I could live with that, elucidator. That’s why humans made earplugs. 
Actually, I think that’s exactly what’s important.
In what way? If not being able to spend 100K is “not being able to speak one’s mind” then the average joe never could. If anything, this puts us on more equal footing. (Actually, I don’t think it does at all, but it is a start.)
I average around 8 posts a day since I’ve joined the boards. I don’t think the boards would suffer terribly if I had to cut that down to two. I certainly couldn’t claim that I could no longer speak my mind!
No, but it might take one to explain to you that “speaking one’s mind” and “unlimited contribution to political campaigns” are not equivalent. They’re not even close.
- You can still contribute to who you want.
- There is no two.
Just wait until the next bill! 
I can’t say that I like the part about restricting attack ads. But I’ve never seen how giving large sums of money to a candidate is somehow equivalent to “speech”. And even if it is, individual donations still aren’t prohibited; just limited in size. (I have a difficult time worrying about the “free-speech rights” of corporations.)
Giving money to politicians is not speech.
Corporations already get votes and the ability to contribute since they are run by people with political opinions. What more is there? Or am I to believe that a corporation would contribute to one candidate while the board of directors all contribute to another…?
It is hard to lose any sleep over that, Orbifold, agreed.
Well, that principle is very well established. If you’re getting upset all of a sudden you’re WAY behind the curve.
Money doesn’t. People do. Money is simply the means by which people exercise their rights. Ergo, to restrict spending is to restrict the ability of people to exercise their rights.
As Debaser cogently points out, political organizations are formed so that groups of individuals can exercise their rights in the most effective way possible. I may not be able to afford a political ad in the New York Times on my own, but if I get some like-minded friends together, we might be able to pool our resources to share our views with the world. And thus advocacy groups and political parties are formed. Campaign finance restricts the ability of those entities to speak freely, and thus infringes on the first amendment rights of those entities’ constituent members.**
Corporations were prohibited from giving directly to political campaigns long before McCain-Feingold. When you read that “XYZ Corporation gave money to the Joe Schmoe campaign,” what that really means is that a bunch of individuals at XYZ – usually senior executives – have each individually given sums to the political campaign at the same time.
Oh. Well, thats very different. How could I possibly object to such a sterling collection of our most worthy citizens having 100 times more political power than myself and my neighbor? They must have earned it, everybody knows the direct route to success in corporate America is honesty, integrity, and unflinching virtue.
So we’re all equal in political power…it’s just that some are more equal than others? One man, one vote. There’s a major problem when the vast majority of people have no more than that one vote as leverage with their representatives, etc, and a tiny minority of people have that one vote, plus several million dollars.
I’m all for freedom of speech. But when it begins to cost millions to achieve political parity, it’s not free anymore.
You know, I’ve never understood why people who don’t have a net worth of several billion dollars cling to this “political donations=free speech” issue. Is it gambler’s syndrome? “When I hit the big one and become a billionaire I want to make sure I can still buy me a politician or two!”
McCain-Feingold doesn’t, as far as I can tell, limit free speech all that much. Here’s a summary from Common Cause: http://www.commoncause.org/issue_agenda/summary012401.htm.
The only kind of ads prevented are the bogus “issue” ads, which are really attack ads. These are the ads that don’t expressly say vote for X or vote against Y, but instead say “Congressman Z advocated the shooting of little bunnies for sexual gratification. Call his office and tell him what you think of that.” Furthermore, these are only forbidden for corporations and labor unions, and only 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Non-profits can still run these kinds of ads, they just can’t use contributions from corporations or unions, and must disclose who the individual contributors are (over certain minimum dollar amounts). Issue ads that don’t name any candidate are completely unfettered.
I doubt it’ll help “improve the tone” much, but I don’t see any reason why disclosure of the source of the free speech is bad. Note also that printed materials (including Internet) are not covered, so anonymous screeds are still permissible outlets for unlimited speech.
-Rick
I don’t know whether restricting money is restricting free speech or not (I suspect that it is, though), but the courts overrode laws on pornography using the 1st amendment as a pretext. If they thought the 1st amendment protected strippers then it seems they’ve lost all integrity when they don’t take an equally liberal view on a law that clearly deals with restricting discussion of political views.
Well, I sure am glad we’ve got those attack ads prohibited. If you accept money from a union or a corporation, and you run an ad within 60 days of an election saying that “Senator Soaper is a twit”, you can now be fined, and if you don’t pay, sent to jail.
From an incumbent politician’s standpoint, yea, verily, the Millennium hath arrived.
is it just me or have there always been legislated restrictions on what one can or can’t spend money on?
I don’t know by what logic so many posters here are equating this with money.
I give $25 or so per year to the NRA. (I don’t recall the exact amount.) I do this so that they can pool my money with others to influence the politicians to do what I want them to regarding gun rights.
If you don’t like guns you can give any amount you wish to Hangun Control, Inc.
Money is not the problem here. My right to be heard (through either of these organizations) is the issue.
But, now, because of this bill, these groups and all others like them are prohibited from speaking during elections. This is an outrage.
The money isn’t an issue for me. I guess, since everyone’s talking about it I will comment that I don’t really have a problem with people giving money to campaigns. It’s thier money, they should be able to do with it what they want. If it is proven that a candidate is in the pockets of his contributors then the voters can remove him (Grey Davis springs to mind.) But, all this money talk is a seperate issue.
What I have a problem with is the fact that political groups are being prevented from doing what they exist to do.
The speech isn’t being limited for any practical reason like “fire in a crowded theater” laws. It’s not some academic thing that doesn’t really have an effect like flag burning laws.
We are talking about groups that have specifically been formed by voters to influence elections and politics. We are talking about groups of concerned citizens that have united to have thier voices heard. What we are seeing are those voices banned under a law foolishly passed by the legislature, not vetoed by the president and now approved by the Supreme Court.
The first ammendment has been gangraped. It’s still alive, but much worse for wear.
If the ACLU or the NRA want to endorse/condemn a candidate, can’t they just issue a press release?
The way I see it, if McCain-Feingold prevents financial interests from colluding to form a “Citizens for Happy Puppies in Government” group and then pouring $50 bazillion dollars in ads against a candidate, that’s a good thing. I’m sick of these groups that nobody hears about until an election is around the corner…
Oh, ya? Well, I’m sick of you. Can’t we pass a law that shuts you up around election time?
Seriously, nothing is preventing them from issuing a press release that I am aware of. But, the government is preventing them from paying for a political ad on the radio, tv, or newspaper. This is a blatant violation of the right to free speech.
May the candidate with the richest supporters win!
IMO, campaigns should be limited to a certain amount to spend, period. Public financing all the way. A level playing field would be nice. No candidates beholden to big business OR big labor for financing the bulk of their campaign.
The present way sucks if you don’t have a personal fortune. Big time.
But, what would then stop all the members of the “Citizens for Happy Puppies in Government” group running for office, then using their public financing money to trash the opponent that they don’t like.
jayjay, even if I thought your idea was a good one, it is still blatantly unconstitutional.
It’s my opinion that even if something seems like a good idea if it is not allowed within the constitution then we must refrain from it.
It’s kind of like the whole “I don’t like the KKK rally in town this week, but I wouldn’t take away their right to speech” train of thought.
The idea here is that free speech for everyone is more important than what’s being said.
You might think that political commercials are bad for politics. So what? Even if you are right (and I don’t think you are) it is still any group of taxpayers’ constitutional right to buy as much airtime as they want to say whatever they want.