Yes, but ironically, a layman often uses it to argue the opposite of a very tough standard - basically, anything goes.
But that’s just the Koch Brothers telling you what to think in TV ads! You’re not actually smart enough to think for yourself.:eek:
It’s not a “dodge”, it means just what it says.
But sure, I’m happy to answer questions that you think are relevant.
Fahrenheit/911 keeps coming up in this conversation and I don’t know why. It’s a feature documentary like many others Moore has made – the one on capitalism, the one on health care, the one on gun control, and his very first movie, which attacked GM. All of them placed a variety of individuals in an unfavorable light. So what? This is clearly a legitimate work of news and/or entertainment, not the “electioneering” you think it was. Same goes for the reprehensible books that were written in an attempt to smear Obama, like the one by Jerome Corsi. See, that was easy!
Someone like Corsi should be publicly censured for being a lying jerk, but suggesting that such things could or should ever be “banned” is a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent and purpose of limiting excessive advocacy spending by the wealthy. You can argue that if “documentaries” are allowed, then the rich can fund such movies and get around laws that way. Yes, they can. Along with many, many other things they can do. Nothing will change that. The intent of limits on electioneering is to place reasonable controls in the most clear-cut areas where the rich and powerful currently have carte blanche to manipulate public opinion. Like the ads from some douchebag billionaire that seemed to run on CNN just about every 10 minutes in 2012, saying how Republicans helped him “make something of himself” (code for “very rich”) while Democrats would sink the nation into a nightmare of socialism. Funny how billionaires have the sort of platform, but you and I don’t.
How is that relevant to anything in this discussion? Do you consider Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter a “trustworthy source”? I don’t want to “ban” them, either.
For the record, I think Moore is prone to hyperbole but his basic messages are sound, which is a lot more than you can say for those other two crackpots.
Dodge.
Here, I’ll keep you from dodging - if Moore made a film that was clearly electioneering in your mind, would you support banning spending money to distribute it?
Bullshit.
You dont’ want their speech to be heard as much as it is heard. You may not want to ban it outright, but you want to reduce it.
Listen to your arrogance. “Manipulate public opinion.” The people are all idiots that can be manipulated to you.
And you keep claiming it’s not about speech.
So everyone should have the same platform or its not fair?
Hmm. Should we ration speech? Everyone gets exactly 5 minutes? That’s only fair.
Why the hell does Moore keeping coming up again and again? How about this: I would propose a narrow, specific definition of “electioneering” that applies to everyone. I continue to be fascinated by a political philosophy that considers a rule that applies to everyone to be discriminatory! 
I could give you some great examples from history, but in the interests of not Godwin-ing the thread, let’s just say that history repeats itself.
No one ever has, or ever will, have the same platform. The object of democratic principles should be to ensure that all voices be heard, something that you keep claiming you support. The rich and powerful will always be heard. It’s the others that need a voice. In other democracies that principle is presumed to take more than just regulation, but also the support of strong non-commercial public broadcasting systems. In America, where everything is for sale, including the government, the 1% have successfully trampled public broadcasting into poor-cousin beggar status, and – as Eric Liu astutely points out – they basically own the controlling interest in government. BTW, any idea why the article I linked above appears in a respected mainstream UK paper and is nowhere to be found in mainstream American media? Do you think this is the first time? The problem goes far far beyond what the wealthy are “allowed” to advocate in terms of direct electioneering, and is deeply entrenched in monopolistic media ownership, itself a consequence of a cynically malign push for “free markets” and “media deregulation” which not only let the wealthy push all the public disinformation ads they want, but also lets them hold monopolistic ownership over the very media that promulgate them.
Wolfpup, please explain how Fahrenheit 911 was clearly “a work of news” and not an attempt to get people to not vote for Bush, even though Moore made it clear part of the reason he made the movie was to defeat George Bush, he screened it throughout the 2004 election season and regularly told people to “bring your Republican friends” to the movie?
I’d love an explanation as to why Hillary: The Movie was an example of electioneering but Fahrenheit 911 is.
The same with all the right-wing biographies that came out smearing Obama.
How is it clear they weren’t “electioneering” since opponents of Citizens United have said that books “could be affected”?
