I’m sorry but that’s an extremely foolish comment. Citizens United was about whether or not the Government could ban books or movies that the FEC felt were designed to affect an election.
Proponents of Citizens United opposed giving the government the power to ban movies and books while opponents supported it.
Beyond that, what’s wrong with refer to the banning of books and movies as “book burning”?
If the shoe fits…
Dude, I said the first amendment has never permitted it. Congress can (and has) passed all kinds of laws that are ultimately found unconstitutional. As an argument for why this has no first amendment issues, you cited a law that was declared unconstitutional on a first amendment basis. You’re really, REALLY bad at this.
Are there any other lefties around who can mount a better defense? This is not any fun.
What’s “evil” about holding the government can’t ban documentaries or books critical of political candidates?
Generally speaking most people think book burning is bad and some call it evil.
Do you disagree?
Not ban. But to not release obvious political works during the run-up to an election.
That’s different, right?
That’s the trouble, the shoe doesn’t fit. It isn’t even a shoe. It’s a small cardboard cutout that looks roughly like a shoe, but it wouldn’t serve as footwear at all.
Dude, we still have election laws. Citizens United didn’t destroy them all.
No, only the ones that restricted political expression.
I know you are not making an argument for a parliamentary system here, but it is still one of the best such I have ever encountered.
So, to be clear, you think it would have been permissible if not necessary to ban the showing of Fahereneit 911 during the 2004 Presidential if some government bureaucrats determined that it was designed to get people to vote against George Bush.
No, all book burners claim their case is special or unique but book burning is book burning.
You also haven’t explained how you can justify stifling political expression with violating the First Amendment.
No, book burning is still book burning regardless of the motivations of the one lighting the match.
My 10 cents:
One person, one voice, one vote.
Anything else is not democracy.
No ban on political speech but restrictions:
No lying or misdirection in any political speech -by outright falsehood or by omission or by innuendo.
Example: A bill is put forth that contains these items: a new center for seniors and a 50% tax on gasoline. Candidate X votes against this because of the gas tax provision.
In such an instance, Candidate Y should never be allowed to say or imply that Candidate X is against seniors or say that Candidate X voted against funding for a senior center. This would be a fact taken out of context and a reasonable minded person would draw the wrong conclusion given the incomplete facts. Want to mention someone’s vote on a bill? It has to contain all the items in the bill, not just parts you want to emphasize. Perhaps we need bills that contain only 1 provision, so we can really see what’s important to a particular politician.
Political ads should only be able to contain the following:
Your stand on any issue.
Your complete accurate record on any past issue.
No mention of an opponent unless the statement reflects an accurate and complete view of the opponent’s stand and that stand is different from yours.
Any proven past criminal acts committed by the opponent may be mentioned.
No mentioning any negative facet of your opponent if the same facet is applicable to you. (Ex: No more “Candidate X only showed up to 10% of the house sessions”, when you showed up 9%, or 11%.)
No claims of an opponent not meeting past campaign promises if you or your party voted against bills that would have allowed the promises to be met.
That covers my view anyway.
Whoa! Let’s not get into content restrictions here! Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to lie, and that is important to political speech too, with each side calling the other liars routinely.
George Orwell wrote that “Freedom means the freedom to say that two and two make four. Once that is granted, all else follows.” “All else” includes, must include, the freedom to say that two and two make five.
This would be even worse. Party X would claim that the ad is 100% truthful and Party Y would say it is misleading. Who would judge the outcome? Factcheck.org? A political hack appointed by Party Y’s incumbent President?
Would puffery be allowed?
In the example you gave about the bill with the gasoline tax increase and funding for the seniors center…how do we know why the Congressman voted against it? Maybe he really did think that there are too many senior centers? Should a group not be able to state that for fear of the Orwellian bureaucrat that will pounce on them?
Yes, that’s fine. And your attitude is that people are too stupid to be trusted to express their will correctly - too stupid to know what they want the state to do - if they are subjected to more TV ads supporting one candidate vs. another.
McCain-Feingold did not require the destruction of any movies or books. The relevant clause would have merely have prevented publication/airing during the few weeks before Election Day. Personally I believe that clause was unnecessary and that there would be no controversy if the Supreme Court had limited it’s decision to prohibiting the delaying of movie and book releases until after Election Day. But that’s not the situation we are in. Opponents of the decision are decrying that it opens the door to unlimited spending. They are not promoting destroying any works of art. Nor would any works of art have ever been destroyed. Since no books were burned the shoe doesn’t fit. The honest thing to do would be to recognize this fact and refrain from slandering people.
This argument seems to presume that American politicians are fools for spending billions of dollars for no reason.
It has its benefits and problems. I’m not sure how we’d deal with an elected (and nonceremonial) head of state - they might end up being our Rockstar-In-Chief, viewed (fairly or otherwise) as personifying an entire political body of thought and to be fervently supported or opposed on that basis. Is Obama is a middle-of-the-road Illinois pol, or is he a Socialist Muslim, or the living avatar of Hope-and-Change? Positively or negatively, the U.S. president gets a stunning amount of celebrity fame (or infamy) regardless of his actual positions, and I guess it’s been that way since - I dunno, Teddy Roosevelt? - and trending stronger each year, even well beyond what I understand a president’s powers actually are, as though Obama personally could ban all guns or approve all gay marriages with the stroke of a pen, and since political advertising and especially television advertising must get its point across quickly and simply, nobody has time for nuance, and for every dollar a post-Citizens-United corporation can spend promoting one issue, another can spend a dollar trying to cancel them out. The process is noisier, to be sure, but is the result better? I really don’t know.
Government can in some instance install restrictions on free speech that don’t directly target political speech. It’s not unconstitutional (in some instances) if those restrictions also inadvertently impact political expression.
So, it’s probably constitutional to have municipal ordinances that prevent someone from driving around your neighborhood at 2:00 AM with a loudspeaker attached to the roof of his car shouting his political agenda. It would not be constitutional if the same guy was prevented from paying for a TV ad with the same political message. The first restriction is not an attempt to quash political expression, though in that instance it does. The second is specifically to limit someone’s ability to express his political thoughts.
nm
BrainGlutton, you might want to check out the two leading Supreme Court of Canada decisions on election financing:
Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827
Our Court has held that restrictions on campaign financing laws, including restrictions on third party advertising, do restrict freedom of expression. However, the Court has upheld those restrictions as a justifiable, when taken in the context of a free and fair electoral system that values equality of participation. They accepted that allowing unbridled spending can undercut the basic democratic value that all citizens should have roughly equal participation in the electoral system.
Shorn of the legalese, I would summarise the difference between the SCOTUS and the SCC on this issue as follows: SCOTUS says that spending money on campaign adverts is a form of free speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. SCC says that while spending is a form of expression, it also is analogous to the right to vote. Since voting is on a one-person, one-vote basis, limits on spending that mirror that one-person, one-vote principle are acceptable, to produce an egalitarian electoral system.
Has that ever happened? That is, when you say, “All the available air time…” there’s an implication that he shuts off anyone else’s ability to buy air time, because he has consumed it all. Has there ever been a case where this has happened?
It seems to be that even at the height of contested elections, air time was available, but I would welcome an opportunity to learn something new.
. . . OBO the POTUS and Congress, who are otherwise engaged at the moment, I hereby declare war on Canada, and surrender. Please annex us. God Save the Loon!
What? They put the Loon on their dollar coins, so it must be their king or something. Could be worse.