The reform I’d like to see is to restrict out of state campaign contributions. A candidate in State 1 should only be able to receive contributions from residents in State 1. We have a representative democracy, so each resident has access to his/her own state’s representative, not the representatives of states 2, 3 and 4.
Actually, I think that might raise clearer constitutional objections than banning donations entirely. At any rate, only Congress could have any jurisdiction to do it, as it is essentially a form of interstate commerce, which only Congress can regulate.
You wanted me to tell you when you were being weird, Bricker. This is one of those times.
The implication, as if you didn’t understand it, is that one side will way, way, way outspend the other. I don’t know if anyone has ever literally bought *all *the air time. I doubt it, since this is the first Citizens United election.
Now can we talk about the actual issue, instead of you trying to confuse it with nonsense distractions, while pretending you have a Data-The-Android-Like ineptitude to parse human speech?
To restate, the issue is, that a few billionaires can get to together and hammer-fuck (note to Bricker, I don’t literally mean they will be sodomized by a hammer, this is one of the idioms you will have to learn, now that you have chosen to live among us Humans) a message into the brains of the electorate. Money isn’t everything in politics, but outspending your opponent ten or twenty to one does make a difference.
That’s completely false. Hillary the Movie was banned nearly a full year before Barack Obama won the Presidential election.
Had the book burners applied the same standard to Michael Moore’s Faherenheit 911 they’d have banned either showing or advertising it prior to any of the Republican primaries or prior to election day, in which case it would have been banned for all of 2004.
If you think for two seconds that if the FEC had done this(which all opponents of the Citizens United ruling should have called for) that various pundits wouldn’t have been screaming about censorship and comparing it to a book burning(which would have been appropriate) then you are in denial.
As a famous man once said, “there are many different ways to burn a book”.
Forbidding the showing of Hillary The Movie was tantamount to book burning as would banning the showing of Faherenheit 911 or the selling of Unfit For Command in 2004 would also have been engaging in a form of book burning.
Then they don’t understand the decision because it doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the amount of money that can be donated to candidates or that candidates can spend.
What it does is say that the government can’t stifle or censor people’s ability to advocate for or against political candidates.
Perhaps you approved of the FEC fining the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets critizing a Republican Senator’s environmental record but I don’t.
No, the honest thing would be for people who support the banning of movies and books critical of politicians and who support the government having the power to do this to recognize that they are book burners(symbolically if not literally).
The obvious answer is “no it has never happened.” The better answer is “No it has never happened and by law it never will.”
The law requires all the TV and radio networks regulated by the FCC give “equal time” to candidates or those supporting political campaigns.
Cool it, Lobohan. This is not The BBQ Pit.
Cooling jets as instructed.
It’s possible that such a scenario has happened in a few cases, on the local level. Has there ever been a presidential election where one side outspent the other by 10x?
Do you see it happening in the near future? If so, why?
I’m trying to figure out how much of a problem this is IRL, as opposed to a hypothetical problem. I’d hate to gut the 1st amendment to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
Because it’s possible now. You don’t need wide appeal any more. You don’t need a message that reaches people. You need billionaires. I fear this, personally, because it means that candidates who are attractive to very wealthy businesses are more likely to get elected if they hold policies that increase profitability in those businesses. I don’t want Exxon deciding that offshore drilling regulations are a problem. I don’t want Monsanto deciding who gets what crop subsidies. I don’t want GM telling the government what the emission goals should be.
Obviously, as I said before, money isn’t everything. This won’t mean every election will be won, but it will skew the country evermore into the hands of the very rich.
A nuke going off in New York is a hypothetical problem. We still try to keep that from happening. And don’t you find it a little weird calling it *gutting *for this purpose?
What he was asking about A)has never happened and B) is illegal.
No, I feel quite good about calling it “gutting” because that’s what it’s doing. The 1st amendment was there specifically to protect political speech, and especially the kind that is controversial. I’m all for keeping a nuke from going off in New York, but I’m not on the side with GW Bush where we ignore the constitution in order to do so.
