Two things: One, is that Citizens United didn’t just overturn McCain-Feingold, it also laid the ground for the creation of Super PACs.
Two, for the same reason no one filibustered everything until the current Republicans. The powers that be no longer have the restraint they used to. Couple One with Two and bad things can happen.
The claim that it is “not democracy” is insane.
No matter how many ads are shown on TV, and how much spending occurs, and how disparate the spending is, US citizens always have and always will vote totally voluntarily, and in total privacy. The candidate they choose to vote for is their decision alone, and will never be known to anyone.
Unless this changes, I fail to see how you can ever claim that the system is not democratic. People vote for the candidate they want, end of story.
If you want more people to vote for Democrats, nominate some candidates whose message is strong enough to survive even if the opponent runs more ads.
Your opinion is nice, but it ignores that advertising works. As I said to Oak above, if you don’t think advertising works, you’re wrong.
People can be mislead by misinformation, and low-information voters especially can be swayed by endless negative advertising.
A good candidate can win regardless, but by outspending the other side 20 or 30 to one, you push marginal races into your column.
And I posted studies, in this thread, that show that past a certain point advertising works, sometimes, for the challengers, but not so much for incumbents.
So your key to advancing the liberal agenda is securing the votes of idiots? Good to know.
So it works. It convinces people to freely, voluntarily, vote for a candidate. So what? How is that undemocratic?
So you want to dramatically restrict free speech in this country so that Democrats have a higher chance of winning races in which they are running marginal candidates. Sounds great! That doesn’t sound partisan at all!
Let’s say you get this lunatic idea passed, and equalize campaign spending from both parties. Yet, for whatever reason, the Republicans are able to produce more effective ads than the Democrats. They are both aired in equal amounts, but polls solidly report that the Republican ads are more effective (undoubtedly, because they are more duplicitous, underhanded, evil, etc.). Are you then going to try to restrict the content of the ads as well, because “advertising works”, and this is unfair to you? Where does it stop?
Let’s return to the definition of democracy that BrainGlutton trotted out in response to one of my earlier posts:
People vote for whoever they want, and they get the government they want. If they are too stupid not to be influenced by seeing 15 ads from one candidate and 10 from another, well, sucks to be them.
Your view - that the common people cannot be trusted with their votes unless their exposure to political speech is strictly controlled by the government - is what seems contrary to democracy to me. Frighteningly so, in fact.
This is dishonest debating or you haven’t really read the thread. I’ll try one more time: Excepting sedition, where do you see it established that political speech has been restricted?
You’re right. Apart from the exceptions, there have never been any exceptions.
So, you can cite the exceptions then, the ones where political expression have been restricted. Don’t know why this question is so difficult. Fire away.
There are idiots. And if they disproportionately vote with the Republicans that’s worse for the country.
You, as a Republican, certainly have no moral high ground when it comes to courting the votes of the stupid. Your entire platform is an appeal to people who don’t understand economics, bigots and fanatical Christians.
In any case, you’re flailing around here. We were talking about swaying votes, not the personal integrity of the hand that casts the ballot.
Because if ten people of vast wealth can sway an election, through the use of overwhelming adverts, the will of those ten people is more important than a million people who can’t donate as much. This isn’t a difficult concept.
Two things: One, restricting the amount of advertising one person can buy isn’t "dramatically restricting free speech. That’s simply hysterical nonsense. Two, it doesn’t matter which side gets to buy votes, the difference between you and me, is that I’d be fighting this if my side were the one buying votes. Because, I, for one, respect the ideals of America. And don’t want an oligarchy. You seem to be arguing that you want rich people to be able to decide elections. That the richest people should get thousands of times the voting power of a middle class person.
That’s oligarchy, and the founders didn’t want that.
It’s not a lunatic idea. A lunatic idea is allowing the very wealthy to custom design laws.
No one is talking about the content of the ads. But outspending someone 20 to 1 because of 1 big donor isn’t Democracy. It’s 1 rich person getting a super-vote.
It’s perfectly honest. You are whining that there are no exceptions,* if you don’t count the exceptions*.
You stamping your feet doesn’t change lead into gold. You’re wrong. Gracefully admit it and move on.
But the ONE exception, sedition, is there because of the other problems that it creates. Advocating the overthrow of the government that protects your right to free speech, and every other right that you have that keeps this country from becoming Rwanda, is destructive and not conducive to rational political debate.
Regulating other forms of speech because they are just too darn effective, again, is trying to solve the “problem” that the freedom itself is meant to protect.
Would you support a law limiting the amount of money people can spend on lawyers because too many people are hiring good lawyers and subverting the criminal justice system?
Forget about wealth. People like Rush Limbaugh or Dan Savage can influence an election far more than I can. Should we prohibit political speech on the airwaves because the hosts of those shows subvert the “will of the people”?
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?
If you think it’s a bad thing, then the question is, does it rise to the level where it should be balanced against the first amendment to see if it should be curtailed. I say yes.
In any case, what you, in your post above, are arguing is that, “It’s okay if people are buying elections, because they aren’t’ going to buy them all, just a few.”
I don’t care if it’s for a city council seat in Flumbock Nebraska, allowing the rich to buy elections is wrong.
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.
You don’t think the ultra-rich being able to craft the exact laws they want is a threat to the country?
Do you think that any environmental laws would exist if giant businesses ran the show? Do you think that any labor laws would exist if giant businesses ran the show? Do you think that giant businesses have any intention of paying any taxes at all?
The richest people in America are almost-all on one side, the side of giant businesses. Giving them super-votes is wrong.
As for lawyers, no. Because lawyers aren’t damaging the country by buying votes.
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?
Reread the thread. You’ve already admitted there are exceptions. Are you going back on what you said?