# Real campaign-finance reform: Ban all paid political advertising in the U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271 "2012-05-27T19:43:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/261 "2012-06-03T17:51:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No one is calling for news and editorial sources to be removed. You go to those. You seek those out. You are \*subjected \*to advertising. Nice try, but Citizens United was about banning a documentary which is not something that people are “subjected to”. Moreover McCain-Feingold covered far more than traditional ads but any activity that could be seen as an attempt to sway an election. As one of the government’s lawyers arguing in front of SCOTUS said “A campaign document, in the form of a book, could be affected.” Why should books and movies be considered fair game but not talk radio? Serious question. Why go after Michael Moore(whom I assume you feel should have been censurd in 2004) but not Rush Limbaugh? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/262 "2012-06-03T18:42:51Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Nice try, but Citizens United was about banning a documentary which is not something that people are “subjected to”. > > Moreover McCain-Feingold covered far more than traditional ads but any activity that could be seen as an attempt to sway an election. > > As one of the government’s lawyers arguing in front of SCOTUS said “A campaign document, in the form of a book, could be affected.” > > Why should books and movies be considered fair game but not talk radio? > > Serious question. > > Why go after Michael Moore(whom I assume you feel should have been censurd in 2004) but not Rush Limbaugh? I would assume that producing a film that attempts to advocate for or against a candidate, say, “John Kerry, Cowardice in the Jungle” or “Mitt Romney, Ratfuck-Mormon” is an attempt to sway an election, and I’m okay with it being not able to be promoted during the run-up to an election. In any case, McCain-Feingold didn’t mean the film couldn’t be released, it meant it couldn’t be advertised: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401603.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401603.html) > [@](#): > > As a practical matter, that meant Citizens United could show “H:TM” in theaters and sell it on DVDs, but promoting it through its planned advertising campaign was restricted. And the prohibitions on broadcast just before an election doomed the group’s hope of paying $1.2 million to have the movie available on cable systems around the country via video-on-demand services. Talk radio is ostensibly news or editorial. But a 2 hour campaign ad, as above, isn’t news. It’s an ad. The difference is subtle, but substantive. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/263 "2012-06-03T19:01:06Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Then you can cite the exceptions, where restrictions to political expression have been found constitutionally sound? Would you mind? Or will you just keep reading from the current manifesto and making childish statements? Nobody is restricting political expression. Just amounts of money to be spent, on ANY sort of speech. George Soros and Alec Baldwin won’t be writing any big checks either. Aren’t you relieved? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/264 "2012-06-03T19:55:21Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Nobody is restricting political expression. Just amounts of money to be spent, on ANY sort of speech. These two sentences contradict each other, ISTM. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/265 "2012-06-03T19:58:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It has an effect, and it is real. Apparently you didn’t bother to look at the studies I cited. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/266 "2012-06-03T21:10:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I would assume that producing a film that attempts to advocate for or against a candidate, say, “John Kerry, Cowardice in the Jungle” or “Mitt Romney, Ratfuck-Mormon” is an attempt to sway an election, and I’m okay with it being not able to be promoted during the run-up to an election. So then you do think that Faherenheit 911, shouldn’t have been shown within 30 days of any of the Republican primaries of 2004 or 60 days of the general election of 2004? Do you feel the same amount the biography of John Kerry called _Unfit for Command_. [http://www.amazon.com/Unfit-For-Command-Veterans-Against/dp/0895260174/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338757737&sr=8-1](http://www.amazon.com/Unfit-For-Command-Veterans-Against/dp/0895260174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338757737&sr=8-1) I certainly think anyone with a functioning brain would agree that O’Neil and Moore were clearly trying to affect the election. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/267 "2012-06-03T22:04:16Z")
If you are concerned about powerful people buying themselves the election, what would you say to an incumbent who promised to, if re-elected, increase taxes on the rich and use the proceeds to pay for free health care for everyone else? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/268 "2012-06-03T22:20:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It has an effect, and it is real. Look at it this way: > > Suppose I invent a mind-control device. Forget about the first amendment for the moment. > > My mind-control device sets up an energy field where 3-5% of people across the country will sway their votes to my side. It’s a small effect, and won’t matter in many races, but it is there. > > If my device were for rent, and for a billion dollars I’d use it on an electorate for you, do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing for democracy? > > Do you think that by having a billion dollars you should be able to sway elections? Yes or no? Do you think that one person should be able to effectively move millions of votes? This is a false equivalence. Your mind control device is clearly objectionable, because it is coercive, and forces people to act against their will. A TV ad is not a mind-control device, any more than any other form of political speech. People watch ads willingly, they may change their opinion willingly as a result, and they vote willingly. I do not think a billionaire should be able to buy himself an election. But paying for TV ads is not the same as buying an election. I think that the right to free speech extends to the right of people to purchase advertising expressing their political views. What you are advocating is the position that political speech should be equal, not free. Equality is not the same thing as freedom - in fact, they are often in conflict - and there is a good reason the Constitution does not mandate equality. And can we stop with the bullshit about the founding fathers? The founding fathers founded a country in which only land-owning white men were allowed to vote. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/269 "2012-06-03T22:33:13Z")
