Let's explore the wisdom of publicly funded elections

[lance_strongarm]

@2sense

Lets review. You were mischaracterizing my position, as you do, as completely expansive. “But by that logic, ANY speech can be corrupt!” I tried to make the rather obvious point that only valuable things can be used to tempt people by saying that only the speech of the rich and powerful can be corrupting.

But speech can be valuable! That’s the whole point of this discussion!

If the speech in the ads you want to ban wasn’t valuable to the candidate, you wouldn’t care about it. It’s not the fact that money is spent on the speech that makes it valuable, it’s the fact that it can help the candidate get elected.

So by that logic - YOUR logic - it would be corrupt if, for example, a celebrity or respected political figure endorsed a candidate, since that would help the candidate win, and the endorser could get something in return. No difference.

Or if you volunteered to speak on behalf of a candidate for mayor who promised to fix potholes, and he won, and your street’s potholes were fixed. That’s just politics. But to you, that’s corruption.

You CANNOT separate your argument from speech. It’s not possible. It is the speech that you want to stop, not just the money.

You crop off all of the context and respond directly: “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?” Now I’m disputing that your accusation there fits my (what I still believe to be an uncontroversial) explanation. And now can you really say I exactly claimed the power to arbitrarily chose wealthy people and ban their civil rights?

Because you just said that!

You think rich people have “too much” influence and you want to ban their ability to speak as much as they would like to speak.

Not in that paragraph I wasn’t. Yes, I have said that I understand that regulating campaign ads is limiting speech. And yes, that has not deterred me. And yes, I have agreed that any powerful speech can be corrupting. But I have never come out in favor of indiscriminate speech bans.

But what you don’t seem to get is that there’s nothing in your own logic to stop indiscriminate speech bans. You can’t possibly make an argument that wouldn’t allow for that. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You either support free speech, or you don’t.

So yes, in the sense that I am in favor of limiting campaign ads it is appropriate to say that I am arguing for the criminalization of some speech. But that does not mean I favor criminalization of other forms of speech even if they can have a powerful influence on elections.

Great! So you pass a law criminalizing some speech, based on your idea that it is harmful.

Then the next guy comes along and criminalizes more speech, on the same basis. Or all political speech. He does so based on your precedent and your logic.

Now you’re really done it.

I think everyone knows you aren’t in favor of any limitations on speech by now. What I don’t understand is how you could believe that this qualifies as a response to my objection to your accusation that my support for temporary and targeted limitations on speech means that, “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.”

You cannot have it both ways. You either respect all rights, or none. You can’t carve out exceptions based on nothing more than your whims. A right isn’t a right if you do that.

Corruption is my concern. I am equally opposed to someone getting special treatment whether they give $60 million dollars to a candidate or if they spend $60 million themselves on electing that candidate. How do you feel about these situations? Do you understand that they are exactly the same in every way relevant to corruption?

Sigh.

They are completely different, because one is speech. If spending money on your own speech is corrupt, it’s the speech you are targeting, not the money.

I went skiing once. Around 1983 or so. I don’t think that makes me a skier. I was attempting to demonstrate the sillyness of generalizing from a single example.

Whatever. Your argument is authoritarian. Better?

Yes, regarding the campaign finance problem I am supporting an authoritarian solution. Does that alone make me an authoritarian? But if so everyone supports an authoritarian solution to the murder problem so now everyone is an authoritarian.

Yes. You support an authoritarian solution. If you want to say that doesn’t make you an authoritarian, fine. Why don’t you ban me from saying that? You’re into authoritarian solutions.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@lance_strongarm

Can you give us a few examples? (Those who leave office to enter prison don’t count.)

Agreed.

Politicians aren’t poor, but people don’t go into public office to get rich.

In fact, it’s often difficult for Governors and a Presidents to attract good staffers and cabinet members because they can make more money in the private sector.

Obviously, there are exceptions.

[adaher]

@lance_strongarm

Can you give us a few examples? (Those who leave office to enter prison don’t count.)

Harry Reid has become a multi-millionaire through public service alone. He was not born rich, he has never worked a job with a lucrative salary.

There are also those who leave office and join a lobbying firm.

BTW, I agree that voters decide, but when it comes to influence on public opinion, rich guys or rich corporations running 30-second ads is way down the list of opinion-makers. The media is still the main filter through which we learn about issues and candidates, and nothing comes even close to the size of their influence. Second is incumbent officeholders, who get tons more free media than challengers plus get to spend taxpayer money on their reelection campaigns.

