Cite? And one please that shows the film was restricted in states when other states were holding a primary.
Bullshit. Delaying books and movies is hardly the same thing as burning them. That’s like claiming everyone who ever pushed someone else is a kidnapper. You’re distorting the language for a cheap rhetorical advantage.
The FEC should follow the law. That’s their job. I don’t think showing Michael Moore’s movie should be illegal nor Hillary the Movie either. The advertising for them is another matter. If they are merely promotional then that’s fine, IMO. If instead they are intended as (or are indistinguishable from) campaign ads then they should be subjected to the same restrictions as campaign ads. Obviously I think there should be some restrictions on campaign ads.
The same one so many have been complaining about since the decision was handed down.
It removes restrictions on campaign ads.
To reach as many people as possible. That’s not the same as “drowning out” the other guy. Can you give us any examples of when someone bought up all the advertising available (or even 90%) and “drowned out” the other guy? I just can’t see that it’s even possible, especially in this day of 1,000 TV channels, radio, internet and, just posting signs in peoples’ yards.
McCain-Feingold gave the FEC the power to regulate not just campaign ads but “electioneering activity” which essentially was anything they determine to be attempting to sway people for or against various political candidates, which is why they could do things like fine The Sierra Club for distributing leaflets criticizing a Republican Senator’s environmental record.
Of course it also gave them the power to ban movies and books.
To give an example, if there’s a ballot initiative in Rhode Island to try and get a casino built in Warwick, the Casino owners can’t buy up all the advertising space on the TV and radio stations and prevent anti-Casino forces from putting out radio and TV ads and any radio or TV station which refused to give equal time would be in rather extreme trouble.
Nothing in my post suggests that political advertisements don’t influence people. I simply object to the argument that one candidate spending a lot of money on advertisements somehow “crowds out” all other viewpoints or “forces” people to listen to them. There are plenty of ads to go around, and it’s simply not at all difficult to avoid political ads or to find information from whatever source you want.
If there were only a few television channels and no internet (and, uh, you couldn’t turn the TV off), and one candidate could conceivably monopolize all the ad space, then I think that argument might hold merit. That’s not the world we live in.
For one, that only applies to over-the-air broadcasts, which use the public air waves. For another, it doesn’t apply the way you think it does. “Equal time” does not mean that there has to be exactly the same amount of air time devoted to paid advertisements for one candidate as for another. It means equal availability of paid time.
Networks have to make advertising space available to campaigns at “reasonable” rates, which basically means that they can’t charge one campaign more than another (or more than anyone else). If one campaign is actually so well funded that they can drive the price of advertising high enough, then they can get far more than half the advertising time.
They have to make advertising available under equal terms to all comers. They do not have to provide it in equal amounts, or give campaigns with less money more time than the rich campaign’s money would buy.
Terr, hence the question mark
I’m not going to argue over the effectiveness of political advertisements since I don’t really know much about how effective they are. I am going to argue that their existence doesn’t somehow stifle or drown out other speech.
Yes, all the candidates are whoring themselves like streetwalking sluts for campaign contributions because they are chasing a will o the wisp. Right. I buy that one. You betcha.
Then it’s a bad law in that respect. It’s not for the FEC to determine whether a law is good policy or not.
As I’ve said in the past I simply don’t see how books or movies can do much to affect the outcome of elections. People experience books and movies deliberately. They have to seek them out unlike advertising which seeks people out. Advertisements for the books and movies, however, if they are blatant electioneering (and leaflets such as the ones mentioned above “expressly advocating the election and defeat of candidates in the 2004 presidential and U.S. Senate races”) I would put in a different category. Regulating such activity to curb the influence of money in elections is a common sense undertaking, IMO. Reducing corruption is a cause we should all be able to unite behind.
Which is why the Supreme Court, in a great victory for free speech, struck it down in the Citizens United case.
Citizens United was a decision that should be hailed by all who support free speech and all who love watching the book burners take it on the chin.
Obviously, many ignorant people whine about it, just as other complained about decisions regarding burning crosses and other matters, but if black people are told that they have to put up with the KKK burning crosses then powerful politicians have to put up with people saying nasty things about them.
Heck, I figure the decision for a huge subsidy to the TV networks, who can now sell oodles of advertising to groups eager to spend top dollar to cancel each other out.