I see. I don’t think it’s much of an argument. If 1st Amendment rights can be limited then they are not absolute. In any case this is not correct. See the sedition acts (both of 1798 and 1918). Both expressly limited political speech and only political speech. Indeed even today parts of the Smith Act remain in force. It is illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. So the 1st Amendment is not absolute and there are situations where it has been deemed appropriate to limit expressly political speech. Can we now dispense with this digression and instead weigh campaign finance reform on the actual merits of the proposals?
Or to state it more baldly, both recognize that there is a free speech issue but the Canadian courts look further and recognize that there are effects on other rights and interests while the majority on the American Supreme Court, having reached the outcome they desired, dismissed those other rights and interests as inconvenient to their ends.
This is not so. Read the first paragraph of the decision.
“As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election…”
The movie was restricted for a month before a primary election and a month before the general election. I don’t know the actual history of the movie release. Perhaps its backers withheld it from distribution once they realized they wouldn’t be allowed to show it (and more importantly anti-Hillary commercials for it) in the critical period just before people went into the voting booth. But the film was not banned for a year.
There are likewise many ways to skin a cat but they all end with the cat dead. If no cats die then you ain’t skinning them. In this case no works of art were destroyed nor was anyone prevented from viewing them outside of a brief period directly before elections. Only in Newspeak is it appropriate to refer to campaign financing reform supporters as book burners.
Non sequitur. Just because there are limitations on certain activities doesn’t mean that there is a limit to overall spending. There is not. Billions will be spent on advertising for the presidential election alone.
And yet all of this “gutting the 1st Amendment” talk is purely hypothetical. What would be the negative real world consequences of accepting limitations on political advertising?
Calling someone a liar is one thing, and you ahve to back it up.
Outrigth lying about your opponent should be banned. You can’t call your opponent a devil worshipper if he’s nominally Roman Catholic, unless you have pictues of him in a coven at a ceremony. End of story. What’s the point of campaign ads then if I have to vet every freaking statement made? It’s like advertising. You can’t say your product cures cancer if it doesn’t. So why can you lie outright about your opponent. No wonder the world laughs at us.
:rolleyes: Sedition, eh? That’s the breach in the First Amendment that permits this? Okee-dokee.
Sedition is indeed acceptable to restrict from a constitutional perspective, you are correct. That doesn’t render the rest of the point (i.e., 99.9% of political speech) a digression, and I don’t know why you would think it was. The First Amendment protects political expression (excepting sedition, treason, etc.). I don’t know why this is novel or controversial.
Here’s the problem I have with this argument: It has never been easier or cheaper to publish your views and to find like-minded people to organize with.
The idea that buying advertisements on television is somehow drowning out other views, or that it’s like hiring people to scream at you is silly. How many hours a day are you forced to watch television adverts? Is anyone? There are trucks (or at least there used to be) that drive around with big speakers spouting political slogans. That is what political spam drowning out debate looks like.
If I want to find out information about a political candidate, all I have to do is go look at their website, or at wikipedia, or youtube. Or the statement they made in the ballot. It’s not possible to “drown out debate” or buy up all the advertising slots, because mass media can be turned off, and there’s no limit to the number of advertising slots available to you if anyone cares about your message.
You obviously have been in Taiwan during election season!
Ah, so now we both understand that asserting “The first amendment has never permitted the suppression of political expression, not for that reason alone.” is a false statement. Wonderful. Now that we agree that limiting political speech is legitimate in some cases we can move on to examining the particulars of this case. I look forward to a robust and pertinent discussion.
Yes, we can discuss why book burning is a good idea.
To be clear then, you’re saying that you think the FEC should have banned the showing, distribution or advertising for Michael Moore’s* Faherenheit 911 *during the 2004 campaign season?
If not, what is your objection to Citizens United?
Thanks
You really ought to do better research. It was forbidden from being shown within 30 days of ANY primary election in 2003 and 2004
You do realize how many primary elections and Caucuses there where in 2003 and 2004 over how long a period of time don’t you?
In short, it was banned for nearly a whole year.
Only because Obama beat her. Had she won the nomination, the book burners would have banned it even longer.
That is an utterly moronic misrepresentation of what I said. I certainly don’t classify all people supporting campaign finance reform as book burners, but I have no qualms referring to people who support banning books and movies they don’t like as book burners because that’s what they are.
Then why do the candidates collect/spend so much money on it and struggle so desperately to outcollect/outspend the other guy?