Because the voters have 100% of the power over who wins. Duh.
No, you can’t spend $60 million to get her reelected. You can spend $60 million on speech to ask that the voters reelect her. The voters decide whether to do that. They can choose not to.
So speech can be bribery now?
Wow. By that logic, any speech that is of value to a candidate - regardless of whether someone uses money to broadcast it - can be corrupt. Think about that.
And why is it only bribery when someone rents out time in 30 second intervals? What if a rich rightwinger just buys his own TV network and spews support for rightwing candidates all day? Why is that okay?
I have objections.
Democracy depends on the people. The government should not limit in any way what they can hear or see or read, especially when it’s designed to change their minds or opinions. They must have full access to all information. The only way to ensure that is with no limits on speech based on the speaker or the amount of speech from it.
It’s kind of shocking that I have to explain this.
Sorry, there is no basis for limiting speech based on “magnitude.”
You are the one arguing that the government should have the power to limit speech this way. You can’t turn around and take it back based on “magnitude.” If you let the cat out of the bag, the government can ban any spending on speech it wants, even your little yard sign.
The voters put those people in power. How you get that this is antidemocracy is beyond me.
Half the public don’t even bother to show up to vote, and half of those who do vote for those people over and over. Yet you think the problem is money.
Are you suggesting that money has no influence on elections? The common understanding is that those congresspeeps are putting in those hours cold calling because money is important in campaigns. That it corrupts (or gives the appearance of corruption) when large amounts of money are given to politician’s campaign chests or the money spent on “independent” electioneering on their behalf . If you believe that certain aspects of the basic argument are irrelevant it would be helpful if you would say so directly.
I don’t see what is so extraordinary about the idea. Anything of value can be corrupting. It has value because others covet it. With great power comes great responsibility. We as a society have decided that it’s not OK for the wealthy and powerful to unduly influence government to get their way. Thus the long history of the movements for campaign finance reform.
Good question. It’s not that FOX News doesn’t empower Murdoch’s right wing ideology. But it’s not like the government can try to rectify that in a temporary and targetted manner either. The principle of access is provides useful guidance here. Murdoch gets his speech on FOX and can promote candidates there in front of anyone that wants to watch. But Murdoch can still along with everyone else be subject to regulation of buying campaign ads on other channels. He can build his audience and say what he wants in front of the choir but can’t use his wealth to dominate television access to the rest of the public.
Democracy depends on far more than just being allowed to vote. The opinions of regular people have to have real influence. This is what campaign finance reform is all about. Ensuring that the economic elite don’t directly dominate the electoral debate.
I’m not so sure restricting paid political advertisements at election time does deny people access. I mean, not access for voters. Candidate information is out there if people want to seek it out. What is being bought is attention from people who are otherwise engaged in their lives. Television channels are selling access to voters.
This is the heart of your problem - you can’t see the enormous difference between donations to campaigns and people spending their own money to express their own opinions without the involvement of a campaign.
This is not about donations to candidates. Such donations are still strictly regulated. This is about the right of you or me or any person or group to spend our own money on our own speech.
Basically what you are arguing is pretty much any speech can be regulated or banned, even without money involved, simply because it favors a political candidate.
You realize that this logic pretty much throws freedom of speech out the window, right?
Copout. Answer the question, please. If the government can regulate or ban ads on TV because of their political content, can it ban opinions on TV that are there because the owner spent money to buy and run the network and invited the opinion rather than renting out the broadcast time? What’s the difference?
If the Koch Brothers simply buy their own TV network, thereby using their billions to have unequal time to spew their opinions all day, would you want to ban that just as you want to ban them from renting time on TV?
Sorry, but you may not violate the right to vote in your zeal to protect democracy. And you sure as hell can’t regulate speech in order to ensure that a particular group doesn’t “dominate” debate. You may not intervene in any way with debate whatsoever.
If the people want to give their attention to TV ads, ad not to other sources of information, that is their right. You stay out of it.
I’m afraid I don’t understand what possible bearing this statement could have on our discussion.