I don’t see it as a great victory but given your inability to distinguish between a temporary restriction and book burning I can see why you would. I am prepared to believe that preventing books and movies from being considered electioneering communication (and thus subject to campaign finance laws) is a good thing and if the Supreme Court majority had done their duty and exercised judicial restraint and decided the case on that basis it would have been a minor decision that would not have provoked such outrage or done such damage to our electoral system. Unfortunately that didn’t happen.
I’m not sure which is more amusing, your shameless raising of the rhetorical stakes or the irony of the statement given your obtuseness concerning the issues at hand. To repeat, people are upset with the decision because it removed restrictions on campaign ads. Now unlimited amounts of money can be spent on them. Our system has become more corrupt and you’ve deluded yourself into believing that a blow has been struck for freedom.
I think a complete ban on campaign donations is not a good idea, but a strict limit in the range of $100 to $1000 per natural-person US citizen who is a resident for all political giving per year. Campaigns need money, and the ability to get a few thousand people to sponsor a candidate says a lot more than a single person with a $1,000,000 donation. This alone would even the playing field quite a bit.
That is not true. The Supreme Court didn’t say that there couldn’t be limitations on political ads by campaigns. What it recognized was that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting people’s ability to advocate for or against political candidates.
Now, if you’re upset with that and feel as a society that we’d be better off by placing limitations on people’s ability to advocate for or against political candidates, I’d recommend calling for amending the Constitution, not pretending the First Amendment doesn’t protect political speech.
Similarly, perhaps it would be more beneficial for society if we had laws against hate speech and laws forbidding the KKK from burning crosses but the First Amendment prevents that.
I would simply say to white people who are upset about Citizens United, “Well, now you know how minorities feel when the Supreme Court votes 9-0 to vote down laws banning cross burning.”
It should also be noted that a few years before Citizens United all the Justices who’d voted against it voted to strike down a law banning cross burning(the exception being Sotomayor who wasn’t on the court at that time).
Sorry, but the First Amendment protects people’s right to free speech. It doesn’t protect people from free speech.
The case for Citizens United was not be about political candidate’s organizations, but the effect of the ruling is allowing unlimited contributions to PACs who can advertise for a candidate or cause.
Instead of banning advertising as suggested in the OP, I am suggesting limiting campaign and PAC income by limiting total per person contributions to all political causes, and outlawing corporate and foreign contributions. This would allow some advertising, but reduce the chance for 1 person to have more influence than hundreds of middle class people.
For example: each person can spend up to $1,000 influencing legislation and elections annually. This amount would include all local, state, and federal measures on the ballot, paid lobbying of the legislature, in-kind gifts, the whole shebang. Every one would be able to spend $1,000 to influence the gubment. No more.
PACs could only collect from real American people and bundle donations, the limit per person still stands. So I could give all to Candidate X, or give some to my favorite PAC, and some to my candidate, and some to my party, and some for proposition Z - no more than $1,000 per year per citizen total.
This would reduce the power of PACs, but not quite get rid of them. Business associations could still bundle funds by using a PAC to pay for lobbying, but that money would come from the personal limit of each person who gives to the PAC, no money could come from a corporation at all, and each of those donors have used up part of their annual political donation maximum.
Mr, Koch could use his $1,000 as he wishes, but I think it is unfair that he gets millions worth of influence, while the majority of us would be hard pressed to come up with $1,000. This is not taking away his money or his right to influence the government, but it is making the playing field a little more even.
The $1,000 limit is arbitrary, I think lower would be better.
I don’t mind if you simply stop arguing certain points like when you couldn’t find a cite for your mistaken belief that the Hillary movie was banned nationwide for nearly a year but if you are going to circle back around to points I’ve already responded to I would appreciate it if you would take those responses into consideration. As I said the last time, “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.”
It would also be helpful if you would read the thread you are posting in. I’ve already established upthread that the government can and does place limits upon the 1st Amendment right to free speech. It doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to do so.
The 1st Amendment doesn’t give the KKK the right to burn a cross on my front lawn. You know why? Because no right is absolute. They have to be balanced with other rights. What chutzpah you have to spout off about the ignorance of others when you don’t even grasp the basics of the discussion.
No one is claiming that it does. However free speech is not the only right that exists.
I certainly wouldn’t do so without examining their argument first. If it actually exists, that is. Can you cite it? I wait with bated breath.
