Again, you would have to repeal the first amendment to make it illegal. In the scenario I gave you can’t even bring up that tired argument that “giving money isn’t speech” - there is no giving going on. You would blatantly restrict the freedom of an individual to express himself in a newspaper or on TV.
There is spending going on. You and I can express our opinions for free or almost-free on the Intertubes. The Koch Brothers and the Scaife Foundations and such can do a great deal more, because of who they are and what they have; they can speak loudly enough to drown out other voices, and often do, as we see now in Wisconsin. And that ain’t right, and our Founding Fathers would not have approved. The First Amendment would have been drafted very differently if the Information/Advertising Age had been anticipated; therefore it should now be interpreted very differently, and don’t gimme no originalist/textualist bullshit, I’m looking at you, Bricker.
Media outlets will always have the freedom to editorialize, I don’t propose interfering with that. Fox News and MSNBC will still be there, politicizing the news, each in its own way. And they will have the freedom to publish letters to the editor or their electronic equivalent, or not to. And that is enough. “Freedom” should not extend to using your fortune to take over the airwaves with your message.
Where? I am a gazillionaire. I own a billboard company. I put up tens of thousands of billboards all over the country promoting political ideas I like and candidates I like. How would you stop me without trashing the first amendment?
Asked and answered.
Bear in mind that there are democracies, such as France, where such a system as Lind is proposing is in place and works. They remain democracies, and they remain free countries with free speech.
Asked, yes. Certainly not answered.
Nope. They don’t have the first amendment in their constitution or the equivalent. Ours says “congress shall make no law”. Theirs says you can say whatever you want as long as it is not against the law. Quite different. That’s why in France if you say something critical about the government’s policy on illegal drugs, for example, you can and will be punished. Is that the “freedom of speech” you’re advocating?
France ranks high enough on the Democracy Index. Canada ranks higher than the U.S. and I’ve heard many complaints about “free speech” limitations there.
As for punishment of political speech in France, I’ve heard of that in connection with Holocaust-denial (which raises my hackles a bit, but far, far less than our plutocracy does), but a prohibition on criticizing drug policy is a new one to me. Cite, please?
Anybody here watch that debate and remember it differently? (Serious question, I missed it.)
Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:
Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.
We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system. Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).
You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform
Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).
[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).
We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue. Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).
Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate? Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).
The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today. George Washington Plunkett (1905).
Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune. James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).
I missed it too, but it’s not too late to watch it if you’ve got some spare time today.
Not really. Just as a factual point money spent tends to peak about 3 months out. At least on advertising time. Both in my experience as a media guy, a candidate, and as a volunteer in Ohio.
The issue there is that by the time the last few weeks of a campaign arrive all available ad space has been purchased. Options are purchased months in advance and can lock out opponents in the final weeks. Happens in most elections far in advance of E-Day.
Where cash CAN come in handy at the end is in printing. Making sure the volunteers have flyers to put in doors and such. Robocalls (though the capacity for that is limited to a certain extent as well…it can be bought out but it’s expensive to do so) and other forms of one-to-one marketing.
Have there been any first amendment cases successfully won by tobacco companies?
Madison would: “levelling spirit” of man and all that.
a 1970 law prohibits the advocacy of illegal drugs.[1][2]
…
Others express the need for minorities to be protected from hate speech which may lead, according to them, to heinous acts and hate crimes, while still others claim that one can not tolerate free speech concerning drugs as it is a matter of public health and moral order.
An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the “positive presentation of drugs” and the “incitement to their consumption” with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Libération, Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.
…
As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months’ imprisonment.
…
Restrictions on “offending the dignity of the republic”, on the other hand, include “insulting” anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors)
===============================
A veritable beacon of freedom of speech, France, isn’t it?
“Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune.” James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).
OK, I don’t approve of any of that, and I acknowledge you’ve got a point there. However, I think (for reasons stated above) that campaign financing is a distinguishable subject for all purposes, political as well as constitutional. And if the First Amendment does irreducibly get in the way of separating state from checkbook, then we need to amend it; yes, it’s that important. And I say that as one indoctrinated to worship the First Amendment, I was a newspaper reporter once.
Since this subject is much broader than any particular election or election cycle, I have started a GD thread, let’s take it there. Start your engines.
Let him have both of them, luc; I want this one:
That’s the kind of thing that makes you one of my heroes.
Deleted my comment on that.
Do you vote the way you do because of the political advertising you see? Does elucidator? Do you think any of the people who post on political topics on this board do?
If not, then guess what - money neither talks nor votes in our cases.
Not exactly the strongest source.
I’ve also read (internet spectulation) that the indictments won’t be handed down until after the recall election. That’s brutal. If the indictments are indeed, pending, the voters should know about them before the election. If there will be no indictments, rumors of them are unfairly injurious to Walker.
If no action will be taken prior to the election, I would favor the DA making some sort of statement to the effect that the investigation in on-going and no conclusions have been reached.
What should we conclude from this factoid? That money, no matter what the amount, is not corrosive to the democratic process?
Somebody must believe it, or they spend a buttload of money pretending they do.