In what way relevant to electoral corruption is there a large difference? A politicians covets reelection. I offer to give him 100 million dollars to spend on that or I offer to spend 100 million dollars for that purpose myself. In both cases I have the exact same amount of influence with him: $100 million worth. It makes no sense to limit campaign contributions without also limiting independent expenditures on campaigns.
You are being imprecise. It is true that governments can ban pretty much any speech they wish to. Some have tried. That’s not the same thing as saying that government should do so, which we agree they should not. Freedom of speech deserves its due but it’s not the only important right. Am I free to come into your house whenever I want to harangue you about politics? Of course not. My right to free speech has to be balanced with your property rights.
“Kettle, though art black!”, shouted the pot. At your request I have provided a rationale for regulating tv ads but not tv shows themselves.
As I’ve said, governments can regulate any and all speech. That doesn’t mean they should. The difference is right there in the “copout” answer. Spending on commercials can be regulated in a temporary and targeted manner whereas trying to force FOX News to actually be fair and balanced would be a monumental undertaking.
Why are you chasing a hypothetical when we’re already discussing FOX News? As I’ve said, I believe FOX News should not be limited. Their programs that is, political commercials they air should be regulated.
I hereby give your three unsupported assertions all the weight they deserve.
How exactly is regulating spending on political commercials restricting where people are allowed to give their attention?
This is not about “offering” to spend your own money either.
Going to a candidate and saying you’ll spend money to help him to get around donation limits is also illegal. It’s called coordination. It’s been illegal for decades.
This is about simply spending money on your opinion. Period. You cannot simply declare that any time someone spends money to say they like a candidate that it’s corruption. That’s absurd. It would open the path criminalizing any political speech at all!
Now, there have been big problems with rich people coordinating their spending with candidates lately. But as I said, that’s already illegal. That law needs better enforcement. You can’t just ban all speech by innocent people in the hopes of stopping that illegal activity.
Not ours.
I am speaking in the framework of our Constitution, which settled these questions long ago.
Really? That’s your example?
Talk about as copout answer! Like you said, SHOULD the government have the power to regulate that speech too? Yes or no?
Who the hell gave you the right to decide that?
Uh, because they can no longer pay attention to the commercials that aren’t allowed to be aired.
Look, this all comes down to you not respecting freedom of speech. As long as we understand that. With that position, you’ll fail in U.S courts, and if you ever try to go around them by trying to change the First Amendment in any way, you’ll encounter very very stiff resistance from people like me. I’m not here to debate whether speech should be free or not. That’s not negotiable with me.
You don’t need communication for collusion. If apple growers start throwing around money on political ads then candidates don’t have to speak to them to be aware of the benefits of becoming pro-apple.
We don’t know it’s corruption. It might only be the appearance of corruption. But yes, any spending in favor of a candidate is potentially corrupting. Whether it is being given directly to the candidate to spend on the campaign or if others spend it for that purpose.
No legal arguments!
Yes, that really is my example. Can you provide a real response? If the government can limit my free speech by preventing me from barging into your home whenever I want to talk politics then the right of free speech is not absolute and must be balanced with other rights. How could it be otherwise?
I thought I had made clear that I didn’t believe that the government should. No.
I decide what I believe, of course. Just who do you think should have that right?
If they want to see the ads they are not prohibited from doing so. They can go on the internet and view them or contact their creators and ask for a physical copy or whatever. No one is prevented from hearing what they wish to hear. What people are prevented from doing is dominating what other people hear.
I would argue that I respect freedom of speech enough to actually learn how it works, unlike you. I believe that you insist that no limitations on free speech can be allowed (even though clearly such limits already exist) so fiercely because without that safety blanket you would have to face the unpleasant reality that the corollary of money=speech is that unlimited speech=unlimited corruption.
If any apple grower simply says “vote for this guy because he’ll help apple growers,” that’s helping the candidate, even if he doesn’t spend money to broadcast his opinion!
Consider this situation. You have potholes in your street. You ask a candidate for mayor if he’ll fix potholes in the streets, and he says yes. You volunteer for him, going house to house to tell voters to vote for him. You speak to the media or write a letter to the editor asking for his support. He wins, and fixes the potholes.
By your logic, your speech in support of this candidate was bribery. You bribed him by using speech to help him win election, and got something in return. No money involved.