Everyone knows you can buy anything in the USA: Elections and Governance are a commodity like anything else. Thus administrations are just like hospitals, they exist to make a bunch of people money. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/270 "2012-06-04T03:13:51Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No one is calling for news and editorial sources to be removed. You go to those. You seek those out. You are \*subjected \*to advertising. I don’t understand this distinction. I can choose to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Savage in the same way I can choose to watch the Heat v. Celtics tonight, the History Channel, the political commercials during the break, or go take a healthy dump. I can stop and listen to the raving lunatic in the town square talking about how aliens are preparing to invade, or I can keep walking. I understand that advertising is very persuasive, but isn’t that the goal of all speech? Is it better if Alec Baldwin wears a sandwich board a la Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in The Stand instead of writing a $100k check? If you say “yes,” then why? Because it’s less persuasive? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/271 "2012-06-04T14:38:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > No that’s not an accurate way to describe. What has been held is that there are certain narrowly construed types of speech that are not protected, usually because they are seen as examples of criminal behavior or something compable(I.E. fraud, obstructing justice, perjury etc.) Non sequitur. Your statement is accurate but it doesn’t conflict with my own. You seem to understand that the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right to free speech. Surely there is no problem with me pointing this out. > [@](#): > > However, what people are demanding the law do now, which is to limit people’s ability to agitate for or against different political candidates and causes can’t reasonably be put in such a category and every reasonable person knowledgeable about history would recognize that the very purpose of the First Amendment was to allow people to be able to influence their government free of governmental restrictions. I disagree. Once we agree that campaign advertising is speech and that it is effective then clearly there is an opportunity to influence politicians with bundles of unregulated cash. Obviously we have an interest in reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Supreme Court has already moved to limit the 1st Amendment (although not the part pertaining to speech) for that very reason. > [@](#): > > All of the Justices who in Citizens United who voted against the majority and voted that the government could ban movies critical of political candidates voted that government couldn’t ban cross burning even when done for the purpose of intimation(except for Sotomayor who wasn’t serving during the previous case). Can you quote this supposed argument in favor of banning movies? I asked you for a cite before but none was produced. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/272 "2012-06-04T14:46:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I understand that advertising is very persuasive, but isn’t that the goal of all speech? Is it better if Alec Baldwin wears a sandwich board a la Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in The Stand instead of writing a $100k check? If you say “yes,” then why? Because it’s less persuasive? For me the difference is the money. Even though the candidates only benefit from the money and don’t touch it themselves. Guy with sandwich board isn’t paying the candidate indirectly. The root of campaign finance reform is the desire to limit the money in politics. Not the freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/273 "2012-06-04T15:04:42Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I disagree. Once we agree that campaign advertising is speech and that it is effective then clearly there is an opportunity to influence politicians with bundles of unregulated cash. Obviously we have an interest in reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Supreme Court has already moved to limit the 1st Amendment (although not the part pertaining to speech) for that. That is complete bullshit and demonstrates rather extreme ignorance of Buckley v. Valeo and similar decisions. The court specifically held that campaign donations to a candidate can be restricted because the person doing the donating is not the one doing the speaking. By contrast, the courts have ruled that one cannot restrict the amount of money a candidate can spend because that would interfere with their freedom of speech. That’s why candidate Ross Perot and candidate Mitt Romney can spend as much money as the want but they can’t donate as much money as they want to other candidates. That’s also why campaign ads have few if any restrictions put on them radio and TV stations have put on ads that normally would violate FCC regulations and why I don’t think people have even been sued for libel despite many campaign ads being blatantly false. The point is that restricting Ross Perot’s ability to criticize a candidate for office is as blatant a violation of his free speech rights as restricting his ability to promote himself when he was running for office. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/274 "2012-06-04T15:22:52Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Non sequitur. Your statement is accurate but it doesn’t conflict with my own. You seem to understand that the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right to free speech. Surely there is no problem with me pointing this out. The problem is that it is irrelevant. The First Amendment is an absolute right to free political speech. Since you agree that > [@](#): > > campaign advertising is speech and since campaign advertising is obviously political, it follows that campaign advertising cannot be limited without violating the First Amendment, which imposes an absolute right to free political speech. > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has already moved to limit the 1st Amendment (although not the part pertaining to speech) … And therefore your exceptions do not apply to political speech. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/275 "2012-06-04T20:35:52Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That is complete bullshit and demonstrates rather extreme ignorance of Buckley v. Valeo and similar decisions. > > The court specifically held that campaign donations to a candidate can be restricted because the person doing the donating is not the one doing the speaking. > > By contrast, the courts have ruled that one cannot restrict the amount of money a candidate can spend because that would interfere with their freedom of speech. > > That’s why candidate Ross Perot and candidate Mitt Romney can spend as much money as the want but they can’t donate as much money as they want to other candidates. > That’s also why campaign ads have few if any restrictions put on them radio and TV stations have put on ads that normally would violate FCC regulations and why I don’t think people have even been sued for libel despite many campaign ads being blatantly false. > > The point is that restricting Ross Perot’s ability to criticize a candidate for office is as blatant a violation of his free speech rights as restricting his ability to promote himself when he was running for office. I’m sorry but I don’t see how this has anything to do with my point. Which was that there is a basis for the courts to restrict the 1st Amendment rights for the purpose of securing free and fair elections. BTW, should I assume you have again failed to find any judges arguing in favor of banning movies and will no longer make this false accusation? > [@Shodan](#): > > The problem is that it is irrelevant. The First Amendment is an absolute right to free political speech. According to who? This is not how constitutional rights have been treated in American law. Rights have always been balanced with other rights and interests. Here is a portion of Buckley v Valeo: _“We turn then to the basic First Amendment question – whether § 608(e)(1), even as thus narrowly and explicitly construed, impermissibly burdens the constitutional right of free expression.”_ Notice that it doesn’t simply reject limits on free speech out of hand. Rather it examines them (and later rejects the interest in preventing corruption as inadequate to justify the limitation.) So obviously some limitations can be legitimate in their opinion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but that won’t matter once your fellow travelers no longer control the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/276 "2012-06-05T22:50:11Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > According to who? This is not how constitutional rights have been treated in American law. Rights have always been balanced with other rights and interests. Here is a portion of Buckley v Valeo: > > _“We turn then to the basic First Amendment question – whether § 608(e)(1), even as thus narrowly and explicitly construed, impermissibly burdens the constitutional right of free expression.”_ > > Notice that it doesn’t simply reject limits on free speech out of hand. Rather it examines them (and later rejects the interest in preventing corruption as inadequate to justify the limitation.) So obviously some limitations can be legitimate in their opinion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but that won’t matter once your fellow travelers no longer control the Supreme Court. That decision specifically keeps its mitts off of free speech, and the First Amendment liberties it believes offer room for “balance” are not those associated with free speech, the question in this thread. From that decision: > [@](#): > > But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed “to secure `the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,'" and "`to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'” Your “precedent” does not provide the foothold you want it to. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/277 "2012-06-06T14:45:00Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Your “precedent” does not provide the foothold you want it to. You’ve misunderstood. I was pointing out the part of the Buckley v Valeo decision where they consider limits on free speech not as precedent but simply because they **do** consider them. Since they do give thought to such limits obviously they are not unthinkable. The point, again, being that there is no absolute right to free speech, which some here are finding hard to accept. The court balanced the rights in question and determined that the restriction on free speech was not warranted. But as I said before, what was balanced once can be rebalanced. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/278 "2012-06-06T15:06:53Z")
So the fact that they didn’t do it is proof that they might? Not a real strong argument, ISTM. Especially since they specifically mention that what you seem to be advocating - limiting the speech of some so as to enhance the impact of the speech of others - is contrary to the First Amendment, which has been pointed out from the first in this thread. Read this again - > [@](#): > > the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment… See how it says, very clearly, that what you are advocating isn’t allowed under the First Amendment? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/279 "2012-06-06T15:11:48Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > You’ve misunderstood. I was pointing out the part of the Buckley v Valeo decision where they consider limits on free speech not as precedent but simply because they **do** consider them. Since they do give thought to such limits obviously they are not unthinkable. The point, again, being that there is no absolute right to free speech, which some here are finding hard to accept. The court balanced the rights in question and determined that the restriction on free speech was not warranted. But as I said before, what was balanced once can be rebalanced. It’s so funny, now that free speech = money, it’s an unassailable right, according to conservatives. Back when the big free speech issue was obscenity, there were LIMITS, dammit … according to conservatives. Once again, conservatives only care about money. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/280 "2012-06-06T15:40:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Read this again - See how it says, very clearly, that what you are advocating isn’t allowed under the First Amendment? There are lots of things which are “wholly foreign” to a plain reading of the first amendment – such as the idea that non-political or commercial speech can be subject to common-sense restrictions, but political speech must always be protected (even, e.g., deliberate lies, incitement). …which isn’t the courts’ opinion btw. Political speeches which incited violence have resulted in convictions, for example. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=15)