In any case, I find this issue kind of moot now. The reaction to Citizens United was to protest the idea that corporations were people. Except that in 2012, the main issue wasn’t corporate spending, it was individual spending. And there is absolutely not judicial precedent, nor any proposed amendment, that would allow the government to regulate individual political spending.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

Harry Reid has become a multi-millionaire through public service alone. He was not born rich, he has never worked a job with a lucrative salary.

Assuming you are correct, that’s one. How did Reid make this money? Did it have anything to do with his office, or did he just get rich like anyone else could? It’s really hard for you to link public service to getting rich unless you show how and give more than one example. Many legislators have, or could, earn *more *in the private sector.

There are also those who leave office and join a lobbying firm.

Sure, but that’s after they leave office.

In any case, I find this issue kind of moot now. The reaction to Citizens United was to protest the idea that corporations were people.

Of course, the opinion never said corporations were people anyway, and actually acknowledged that they are not.

Except that in 2012, the main issue wasn’t corporate spending, it was individual spending. And there is absolutely not judicial precedent, nor any proposed amendment, that would allow the government to regulate individual political spending.

Actually, most of the proposed amendments declare that the government can regulate spending on speech, for any source.

The fact that the groups that are trying to pass these amendments are spending money on speech to advocate passing it makes me giggle, and scares me a little too. It’s like they don’t even think at all.

[adaher]

@lance_strongarm

Assuming you are correct, that’s one. How did Reid make this money? Did it have anything to do with his office, or did he just get rich like anyone else could? It’s really hard for you to link public service to getting rich unless you show how and give more than one example. Many legislators have, or could, earn *more *in the private sector.

No one’s quite sure, and when Sharon Angle brought it up at a debate he said it was a low blow. Which got the media digging. No corruption was found, and I didn’t expect any to be, because the real outrage is what’s legal. Plus disclosure laws are inadequate.

Of course, the opinion never said corporations were people anyway, and actually acknowledged that they are not.

True. Stevens’ dissent also said that the idea that corporations had 1st amendment rights was undisputed and he didn’t intend to dispute it in his decision. Since all justices who dissented signed onto that opinion, that’s 9-0 in favor of corporations having 1st amendment rights. Stevens’ dissent centered around the regulations being reasonable because of the government’s compelling interest in preventing the appearance of corruption, and because the regulations were limited in time, place, and manner.

Actually, most of the proposed amendments declare that the government can regulate spending on speech, for any source.

True, but that’s not the intent behind them, thus the amendments always include an exception for freedom of the press. Which says that the writers don’t know what freedom of the press even is, because you can’t regulate political speech without repealing freedom of the press.

What they could do is pass an extremely narrow amendment around the contours of the Stevens dissent: grant the federal government the power to limit TV ads for any reason, full stop. That would address the current concerns of campaign finance reformers. The problem is that the idea of an amendment to just limit a 20th century technology is ludicrous. Eventually the internet will be the main place people get their political information, which will create calls to regulate the internet.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

True, but that’s not the intent behind them, thus the amendments always include an exception for freedom of the press.

You’re giving these people too much credit for rational thought.

They dearly want to ban spending on the speech they think is “bad.” The press, to them, isn’t bad. It’s that simply. It’s not logical, just their biases.

Which says that the writers don’t know what freedom of the press even is, because you can’t regulate political speech without repealing freedom of the press.

Of course. They don’t care.

What they could do is pass an extremely narrow amendment around the contours of the Stevens dissent: grant the federal government the power to limit TV ads for any reason, full stop.

Perhaps. I bet they’d run TV ads to advocate for that too.

[adaher]

Basically, they want the government to have absolute power to control political speech, and their assurance is “trust us, we’ll only censor the speech you don’t like”.

This is when I try to explain to well-meaning people that no, the 1st amendment was not written to protect works of art(although it does). It exists primarily to protect political speech. If we have no freedom in this regard other than what the government allows us, the 1st amendment is for all intents and purposes repealed.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

Basically, they want the government to have absolute power to control political speech, and their assurance is “trust us, we’ll only censor the speech you don’t like”.

Yep. Press them, and that’s all they have.

This is when I try to explain to well-meaning people that no, the 1st amendment was not written to protect works of art(although it does). It exists primarily to protect political speech. If we have no freedom in this regard other than what the government allows us, the 1st amendment is for all intents and purposes repealed.