LOL - a “narrow, specific” definition, but it applies to “everyone.”
The reason Moore keeps coming up is because most people who oppose CU hate right-wing speech only and either don’t realize, or don’t care, that it would apply to THEIR speech, or their preferred speakers, too.
Or they think that only certain kinds of speech is somehow evil - TV election ads - without considering other forms of political speech, like films.
And then they propose ridiculous - and far from “narrowly tailored” - Constitutional amendments that would give government the power to ban spending on any speech whatsoever, including books and films like Moore’s. Because “money isn’t speech.”
That’s why Moore keeps coming up. If you want to go down this route, you really ought to go tell Moore that he can no longer spend money on making or distributing his films, to his face, in your zeal to get at those bad ol’ corporations.
Um, you realize that the (Godwin deleted) manipulated public opinion by banning speech, including burning books and stuff, right? They didn’t do it by allowing anyone and everyone to speak.
But no matter - my point was that by even suggesting that the people can be “manipulated” by speech, rather than the absence of speech, is deeply offensive. To say this is to say that you simply don’t believe in freedom of speech. Period. You cannot say you support free speech, or the concept that the people are smart enough to think for themselves, and then turn around and say the government should have the power to ban some speech based on what the people will think of it.
And wow, you don’t see the incredible danger of giving the government the power to limit some speech based on “it’s too manipulative!” and to decide what that means? Did you notice that when dictators ban speech, they justify it by saying just that?
You either support freedom of speech, or you don’t.
But the solution is not to try to limit the speech of the rich and powerful.
Let’s gloss over the fact that you’re still playing the manipulation game. The solution is not to limit access for certain speakers you don’t like. It’s to increase access for all. There are good ways of doing that, such as giving free airtime to candidates and others, and public financing.
Huh?
I read it just fine. And such articles do appear in American media. American media aren’t there just to serve you though. You want to express yourself? Go start your own newspaper or website.
So go deal with that problem. Don’t go trying to ban speech, that’s a terrible solution. And for God’s sake, stop insulting the people and spitting on democracy by talking about “manipulation” and all that crap.
Yes, and another followup - why is Fox News not an attempt to get people to vote for certain candidates rather than news? Everyone can see it’s blatantly biased - shouldn’t it be regulated for the same reason?
If BCRA had actually applied to everyone, I believe Anthony Kennedy would have been the 5th vote in favor of upholding it. His main objection was the division of corporations into “favored” and “disfavored” speakers. Fox News: favored. Exxon: disfavored. Democratic Party of America: favored. Hobby Lobby: disfavored.
Could be.
Of course, if the BCRA had applied to “everyone” it would apply to everyone - including regular individuals. So no buying political bumper stickers or yard signs. All spending on political speech is verboten. No thresholds, no divisions, no exceptions.
BCRA only applied to corporations though, which the government has more power to limit than individuals. Where they went wrong is in differentiating between corporations based on their purpose.
Now individuals, there’s decisions going before Citizens United that prevent governments from doing anything there, so advocates need to just give it up on that count. Sheldon Adelson has a fundamental right to spend as much as he pleases on campaigning. That goes back to the Buckley decision in the 70s.
I know. I’m just saying that any law that is truly “neutral” with regard to speakers and truly applied to “everyone” would have to apply to all groups, corporate or not, AND all individuals. It’s not really possible.
But most of them (at least those who are even aware of Buckley in the first place) think Buckley was wrong. They want to overturn it with their little amendments. “Money isn’t speech!” they declare–in paid ads and on websites that cost money to publish.
True, but I wish they’d at least acknowledge that it wasn’t a right-wing court that gave Adelson permission to spend as much as he wanted. There was never a time when he couldn’t. One of the ways opponents of big money spending in elections attempt to frame the issue is to act as if Citizens United fundamentally changed the game, but all it really did was overturn what was already a pretty narrow, if unconstitutional, restriction on corporate spending.
Speech can be valuable, yes. And it can also not be valuable. Only if it is valuable does it have the potential to corrupt. That’s the basic concept I was trying to get across. But just pointing out this simple reality is a far different thing from claiming, “the right to pick a certain person based on how rich and powerful they are and ban their civil rights”.
