2sense – and everyone else – let’s back off on the personal comments.
Keep the discussion on the facts and logic of the debate and not on the personal beliefs or perceived limitations of one’s opponents.
[ /Moderating ]
That would be a great idea if the 1st amendment read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except when the laws involve expenditures of more than $1,000.
But it doesn’t. As others have said, such limits would need to be accomplished through the amendment process.
Ignoring the current SCOTUS, have campaign donation limits been allowed before?
I’d be happy if there was any real limit to contributions per candidate or issue. The overall limit I suggest is pretty extreme, I know.
And I do agree that an amendment limiting money in politics is a good idea in general. I think this is the most pressing issue threatening legitimate government in America. A legislative solution in the short term would be a move in the right direction.
It strikes me that this solution is an end run around the OP, and this may be a hijack if the intention was to discuss if advertising could be banned. My answer to that is I don’t think so, but another solution might be workable.
My apologies. I’ll do my best to exercise better judgement.
This is false. There is no absolute right to free speech under all circumstances. There are and always have been limitations despite the fact that there are no exceptions spelled out in the 1st Amendment. There is no need to rewrite the Constitution to reduce corruption in our electoral process. All that is needed is to replace the Republican hacks on the Supreme Court with principled judges.
The bolded sentence makes no sense. There are strict limits on contributions to candidates and Citizens United says nothing about lifting such restrictions.
If PACs (Super PACs?) can get unlimited money, and spend it any way they want, any limits on candidate fund raising is nearly irrelevant.
SCOTUS, in BUCKLEY v. VALEO:
You refuse to accept this for some reason. This is no constitutional precedent for suppressing political speech (excepting specific items like sedition!) because we don’t like the influence that speech exerts. You keep handwaving this away, as if slander or sedition laws offer some kind of foothold for discussion. They don’t. This suggestion renders the free speech aspect of the first amendment meaningless, in that it would then effectively mean “no restriction unless we think it’s warranted.”
If you want to argue the merits of this proposal, that’s fine, but it’s a fantasy land hypothetical in that the first amendment would not permit it.
So 2sense said “There is no absolute right to free speech under all circumstances”. You are tacitly accepting this point by even preceding freedom of speech with the political specifier.
And note that your cite not only doesn’t limit it’s description to political, it doesn’t mention any of the well-established exceptions: obscenity, national security information, libel, public safety etc.
And the reason for that is because, implicitly, it’s talking about freedom of speech as in the freedom to state any opinion. It’s not talking about an absolute right to say anything in any circumstances.
Since we are talking about political speech, the point is irrelevant.
The idea seems to be “since there are limits on some kinds of speech, we can put limits on political speech”. That’s a non-starter under the First Amendment.
That’s what we are talking about - the desire of some to put limits on the freedom to state any opinion.
Suppose there are two candidates for governor in my state. Candidate A wants to amend the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Candidate B wants to amend the constitution to allow it.
I get together with three or four of my friends and collect $10,000. I want to spend the money to get one of the candidates elected, because I feel strongly about the issue.
What possible basis do you have to tell me I can’t do it? Because you don’t want to hear it?
Regards,
Shodan
No, that wasn’t my point at all. I was just defending 2sense’s observation that we do not have freedom of speech in the absurdly literal sense.
You would think this would not be a contentious point but people always argue against it when you point it out.
But anyway, you seem to be agreeing with us.
What possible basis would I have for telling you you can’t own certain kinds of weapons (e.g. chemical, biological) when the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution?
More to the point what basis would I have for not taking “right to free speech” super-literally?
The basis is that you have to follow the spirit of the document, not assume that it could somehow have foreseen all circumstances for centuries to come.
The right to free speech was intended primarily so that people would not be afraid to criticize governments. It doesn’t have much to say about modern media spending. We have to figure that out for ourselves and find a system that is the least corrupt and leads to the most actual debate about issues.
You have a cite for this? And you are now endorsing an originalist interpretation of the constitution? Will that be for all issues, or just the this particular one?
I for one have no problem with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. If Mijin wants to take that route, it’s fine with me.
All we need now is a cite from the Founding Fathers that they intended to allow exceptions to freedom of speech once a certain spending limit has been reached.
[QUOTE=Mijin]
The right to free speech was intended primarily so that people would not be afraid to criticize governments. It doesn’t have much to say about modern media spending.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it does cover the topic.
I don’t see any language that makes an exception when it comes to spending. Therefore, ISTM that what it says, it means - “Congress shall make no law…”
It mentions monetary limits elsewhere in the Constitution, when it talks about other things. But not in the First Amendment. Therefore, monetary limits don’t apply. If they did, the Founding Fathers would have included them.
But they didn’t. So they don’t apply, and the right to freedom of speech is not limited to certain monetary amounts.
Regards,
Shodan
My point leads on directly from what I was saying. What is your position?
Does, to you, the right to bear arms mean I should be able to manufacture ricin and the means to distribute it across a vast population?
As I said, they couldn’t have foreseen the modern world; they are not saints.
They also don’t mention DoS, so that must be legal too?
Except they can’t spend it “any way they want.”
Citizens United doesn’t overturn Buckley V. Valeo.
My position on what?
Bad analogy. Congress can’t tell my I can only buy guns that cost less than $1,000.
Let me put it this way:
“The right to bear arms” has not been interpreted to mean the right to own any kind of weapon at all, even WMDs or weapons whose only practical use is for terrorist purposes against civilians.
It would be ridiculous to interpret it that literally. Yes?
So why would “the right to free speech” necessarily mean the right to unlimited browbeating of a message to millions?
Why does one right scale, infinitely, to any situation that the founding fathers could not have envisioned but the other does not?
I think they foresaw a need for freedom of speech in the future. Hence the First Amendment. And I hardly think they would be surprised that there are attempts to limit freedom of speech on an ongoing basis.
Sure enough, they were right, and such attempts persist even into the twenty-first century. Imagine that. Should America last into the twenty-second, no doubt there will be some then, too. You don’t have to be a saint to see that coming.
Regards,
Shodan
yes, they can’t give it to the candidates directly. We get that. But they CAN spend it on ads that are so directly tailored to the candidates’ interests that it is AS IF the candidate had made the ad himself. Of course, PACS are SUPPOSEDLY forbidden from coordinating their work with any particular candidate, but that’s one law that has NEVER been obeyed or enforced, and would be damn difficult TO enforce. Stephen Colbert and John Stewart did a WONDERFUL bit exposing just how ridiculous that is. So .. no sale, Ibn.
So…I should be able to shout fire in a theatre / talk about fucking in a playground / name US secret agents on TV?
Or do you appreciate that there is a spirit of the law which must be preserved not an attempt to take the exact words literally?