in an upcoming election, say someone who wants to impose the limits you espouse. So you and some friends pool your money to buy some signs to put up in support of that candidate. The local election board sends the sheriff to arrest you for it. It’s not fair, you see, that you’re using money to magnify your speech, they say.
Would you actually go along with that reasoning?
Tom, organizing marches as well as getting the permits for marches costs money which all of those groups use their funds to get.
You’ll notice that, to the best of my knowledge, all the groups sanctioned under McCain-Feingold were either unions or non-profit corporations.
If we want to accept the reasoning that “corporations” aren’t protected by the Constitution then, amongst other things, the government could have easily shut down MLK’s March on Washington.
Also, as the ACLU noted in the brief it filed in favor of the Citizens United decision, Citizens United was one of many non-profit political or interest groups that are incorporated, including the ACLU. So according to the logic of those who oppose it, the ACLU’s speech could be banned by the government.
Of course, the “only people have constitutional rights” logic would extend beyond incorporated groups – it would apply to ALL non-persons. Political parties would have no speech rights. Churches would have no freedom of religion. Etc. On the other hand, if Tomndebb insists that those groups have rights because they are created, composed of, and controlled by people, great! That applies to every entity - including corporations.
What are those?
Fries with either ketchup or mustard and mayonnaise on them.
How can you say that elections are free and fair when campaign money is such a huge factor in politics? When we have a system where members of Congress spend a significant portion of their day begging for money? I can’t bribe a legislator by giving her $60,000 dollars but I can spend $60 million dollars on getting her reelected. Our politics are rotten to the core because of the money awash in elections. How is that free and fair?
I’m saying that you should really try thinking about it. You have a good point in that money can’t be separated from speech when it comes to campaign advertising but you fail to notice that unlimited paid speech also can’t be separated from bribery. In refusing to consider limitations on paid political speech you would doom the nation to corruption.
So you have absolutely no nontheoretical objection to limiting campaign spending. Noted.
Why shouldn’t there be exceptions? And remember, no legal arguments!
A few points of correction. That statement is not true in the general case (there may be some qualified exceptions in that list). I’d be curious to know what the official “state religion” of those countries is. Canada for instance. What abject nonsense! Canada has a strong charter of rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of religion. You might be confused by the fact that in a couple of provinces with a significant Catholic population, Catholics have been able to set up a separate school system where I presume they can have prayers if they want, but parents of any denomination can send their kids to regular public schools if they prefer. It is in fact the US that had prayers in public schools until it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1962 and 1963, later than many other democracies, and still to this day has religious lunatics trying mandate the teaching of creationism and other meddling in the public school system.
As for hate speech, most democracies actually do have such provisions, and they’re always carefully circumscribed to a very specific set of circumstances where speech may lead to imminent violence. It’s basically a recognition of the need for balance to ensure the larger social good, rather than a slavish dedication to libertarian absolutism. This is admittedly a value judgment, but I maintain that, like all such judgments, it can only be judged on its outcomes, and AFAIK these have been overwhelmingly positive.
Well, I’m sorry, but in declaring this a “slam-dunk” for simple free speech you’re just plain wrong because not only did Buckley v. Valeo have significant dissent, just like CU, but also the Supreme Court itself hasn’t been consistent. For example Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ruled…
At this point I should probably withdraw from this particular discussion as it seems to have become completely ideologically entrenched. It seems to me self-evident that there is a fundamental difference between (for example) the cited instance of a few people getting together and buying a political sign, and being able to spend unlimited millions on a large-scale war on public opinion. This fundamental difference in magnitude is being obfuscated by viewpoints that are either the result of approving of the outcome of unrestrained corporate spending, or of a libertarian ideal that distrusts government and seeks to limit government power as a matter of principle, even if the result is power being put entirely into the hands of self-serving interests – which is diametrically opposed to the central tenets of democracy. There seems to me to be no clearer evidence of this than the current sociopolitical climate in the US, where virtually no law can be passed that does not appease or outright pander to corporate interests, and where the public interest has suffered as a direct result. I’ve provided lots of examples.