Overall yes I am in favor of some regulation of speech in the interests of reducing the influence of the influential. But that doesn’t mean that every statement I make is a call to regulate speech. If I say that the sky is blue then that means the sky is blue. It is not a call to regulate speech. Similarly when I say that only valuable speech can be corrupting that is also not a call to regulate speech.
You have failed to grasp my logic, I’m afraid. I believe we as citizens should expect the government to both support free speech and oppose corruption. Both are important and I am only proposing to limit the former when it conflicts with the latter. So there is your basis for discrimination right there. Ordinary speech isn’t particularly valuable and there is no basis to regulate it.
Slippery slope fallacies lead nowhere.
This is an overlysimplistic view of how rights work. It isn’t possible to respect all rights absolutely because sometimes they come into conflict. That was the point of my earlier trespassing example. Let me try again. Lets say I buy a van and put a bunch of loudspeakers on it and park it in front of your home. Then I play political messages nonstop at top volume for as long as I can until the cops show up. Now when they do are you going to come out and protest that I have an absolute right to free speech? Personally I would suggest that you remain in your home secure in the knowledge that my right to free speech has conflicted with your right to enjoy your property and that a judge will sort it out. Perhaps the compromise will be that I am allowed to use my Speech Van during daylight hours only.
I don’t see how whether or not the action qualifies as speech is relevant to the question of corruption. We both agree that speech can be corrupting, right? And that money can be corrupting, right? So either way it’s corrupting, right? Lets return to my questions. 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?
Regulating the speech of the powerful is useless unless you start also regulating movie and TV content. Lots of movies, usually the ones that win around awards season, advocate for a particular point of view and are far more influential than 30-second ads.
“Less effective” is not the same thing as “useless”.
I did think you made an important point back when I was feeling fed up with this thread about the diminishing importance of television commercials. Clearly I haven’t put a lot of thought into the practicalities of regulation. That thought may have contributed to my frustration. 
I’m in favor of reforming our system too, but I think the big problem is the money going out to reward contributors, not the money the contributors pay in, which is a relative pittance. Earmark reform was valuable in that regard, because it meant that no longer could a company’s directors put $10,000 into a candidate’s campaign fund and then get a $1 million earmark back should he win. It was low hanging fruit, but it was 100% constitutional and helpful.
Say what you will about the Kochs, but the multi-billionaires are pushing an ideology, not their narrow interests the way a GM does, or an oil company, or a defense contractor. They are loud and proud libertarians and involve themselves in the libertarian community outside of the elections process. They aren’t part of the problem. It’s the corporations that suck on the government teat and donate HUGE amounts of money to make sure they get to stay on the teat that are part of the problem. And the solution is to cut them off from the teat so they have no incentive to give so much money.
My understanding was that earmarks were now done by congresscritters communicating with the Executive Branch how they wanted the money spent and took the continuation of the donation patterns to mean that the patrons were feeling served. But as you point out it is such a trivial investment for the returns so the money would keep rolling in even if the corporate masters were only 50% pleased or less.
I don’t see how the political agenda of the Koch bros deserves to dominate the political discussion but do take to heart your message of the size of the project in curbing them. Perhaps it’s best just to take it as a lesson of the foolishness of allowing that much wealth and power to redistribute upwards.
I’ve heard that argument too and there’s merit to it. I just don’t know how you stop it. We live in a world now where a dude can take an idea, turn it into a $10 million business, then hire oh, 200 people and make it a $10 billion business. It’s a new economic model and it’s going to make some people very, very rich without the necessity of actually hiring people. Labor can’t demand it’s share of the profits if they aren’t needed in the first place.
People like the Kochs and Adelson at least are part of the old model. Wait till the next generation, the Mark Zuckerburgs, start getting involved in politics.
That’s a major socioeconomic issue to be sure but I don’t see how it complicates the campaign finance issue. Unless I’m missing something an oil baron with 20 billion dollars itching to buy political influence isn’t any less of a problem than a tech mogul with the same amount and inclination.
The amount of wealth the tech barons are stockpiling is far more than the oil barons ever dreamed of. It’s a combination of not having to pay too many employees, being able to charge whatever they want for their product, and low overhead compared to businesses that produce physical things. And we’re only at the beginning of that revolution.