You are right, of course. The big money elites saw that Dubya had screwed up good and proper in 2008 and put their money on the horse that was clearly gonna win. I should have said, “ALMOST always.” I will give you that inch. You don not get the mile that is the rest of your post, though I understand you needed to try for it. The numbers on who will get the bulk of the funding are still very clear overall, especially since the unabashed evil that was Citizens United.
No, it’s like not allowing a billionaire to hire ten thousand people to scream it all day and all night, without end, until the election.
The billionaire is free to yell, “Obama Sucks” all he wants. He just shouldn’t have the right to purchase all of the available air-time to air attack ads.
Restrictions on free speech have NEVER included restricting political expression, not for that reason alone. It is the very thing the amendment safeguards. This continuous reference to free speech restrictions as if they were all analogous, after this has been pointed out (multiple times), is beginning to seem like deliberate ignorance.
The first amendment does not permit this, no matter how much you believe the angels are on your side.
The First Amendment says nothing about money being political expression.
However, having the richest few dozen billionaires in the country decide the election isn’t a good thing. Even if they will likely push the election in* the way you want*.
It has nothing to do with what I want, or what you want. This is what the first amendment says:
If I want to pay for political advertising to express a political position, the government has no basis for restricting it. If this is so (and it is) all the rest of this is hand-waving nonsense. (Unless you get enough support to amend the Constitution.) Pointing out that the word “money” isn’t in the first amendment is not an argument.
That’s a strawman. What that rich man in my example puts up political slogans on his multiple properties, it is not money being political expression. It is political expression being political expression. And your proposals would ban it.
You want to overturn a recent SCOTUS decision, and ignore 200+ years of First Amendment law, solely to further your partisan agenda. That counts as changing the meaning of freedom.
Sure it is. You are saying that speech is being oppressed. And I am saying that it happens already. You are saying that not political speech! And I am saying money isn’t political speech.
We are having a dialogue. It’s just that my side is the one that doesn’t lead to a hell-hole oligarchy that the founders would have fought to the last man.
We can limit speech when necessary. It is obviously necessary to limit it to prevent the richest few dozen people in the country from deciding every election.
Continuous repetition does not an argument make. The first amendment has never permitted the suppression of political expression, not for that reason alone. Whatever horrible consequence you think results from this–hell, even if you’re right about the outcome–the first amendment does not permit this. It is the very form of speech it exists to protect.
Actually you want to ignore 200 years of precedent to let the richest people in the country buy elections just so your ideology of servile kowtowing to the rich gets ushered in.
The supreme court made a political decision on partisan lines, this is hardly glaringly obvious law.
Lobohan, you’re not very good at this. Your responses are not actually, you know, arguments.
So there have never been campaign finance laws? No McCain Feingold?
Banning all paid political advertising in America is a big deal, but we’ve made rules about it before.
That provision of this law was overturned as unconstitutional.
I will admit, I don’t have your religious zeal to fight for your right to be oppressed by your economic betters. But I will have to muddle along with whats I got.
Yes, but we have made laws up to that point about election rules. You said it had never permitted it. And sure it did, until a partisan 5-4 decision said otherwise.
That said, we still have election laws.
This is one of those argument things. You like it? 
Yeah, this is what I mean. It isn’t an argument, and if you think it stings or something, it doesn’t.
Rich white guys have won every Presidential election we have ever had (save one of course). They have also won the vast majority of House and Senate seats. What is the emergency here? Save for that if we silenced the right people your guy might do a bit better?
It’s better, but not much. Pointing to a law that existed until it was declared unconstitutional (that aspect of it) is not your best debating moment, I hope.
Large businesses have profit in mind. Sometimes, perhaps most times, profit is at odds with the public good.
It is cheaper to dump your toxic waste into landfills or streams or to incinerate it than it is to process it. Since it is cheaper, it makes economic sense for a company that produces toxic waste to get laws written that relax environmental standards.
Also it is cheaper to sell meat that has sawdust filler added. It is cheaper to produce vehicles that have terrible emission standards. It is cheaper to produce paint with lead in it. It is cheaper to… yada yada yada.
When huge businesses get to write their own laws this is a bad thing.
Is that understandable?
Is it because it demolished your absolute nonsense about how we’ve never restricted political speech?