I’ve been in this argument many times, as well as others on free speech issues. And over and over, you see the amateur legal scholars use the following “thinking:”

1. There can be exceptions to free speech, like you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, right?

2. Therefore, I can come up with any ridiculous-ass exception I want!

When we get to that point, I know it’s probably going to end badly.

[wolfpup]

@lance_strongarm

1. There can be exceptions to free speech, like you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, right?

2. Therefore, I can come up with any ridiculous-ass exception I want!

If you can logically get from (1) to (2), then you have a perfect argument for abolishing all government. Fortunately, you can’t.

You’ll probably agree with Tom Perkins, a rich dude who said recently that people should be entitled to votes in proportion to their wealth. Perkins is the sort of guy that no one would have heard of, much less cared what they say, except for the fact that he’s very rich. This is known as the “Donald Trump syndrome” and provides great irony when these folks either use their wealth to argue that money doesn’t influence politics, or else argue that it’s terrific that it does.

Eric Liu, a former Clinton policy adviser, nails it pretty wellin a recent CNN opinion piece:

… in the 2012 election cycle, 31,000 individuals – the “1% of the 1%” – accounted for 28% of all campaign giving in the United States.

… 894 lobbyists accounted for $34 million in donations in 2012, and they spread their gifts strategically to gain access to candidates and to influence policy making.

This is why the rules of the game in today’s system already massively compound the advantages that the wealthy have in life. It’s why our tax system bends to favor capital and punish work. Dividends and “carried interest” are taxed at lower rates than earned income not because these preferences are shown to benefit society at large but because the hedge fund managers and venture capitalists who do benefit from them have excellent representation in Congress.

In short, the outrage is not what a Tom Perkins says out loud; the outrage is that we already have something like the system he fancifully, condescendingly proposes.

[lance_strongarm]

@wolfpup

If you can logically get from (1) to (2), then you have a perfect argument for abolishing all government. Fortunately, you can’t.

That’s my point!

You’ll probably agree with Tom Perkins, a rich dude who said recently that people should be entitled to votes in proportion to their wealth. Perkins is the sort of guy that no one would have heard of, much less cared what they say, except for the fact that he’s very rich. This is known as the “Donald Trump syndrome” and provides great irony when these folks either use their wealth to argue that money doesn’t influence politics, or else argue that it’s terrific that it does.

I totally disagree with him. The fact that you think I would shows that you are still hopelessly confused.

[wolfpup]

@lance_strongarm

I totally disagree with him. The fact that you think I would shows that you are still hopelessly confused.

No, my comment was mostly facetious, and indeed I don’t think Perkins himself takes that comment seriously. But it really is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the argument that imposing any kind of limit on advocacy spending is an unjustified imposition on free speech, because my God if you don’t allow someone to spend more than say $100 million on an ad campaign to promote the welfare of billionaires, then billionaires will be terribly disenfrachised! :rolleyes:

The real point of my post was to highlight Eric Liu’s comments, which is the unsurprising observation that the rich already pretty much run the government and set public policy, and that this is harmful to democracy. Do you disagree with him?

[lance_strongarm]

@wolfpup

No, my comment was mostly facetious, and indeed I don’t think Perkins himself takes that comment seriously. But it really is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the argument that imposing any kind of limit on advocacy spending is an unjustified imposition on free speech, because my God if you don’t allow someone to spend more than say $100 million on an ad campaign to promote the welfare of billionaires, then billionaires will be terribly disenfrachised! :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: is not an argument.

The real point of my post was to highlight Eric Liu’s comments, which is the unsurprising observation that the rich already pretty much run the government and set public policy, and that this is harmful to democracy. Do you disagree with him?

The only rich who run government are those who are elected, and they are elected by a majority of voters, rich or poor.

So the question isn’t whether the rich run government, it’s whether the rest of us have the power to choose whether they run government or not. And the answer is yes, we do. So what’s the problem?

[wolfpup]

@lance_strongarm

So the question isn’t whether the rich run government, it’s whether the rest of us have the power to choose whether they run government or not. And the answer is yes, we do. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that “we” don’t. It’s an illusion, a chimera. If “the rest of us” have this alleged power, it is strangely absent, while the power of the wealthy to have the government support their interests is abundantly evident. There have been “free elections” at many different times and places in history where the people’s interests were poorly served, and strangely enough, the interests of the power brokers exceedingly well served.

