You are under a grave misimpression.
Your disdain for the First Amendment doesn’t correct that impression.
Michael Lind (quoted in the OP) is no leftist. Neither was Barry Goldwater. You don’t need to be any kind of a leftist to find plutocracy very deeply objectionable.
sigh Read this again:
It is impressive the kind of servile, lackey mentality that permeates the right.
“Yes, sir, Mr. Rich, beautiful day, Mr. Rich. Keep on with those grand ideas, sir!”
Yes, that’s what this thread is about. No one is taling about banning all political advertising, only about banning a situation where you can buy it. In the FF’s day, the question simply did not arise, it was all newspapers and every newspaper had its understood political slant. But the age of electronic media changes everything.
So, when the NYT posts an endorsement of Obama on its editorial page, are they buying anything?
So, do you think that campaign commercials and advertising are the same thing as the NYT editorial page?
See the OP.
Regardless of how you want to accomplish it, the idea that a fair election requires somehow equalizing all political speech implies that the average voter is incapable of evaluating the content of political speech, only the volume.
If you think this is true to such a degree that it merits completely changing the meaning of freedom in this country in order to negate it, then you are essentially claiming that democracy has failed, and simply arguing that the side you favor should be treated fairly in the resulting charade.
Personally, I am not ready to give up on freedom and democracy yet.
TLDR
Your argument is nonsense.
People are manipulated by advertising. Particularly misleading or lying advertising. When you can bombard a market with nothing but negative ads about your opponent, you can change election numbers.
To deny this is absurd. And no, I’m not essentially saying democracy has failed. You are simply trying to frame this as no-big-deal, not making an cogent argument.
Some people fail to understand (honestly or otherwise) that freedom and mandated equality are fundamentally incompatible.
Since you appear to tired to actually argue things in good faith, I’ve taken the time to help you.
OK. How is that different from advertising or self-financing? How does it not give a huge advantage in terms of getting the message out to anyone who owns a newspaper?
Of course, if that remains the rule, then we’re gonna see a lot of newspapers popping up all over the place. Including “free” ones on the internet.
Especially ones that offer free shit or coupons or whatever.
I’ll take a stab at this. The difference is one of scale and the ability of the average citizen to to tie the speech directly to the speaker. In your first two examples the speech is direct. The signs are placed in the home or homes of a private citizen. He is making a direct speech and taking direct responsibility for it. It is a reasonable assumption that Joe Billboard supports the candidate that he’s placed in his personal domicile. Likewise, Joe’s “speech” is on scale with that of any other citizen. It is about the same as if Joe was at a rally holding a sign.
In the third example, Joe’s “speech” is no longer private and direct. It is on commercial property that (one assumes) Joe usually leases out to businesses to use for direct to consumer marketing. Joe takes no responsibility for the content of the ads, it is his business to lease out space. Likewise, There is nothing to tie Joe directly to the ads. I couldn’t look at a billboard and assume that the owner of the sign is using his direct freedom of expression, as it is a commercial property. I have to assume that it is paid for to market something to me instead. Further, the scale of the “speech” is far above the amount of expression able to be produced by any other citizen. Joe isn’t holding a sign at the rally, he’s pirated the times square titantron and is drowning out the rally. Joe is using his disproportionate power and access to change his private speech into commercial speech. We regulate the content of commercials for the good of the public because of the scale of their impact. We don’t regulate personal speech because it can only affect a few people at a time, while commercial speech can impact tens of thousands simultaneously; hundreds of thousands over time. By removing political advertising we can force politicians to take direct responsibility for their political speech just like any other citizen. Since they have such great reach through the media, we should ensure that any statement made is one that comes right out of their mouths rather than half truths and propaganda; regardless of what side, belief, or party it endorses. Let the debates show us the important issues. Let townhalls and rallies be the platform for rallying support.
Internet newspapers won’t run commercials to show their editorials. News programs won’t blanket all TV commercials with editorials. News programs won’t send leaflets full of lies to everyone in a market with their editorials on it. News programs won’t robocall their editorials to people. News programs won’t push-poll lies to people based on their editorials.
Does that make sense?
It’s interesting that because you think maybe, if you squint, that newspapers might editorialize, that makes it okay for ten or twenty billionaires to blanket advertising and swing elections to the people who suit them.
That’s not what I think. I think that as long as the government can make or break big fortunes, then big fortunes are going to find a way to influence politics. You won’t get leaflets, you’ll get newspapers. Maybe dozens of them. They’ll have some sort of enticement to get you to read them. They will have web portals with all sorts of goodies on them, where you’ll get a chance to dine with Snooki if you read the editorial.
I can think of lots of reasons to make the 1st amendment argument, but others are doing that well already. I just don’t think there is a practical way to eliminate money from campaigns. Remember, the Citizens United ruling came about because of a movie, not because some huge corporation took the government to court over advertising. Advertising is just the easy way to do it.
You’re right about only one thing in that statement-- my side did most recently have the $$ advantage in the past presidential election. See Bricker’s post, above.
So because you can imagine other (less efficient) ways to get around it, it shouldn’t be illegal? I can kill someone with a toaster, that doesn’t mean that killing people with guns shouldn’t be illegal.
Even a sensible conservative when faced with Palin would have pause. 
In any case, Obama had a money advantage, true. But what Bricker left out (for perfectly honest reasons, I’m sure) is that more money from individual voters is hardly the problem. Getting more money from a few billionaires is where the trouble is. If a million people give you a hundred dollars that’s different than one billionaire giving you a hundred million dollars (and I’m aware that the billionaires aren’t giving directly to the candidate).
One is how democracy is supposed to work, the other is nothing but a plutocracy. Personally, I have no problem with donations, if they are capped. Let the billionaire donate $200 or so, good for him or her.
And yet, in the poll on this board, 90% of the people (so far) say their decision for whom to vote has never been influenced by political advertisement, and the 10% that say it has, either would vote against the one with negative ads or find that political advertising was informative and helped them in their voting.