GOP superPACs are planning to spend an unprecedented $1 billion on this year’s elections.
And they have a constitutional right to do so.
Cool. Barak Obama spent an unprecedented amount on 2008 elections, $500M more than his opponent. Did that bother you?
Yes.
Great. You have been posting here since 2003. Can you show me a post of yours lamenting Obama’s huge spending superiority over McCain?
None. But I recall feeling appalled that any candidate should have to spend that much on campaigning. It’s insane, no matter who has the bigger pot.
I know. You were very quietly appalled.
I guess you “evolved”.
Why, it merely revealed that there was far more enthusiasm for Barack Obama then there was for John McCain.
The reason Obama was able to spend more is simply because he was better at getting out his message, his message was more popular, and more people were willing to support him.
What’s wrong with that?
That it cost that much. It shouldn’t.
I know. I am quietly appalled! So quiet you can’t really tell I am. Until it’s the other side that has the money advantage. Then I am loudly appalled.
What makes you think it costs “too much”.
Compare the amount spent on political campaigns for the President vs. the amount spent promoting various Hollywood blockbusters and then ask which is more important, The Avengers or who becomes President.
I’m sorry but this is just bizarre. You seem to have been referring to *Schenck V. The United States *when you pointed to the upholding of the 1917 Espionage Act(though I think you referred to it as being in 1918) and have repeatedly referred to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.”
The “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre” comes from* Schenck* where the Supreme Court upheld the arrest of Charles Schenck of the Socialist Party for encouraging people to resist the draft.
It had nothing to do with calling for the violent overthrow of the US or revealing top secret information.
I apologize for assuming you knew more than you apparently did.
For the record, I thought it was a bullshit decision and while it hasn’t been completely overthrown it was very dramatically narrowed in Brandenburg to only apply to speech designed to cause “imminent lawless action” so it hardly supports your contention that it applies to political speech which has nothing to do with criminal behavior.
Again, it’s utterly asinine and stupid to refer to Brandenburg as somehow justifying limitations on the ability of corporations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, or the NAACP to criticize political candidates because doing so is not encouraging or engaging in criminal behavior.
I’m sorry but that’s an extremely foolish comment. Of course “corporate money” was used. The Sierra Club is a corporation. How can they spend money without spending corporate money?
Why? How can you regulate American citizens agitating in favor or against a political candidate without violating the First Amendment?
The point of the First Amendment was to allow people to try to influence the Government without being stopped from doing so by the government.
The significant amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed the following year are commonly referred to as the Sedition Act of 1918. I believe they were upheld in Abrams v the United States.
I would like to note that I have not repeatedly referred to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” I did so only in my first post. Subsequently it became clear that the pro-Citizens United posters were making a valid distinction between this and political speech so there was no point in bringing it up again. I make it a point to make an effort to understand opposing arguments on their own terms rather than ignore them or interpret them in the way most convenient for me.
I disagree that speech promoting “imminent lawless action” is automatically nonpolitical. Advocating a change in government is a political statement, no matter how one suggests that be accomplished. Likewise discussing official secrets in order to disparage the government is also political speech.
Then I am relieved that I have not referred to Brandenburg to justify anything at all. The point of referring to the exceptions to the right to free political speech left in place by that decision is, of course, to demonstrate that there are exceptions to the right to free political speech in America. I wasn’t looking for justification. I was fighting ignorance.
I don’t follow. My understanding is that this was the objection to the flyers you keep referring to. I mentioned it because I was offering an opinion on that objection. People normally do indicate what they are talking about. That’s how you know what people are talking about.
As I’ve been attempting to explain, there is no absolute right in America to political speech. If that political speech conflicts with other legitimate interests and rights then these need to be balanced. I’m saying that there is a legitimate interest in free and fair elections and that regulating how money is spent on elections is a sensible solution to the current problem. Now obviously you disagree but I shouldn’t have to keep explaining my basic premise. It would help if you would make an effort to understand opposing arguments on their own terms.
Compare US election costs to other developed countries (yes, adjusted for nominal GDP). The US spends huge amounts and the costs have rocketed up in recent years.
In an ideal world candidates could simply post their manifestos on the internet, for negligible cost, and that would be the end of it (heck, sending a letter to every US citizen would be much cheaper than what currently takes place).
Our world is obviously not ideal, but elections moving ever further from this simple model is indicative of a problem IMO.
The amount spent promoting the avengers is of course far, far less than the $1 billion that just one party’s SuperPACS reckon they’ll raise.
And here’s why it is a poor comparison anyway: with hollywood blockbusters, a product has been produced. That product will help the economy by first employing people to make the film, then getting people out to theatres, selling the movie abroad, and selling DVDs, toys and games etc. Marketing such a film is a good investment for the creators of the film, and the US economy.
Whereas spending huge amounts of money on blockbuster ad hominem adverts, if anything simply detracts from the issues and produces nothing.
Actually, the main reason elections cost so much more in the US is that they’re so much longer. In the UK, I think it’s six weeks whereas here its effectively more than a year.
One thing the pro-buying elections side is forgetting, is that Obama had a huge money advantage in 2008 because of many donors giving in small chunks.
Romney will have an advantage because of 20 or 30 donors who are billionaires, who want their specific monied interests promoted.
A bunch of people and corporations giving to generate an overwhelming amount of money is shitty, but understandable and at least in line with American ideals.
A handful of ultrarich people giving to generate an overwhelming amount of money is giving those two dozen the political power of hundreds of thousands of citizens. And that’s living in a country where the billionaires write the laws.
Only a complete partisan or a lackey lickspittle should want to grovel at the feet of the nobles for alms. This isn’t what America is supposed to be about. If you described a Super-PAC to Benjamin Franklin and said it was a good thing, he’d kick you in the groin and fuck your mom.
Of which, see here an instance in action. (Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, testifies before/is fellated by the Senate Banking Committee; see the second link for a breakdown of JPMC’s campaign contributions to committee members.)