The US by and large is a democracy in theory, and a corporatist oligarchy in practice. Eric Lui touches on some of the reasons for this; Michael Moore in “Capitalism: a Love Story” elucidates others, and Christia Freeland, in a recent book called “Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich” talks about others. The reasons and the remedies are complex issues, but I think it’s fairly clear to most progressives that Citizens United was a big step in the wrong direction, exacerbating an already deeply entrenched problem.

You never really did answer the question about whether you agree with Lui or not.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Since when did Michael Moore become considered a reliable source?

He’s basically Chomsky for the people who think Chomsky is too high-brow.

[lance_strongarm]

@wolfpup

The problem is that “we” don’t. It’s an illusion, a chimera. If “the rest of us” have this alleged power, it is strangely absent, while the power of the wealthy to have the government support their interests is abundantly evident.

Oh, bullshit.

We have the power, we just don’t use it. Half of Americans don’t even show up to vote.

There have been “free elections” at many different times and places in history where the people’s interests were poorly served, and strangely enough, the interests of the power brokers exceedingly well served.

Who the hell are you to say the people aren’t being well served?

If they aren’t, why do they keep electing those who don’t serve them well? Huh? Are they stupid, or brainwashed?

The reasons and the remedies are complex issues,

More bullshit. Either explain these alleged reasons and remedies or don’t bother.

but I think it’s fairly clear to most progressives that Citizens United was a big step in the wrong direction, exacerbating an already deeply entrenched problem.

Tough.

There are certain things you just can’t do, no matter how strongly you feel that they are good. That’s life with a Bill of Rights.

You never really did answer the question about whether you agree with Lui or not.

Yes I did. I said I strongly disagree with him. I then said that his views have nothing to do with this conversation.

You are the one who might agree with him. You seem to think the voters are too stupid to think for themselves and need someone like you to control what they hear or see so they vote for people you approve of that you think would be better choices for them, because you think you know what’s good for people better than they do.

[lance_strongarm]

@Ibn_Warraq

Since when did Michael Moore become considered a reliable source?

And the thing is, a Moore film uses MONEY to broadcast political speech through a CORPORATION (his production company and film distributors). Almost exactly like Citizens United and its Hillary film. And these people cite Moore without stopping to think about that. It’s really amazing, and a bit scary.

[wolfpup]

@Ibn_Warraq

Since when did Michael Moore become considered a reliable source?

His thesis of corporatism, you mean? I’d say since the Gini coefficient established the US as a peer among underdeveloped backwaters in terms of income inequality, or in calendar time about the 80’s, since the popularization of the Laffer curve and the post-Reagan era.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@wolfpup

His thesis of corporatism, you mean? I’d say since the Gini coefficient established the US as a peer among underdeveloped backwaters in terms of income inequality, or in calendar time about the 80’s, since the popularization of the Laffer curve and the post-Reagan era.

That’s an interesting dodge.

Two questions.

First, should a Michael Moore and the corporation that made and distributed the movie Fahrenheit 911 been sanctioned for “electioneering” since it was clearly designed to convince people to vote against George Bush?

Second, do you consider Michael Moore a trustworthy source or do you consider him someone who regularly tries to mislead his viewers and readers?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[lance_strongarm]

@Ibn_Warraq

That’s an interesting dodge.

Two questions.

First, should a Michael Moore and the corporation that made and distributed the movie Fahrenheit 911 been sanctioned for “electioneering” since it was clearly designed to convince people to vote against George Bush?

Second, do you consider Michael Moore a trustworthy source or do you consider him someone who regularly tries to mislead his viewers and readers?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Yes, I’d also like straight answers to those questions.

I’ll add a third - should the government regulate speech based on whether it deems the source “trustworthy” or based on what it thinks the outcome of the speech will be, for instance, should it ban speech that it deems not in the interest of the people or likely to result in the election of candidates who don’t support their interests?

[adaher]

The “fire in a crowded theater” example is just a layman’s way of saying “strict scrutiny”. All laws that infringe on basic rights have to meet that standard. It’s a very tough standard.

Also, the argument that the rich have more power to exercise their rights than the rest of us, therefore we can impose limits, is really faulty reasoning. As a conservative, I find it offensive enough that some people would want to redistribute wealth. Redistributing rights means we essentially don’t have them at all. The government decides what is an acceptable level of exercise, and those who exceed them would be limited. So if you’re rich, you don’t get to hire the best lawyers if you’re accused of a crime. If you’re a newspaper that’s too successful, the government can limit your circulation so that poorer newspapers can increase theirs.