Basically, you just criminalized all political speech.
Sigh.
The barging into the home is the crime, even if you don’t say a word. It has nothing to do with speech.
Next example?
Why not?
It would be awful nice to hear you explain any reason for a speech right at all before you explain why you want exceptions to it. Can you even do that?
You can believe whatever you want. You have no right to impose all your beliefs on the rest of us through law.
LOL. That’s like saying that banning the sale or distribution of a book is legal because anyone can just go to the library and check it out.
(Do you think it’s okay to ban the sale or distribution of a book? I have to check.)
You’re full of shit, of course, but the greater point is that I respect your right to say that, and to buy as many ads or signs or posters you want to say it. I demand you have the same respect for my right to do that. If you don’t want that right, and actually don’t feel like your speech rights would be violated, fine, but the rest of us feel otherwise.
Not any speech. Only the speech of the rich and powerful. As your example here that I didn’t quote illustrates, we don’t consider the efforts a regular citizen might employ on behalf of candidates to be corruption. And that doesn’t apply just to speech. You can actually give money to politicians for their reelection campaigns legally. But only in relatively small amounts.
But yes, any speech of inordinate value can be corrupting. We’ve been over this.
No I didn’t criminalize anything. Simply noticing that some speech might be corrupting doesn’t automatically mean it is or must be criminalized. The first step to recovery is understanding that you have a problem. We are still working on helping you understand the problem.
So all we have to do is outlaw spending money on noncommercial ads during election season, even if they don’t say a word, and then it’s a crime. End of story. Roll the credits.
Free speech is a basic democratic right. If you don’t have the right to speak your mind you aren’t living in a free country. People burn books because they don’t want the “dangerous” ideas within to spread. It’s an attempt at thought control. Bad craziness.
This has nothing to do with anything I’ve actually said here.
I’m not making any legal arguments, remember? So no, it’s like saying that banning the sale or distribution of a book is not denying anyone access to it because they can just go to the library and check it out. And just like my assertion, I see no reason that this statement isn’t completely accurate. My point being that I believe you are wrong to assume that banning a political ad denies people access to the information therein.
Ibn Warraq and I discussed this before as well. I just don’t see how it could ever be necessary or proper to regulate books in the name of campaign finance reform. Commercials for them, sure, if they were simply campaign ads in disguise or indistinguishable from same. But not the books themselves. No. But I take a practical approach and I don’t believe I am omniscient or anything so if someone felt they had a strong case for regulating books I would be willing to listen.
Actually I started composing this post as I took a long satisfying dump so I’m closer to empty of shit at the moment. But that is neither here nor there.
You seem quick to assume that everyone believes as you do. Do you have any evidence that the public believes regulating campaign ads is a bad thing? Do you think that political advertising is popular? I’ve never done any polling or anything but living here in Penna right next to Ohio and West Virginia (which was a swing state recently back when Democrats were still nominating white presidential candidates) it seems to me that people hate them. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so complacent.
2sense, your counterargument against books pretty much gives the game away. What you’re basically saying is that books don’t need to be regulated because they don’t have enough influence.
So basically, your 1st amendment rights end when your speech actually starts changing public opinion. then it must be regulated.
90% of Americans believe that regulating political speech is justified. The problem comes in actually composing an amendment that works the way you’d want it to. Every single amendment actually written down is dangerous in how much power it gives the federal government to regulate the press. All it would take to make support for any amendments crumble is for people to actually read them and have it pointed out exactly what it is allowing the government to do.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private enti11
ties established under law are subject to regulation by the
12 people through the legislative process so long as such regu13
lations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the
14 States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
15 ‘
There’s a big problem in Section 2. When a corporation is making a campaign ad, it’s exercising freedom of the press. The amendment self-nullifies.
And that’s the crux of the issue. Since the media is corporate-owned, any power to control corporate political speech basically ends freedom of the press.
And to a man with a hammer it looks like nails. I’d say that you and lance strongarm are predisposed to think of the campaign finance debate in terms of freedom lovers vs authoritarian bullies so you look over my posts for evidence that I’m in the latter camp rather than looking at my post to determine what I’m actually trying to say. A more objective reader might determine that one of us is making basic errors, throwing around wild accusations, and overlooking the obvious and the other is gently correcting his errors. Or at least I’d like to think so. :dubious:
As for constitutional amendments, I’ve never been impressed with any I’ve seen, including the Sanders proposal, but I’m afraid I’m not permitted to make any legal arguments at this time. Politically there is gridlock on ordinary congressional business let alone amendments requiring supermajorites. I don’t see the Democrats as a party skilled and focused enough to turn even huge popular support for curbing government corruption into a realistic campaign to amend the Constitution. If things remain the same, even if the Dems are right that demographics are slowly and inevitably increasing their electoral chances, I figure it will be resolved by who is better at court packing. The GOP seem to have the lead there too. So I wouldn’t expect progress any time soon.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think you’re an authoritarian. I just want to demonstrate why there is no objective way to regulate political speech. No matter how you slice it, there will be favored and disfavored speakers, which is directly against the 1st amendment. You could ban all political ads over the airwaves, since that’s not discriminating among speakers and the government has the right to regulate the airwaves. But it can’t do so in a discriminatory fashion.
So where the hell do you think you get the right to pick a certain person based on how rich and powerful they are and ban their civil rights?
And again, by your logic, the government could declare that anyone who makes more than, say, $500,000 a year will be sent to prison if they dare to say anything about politics.
I’m not going to bother to respond to the rest of your post, because it’s getting too long, but more important, I think I’ve exposed how thoroughly ridiculous your logic is upfront.
It’s abundantly clear that, legally, your argument has no chance in hell in the U.S., since we have a First Amendment. If you want to skip the legalities and claim that we ought to repeal the First Amendment so you can have your way, well, try, and you’ll have a very big fight on your hands. I suggest dealing with reality and respecting rights rather than trying to take them away for your own twisted, selfish ends.
I’m not making any legal arguments so I won’t address your 1st Amendment argument directly but I don’t see any reason that free speech in general would be endangered by, for instance, banning spending on campaign ads by noncandidates. That limitation on speech would be both temporary (only during election time) and targetted (only applying to spending unregulated funds). That seems a practical way to attempt to balance the need to prevent corruption (and the appearance of corruption) with the right to free speech.
And to a man with a hammer it looks like nails. I’d say that you and lance strongarm are predisposed to think of the campaign finance debate in terms of freedom lovers vs authoritarian bullies
[QUOTE]
Nope.
I’m open to lots of ideas for campaign finance reform.
Any proposal that tries to limit speech, however, I am not open to. That kind of proposal is clearly authoritarian. It’s off the table.
If you propose any kind of limits on speech or anything to try to limit access to speech, you are authoritarian.
Here’s the funny thing about amendments like the Sanders one. No, not funny, downright hilariously laughable:
These amendments declare two things (both based on horrible misunderstandings about the issue, but whatever): money isn’t speech, and only people have rights.
What’s funny about it is that there are lots of groups out there working hard to pass one of these amendments. These groups are not people, they are groups. They are using their speech rights to urge passage of the amendment. They are also collecting money, and using that money for ads and websites and stuff like that to broadcast that speech.
Their own amendment, in other words, would allow the government to ban pretty much everything they are doing to try to pass it.
This has nothing to do with anything I’ve actually said. As I go on to say in the same post, “Simply noticing that some speech might be corrupting doesn’t automatically mean it is or must be criminalized.”
My stated position is that speech is so important that limitations must be targetted and temporary. Since this is neither obviously I would not support it.
On the contrary, your repeated inability to even accurately sum up the opposing position should be your first clue as to how wrongheaded you are being here.
I have not suggested repealing the 1st Amendment. Instead I have stated directly that I believe this unnecessary since one only need recognize that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Nor do I believe that reducing political corruption is a twisted, selfish end.
I don’t suppose that it matters to you that it is the money and not the words that is being targeted.
So if you ever told a lie, you are a liar. If you ever had a dream, you are a dreamer. If you ever fuck, you are a fucker. I don’t think I would want to live in that odd little world you have built for yourself. You can’t even let your kid share in the wonder of Santa Claus. Once fooled, always a fool, after all.
