So, an ad calls a candidate a socialist. Does that fool you? No, you’ll vote for whoever you want to in spite of it. What you are saying is that there are people out there who will fall for that ad. Seems to me that the problem isn’t with the ad, or the ‘rich’ bastards putting them out, but with the stupid voters who fall for it. I guess it depends on which is more important, free speech or the right to vote. If we can limit the first one in some ways, why not the last one?
And that regardless of whether anyone is fooled or not, politicians usually vote according to the desires of the people who paid their way into office; not according to the desires of the people who voted for them.
If you want to know what the Founders were thinking, just look at what they wrote. You don’t get any more clear than “Congress shall make no law…”. Honestly, your argument just boils down to wanting to suppress speech you don’t agree with, or force people to listen to speech that you do agree with.
No one is “drowning out” everyone else. That didn’t happen 50 years ago, and in the age of the internet and smart phones, that idea is laughable.
Yah John! It’s all the money invested in voting machines that steal elections…remember?
A rather dishonest use of the quote funciton, don’t you think? Seeing as how I have yet to mention voting machines.
Seems to be more about to whom the money goes to. All that oil money, and big law firm money, and finance money, and big corporate money never raises all thes questions in Lefty hands.
Must be the blue blood. We all know that Blue is one security clearance higher than Green. And if you didn’t know you, report for termination, Clone.
Is this an intuitive response, or have you something to substantiate this with? These men who are spending their money, do they think they are wasting their money? Again? They are wasting their money, and the evidence shows that, but they are so fucking stupid, they throw their millions away regardless?
Because they have no reason to think so, not in our advanced age. If they had simply gone to the trouble of consulting **John Mace **, they would have been confronted with rock solid evidence of the futility of their investment?
That would be swell, John! If you can show convincing proof that there is no way for the rich guy to leverage his wealth to political advantage, that such is impossible, I would be tickled to death. I’d roll about quite merrily upon the floor, celebrating their stupidity.
Unfortunately, all I got right now is John says so. With all due awe, its not quite enough.
I thought Citizens United just let you run pro-candidate ads. I still have trouble understanding that law. My understanding is you used to be able to spend unlimited funds in attack ads against your opponents (the swift boats veteran ads were funded by oil billionaire T Boone Pickens), now you can spend money on both pro- and anti- candidate ads. It doesn’t seem to be a big difference IMO. The fact that donors can hide their identities is a big deal though.
Having said that, Obama can’t raise that kind of money from small donors. Even if 5 million of his voters each give $100 (unlikely this time around, his base is pretty demoralized) that is still only 500 million, half of what he says he needs. Besides, if I were a politician I’d rather just ask a billionaire for a 1 million dollar check then beg 100,000 voters for $10. Its much easier with the big donors I would bet.
Ah well. I guess this cements the plutocracy.
Can you quote the part where I said I thought they were wasting their money?
Of course a rich man can get his message out more easily than a poor man (although that advantage has narrowed considerably with the internet). So what? I didn’t see anything in the constitution that said “Congress shall make no law… unless we need to prevent rich people from having more access to the press than poor people do.” Maybe I missed that part in civics class.
How soon we forget Candidate Meg Whitman.
As for suppressing speech I disagree with, I never called for that, it is a strawman. I called lying and face stomping intimidation disgusting. Both are also illegal, although apparently don’t get punished. Remember it is within the legal rights of the lied about to sue for defamation. I decried spending zillions filling the airwaves with negativity and hate. I think the semi-civilized debates that we have going on with the Republican candidates are much better at informing us people.
I am okay with limiting corporate donations, but have not yet argued that in this thread. Citizens United is a stupid decision, as it grants corporations rights because they are supposedly people, which isn’t true and never was. Corporations are legal fictions allowed by legislatures to raise capital and conduct business. They have their rights as long as they pay their corporate franchise tax, which gets summarily suspended if they do not pay it. Legislatures and Congress could outlaw corporations. I hope that won’t happen, but they do have the power to withdraw the laws that created them. Congress can’t legislate away real people. In my opinion, a minority one, the right to free speech and press is held by people because only people (and parrots) are capable of speech.
No.
If A, then B.
Does not imply “If B, then A.”
I suggest you work on your basic logic of converse, inverse, and contrapositive.
If you want to play Constitutional fundamentalist, don’t you have to insist that only white men with property can vote?
None of the people attacking Citizens United have yet explained why they think the government should be allowed to ban books and movies.
Would someone please explain why they feel that way.
Afterall, Citizens United was regarding the banning of a movie.
To be fair, he was using the law of equivalence. If A = B, then B = A.
Except, in this case, A ≠ B.
No, because the constitution has been amended since then to allow non-whites and women to vote. But it hasn’t been amended to prevent rich people from speaking, and the arbiters of said document (aka The Supremes) have weighed in on the subject, finding your analysis lacking.
Because people are too stupid and need to be shielded from bad ideas, or at least forced to be exposed to good ideas.
Isn’t it obvious?
If they change their mind tomorrow, do you change yours as well? Am I expected to reel back in shock and dismay when advised of a Supreme’s ruling? No, thanks anyway, but I had heard about it. I simply don’t agree. And how much deferential awe am I obliged to offer the opinions of Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito?
The questions boil down. Does the rich man have an advantage in political power over his less weatlhy fellow citizen? I think he does. You? Is this just and proper? I don’t think it is. You?
Now, the tough one: is there any practical and viable means to correct that imbalance? Without doing violence to any one’s political rights? That one is tricky, got to remain a bit agnostic about that. If it turns out that there is no such way, then I would have to shrug and give up, because my principles demand that I do. I am not convinced of that
Is it neccesary that we be “drowned out” for an injustice to be detected? Or is it still an injustice if his bullhorn goes to eleven and mine only goes to two? Because he can write a bigger check than I?
We are obliged by our democratic faith to ensure equal political rights for all our citizens, to the extent that this is possible. Do you agree, or no?
There are about a dozen lines of debate in this thread, but you can find as much in many BBQ Pit threads, (which is where you will find this thread, next).
The topic of limits on campaign spending vs limits on free speech is still available, but it will have to be opened as a serious debate instead of a rant in order to stay in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
Your sarcasm is speaking louder than your good sense, John. You don’t have to be stupid to be misled. You need only be skillfully lied to. Which, as you probably already know, is best done by professionals. “Best”, in this case, meaning most effectively.
See what you did, John! Now you got ol’ Tom all upset, and we’re in the Pit! And all I did was murmur politely, sipping tea with pinky fingers akimbo.