One man with a sign isn’t the same thing as one man buying an overwhelming amount of air-time, newspapers, push-polls, flyers, signs and so on.
In fact, one man with a sign is perfect.
Yes. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying.
One man, one sign. But 100 thousand men. That’s what democracy is about.
Not one man, 1 million signs, four hours of TV commercials a night, print adds, push polls, yada yada yada.
When one rich person can have the impact that 100 thousand men with signs have, it isn’t democracy, it’s oligarchy.
And that’s just nobility with shittier hats.
Well, that’s a different argument than the one I was addressing.
But, the right to free speech is an individual one, not a collective one. As noted above, if “one man” is denied the ability to sway the public mind, then of what use is that right since that is part of the essence of that right-- the ability to influence the public discourse.
Now, you might be sanguine when the ability to control that right is in the hands of someone like Obama, but what happens when President Cheney or President Palin is in charge of maintaining a “fair” public discourse?
The rich have always had the bigger megaphone in the US. Always. Is it your contention that we have always been an oligarchy? Because if so, then you might want to open a separate thread to defend that thesis. The politicians in the US have only the power that we, the people, give them. I reject the idea that we, the people, are not smart enough to ignore bad ideas from rich people big megaphones.
But just to be clear… Are you saying we should amend the constitution and put a harness on the first amendment, or do you really think that, as written and with all the jurisprudence behind it, that you can legally tell someone how much of their money they can spend advocating for a cause?
I was saying that I don’t believe that setting a maximum cap on SuperPAC spending is a constitutional issue (note that my position is different from the OP’s).
Also note that you used the word “relevance”, and I would of course acknowledge that the first amendment is relevant here. Just as FoS is relevant to the issue of shouting fire in a theatre; but that doesn’t entail it is constitutionally protected speech.
That’s not the same thing at all as one SuperPAC, (which might draw much of its funding from a small group of people), buying airtime and explicitly writing the message themselves.
If we’re going to go down that road of childish hyperbole, I could have just as well compared SuperPAC ads to propaganda.
I brought it up as a reminder that the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right. When in conflict with other rights it can and has been limited. While the courts have not as yet recognized that the danger of corruption requires some limitation on election spending that does not mean that it can not or should not happen.
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.)
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.
It’s worth noting that just a few years prior to Citizens United, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law forbidding the burning of crosses, even when done with the intent to harass and intimidate. Justice Stephens freely argued that the First Amendment prohibitted the government from stopping such “speech” even when the purpose was to intimidate because it was political speech.
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).
At some point people are going to have to explain why they think the First Amendment protects people from being prosecuted for attempting to harass and intimidate minorities but it doesn’t protect them from being prosecuted from distributing leaflets, books, or videos critical of political candidates.
At some point they’ll have to explain why “Fight crime, kill a nigger”, “Here’s what we should do to Muslims: invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” are protected by the First Amendment but “Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton” isn’t.
Firstly, not all harassment or intimidation is covered under FoS. Trivial example: death threats.
Secondly, it’s not about stopping grass-roots campaigning. It’s about limiting paid political advertising.
Is “Fight crime, kill a nigger” really constitutionally protected? Because, if it seriously advocates committing the crime of murder, then that is explicitly not covered.
But for your point, I can only give my opinion which is that I do not see why hate speech should be constitutionally protected.
What I mean is, if you believe black people are inferior or whatever, that’s an opinion, and you should be able to state it if you wish. But shouting niggar or faggot at someone, I don’t see any reason to protect that “right”; it’s clearly language intended to provoke and states no meaningful opinion.
Of course after many years of allowing hate speech it’s quite hard to do a U-turn on this now.
“Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton” is stating an opinion and is of course covered.
Other than laws against sedition, where has that been established?
Er…according to the people advocating the reforms you’re proposing it’s not.
I’m a bit confused by your position because if you really think the government shouldn’t be allowed to stop people from expressing the belief “don’t vote for Hillary Clinton” then you should have joined with the ACLU and other free speech advocates in championing Citizens United.
A better question is does* buying elections* rise to the level of danger of sedition?
Buying elections? Paying for advertising is buying an election?
By the way, are you conceding that there was no such thing established, that your prior comment was inaccurate? (“So this thread has already established that political speech has been curtailed in the past.”) Because I have no interest in getting into yet another dramatic, question-begging and unsubstantiated back-and-forth about the unabashed evil that is political advertising. My point was, and is, that this is a fantasyland hypothetical, and SCOTUS would never permit it. That point remains.
You have accepted, already in this thread that political speech has been limited in the past.
This means that you agree that it is possible to limit political speech.
Thus, your demand that this is impossible is wrong.
Nice misuse of a loaded term there. “Buying elections” implies bribery and/or other unlawful conduct…paying for votes, or paying for “counting errors”, that sort of thing. Paying for lawful advertisements not at all similar.
I haven’t aligned myself with any particular group, and I have stated that my position doesn’t match the OP’s.
I am in favor of spending or time caps (as long as the caps are set pretty high and periodically reviewed).
I’m also of the opinion that hate speech isn’t in the spirit of the first amendment and shouldn’t be protected – but this probably takes us too far from the OP.
A few people buying an overwhelming amount of advertising can sway an election. If you don’t believe in advertising as a concept, that’s fine.
But don’t expect to get far trying to convince people if you deny basic reality in your assertions.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Advertising works. The reason politicians advertise is to sway voters. This is lawful, where “buying elections” is not. Your attempt to equate one with another is silly. I have no problem with one spending more than another, so long as all are offered the opportunity to purchase ads for the same price. If those that lack funding had a more palatable platform, they might attract more money.
Sorry, that’s just inane.
Wealthy people will use the ability to provide limitless funds to get the laws they want in place. It’s certainly not democracy. And you being fine with the super-wealthy getting tailor-made laws doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
A company making tens of billions a year can outspend millions of citizens. And can sway elections so that next year, because of the laws it supports, it makes even more.
This is dangerous, more dangerous than terrorism certainly.
So why didn’t this happen already?
You do realize how recent campaign finance reforms have been don’t you.
Similarly, you do realize that McCain-Feingold was in place for less than ten years when the Supreme Court in a victory for free speech struck it down.
:rolleyes: