Not as was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which would presumably be Thomas’ reference point.
You must not have read to the end of that column.
It’s perfectly clear that Evil Captor is using the phrase in the manner described here, which Cecil approves of. The fact that a lower-spending candidate’s winning is considered exceptional (and therefore newsworthy) proves that the general rule is that the higher-spending candidate usually wins.
That’s not to say he’s correct, I think the jury is still out, as far as I know. (I’m not inclined to take Freakonomics as the last word on anything, nor any single study reported by media, though it’s an interesting datum.) But he does have a cogent point, which you missed.
You state this as if it is settled. I don’t agree. A lot of people argue that incorporation was the intent of the 14th Amendment at the time of drafting. And that the Slaughterhouse Cases were simply wrongly decided.
Points to Alan Smithee’s post. “What he said.”
While I am in agreement with you in suspecting Freakonomics cites, to be fair to Shodan, much as it pains me, what we have is my unsupported word against an actual study cited by Shodan. However dubious, it’s better than my unsupported word. The thing is, even Freakonomics appears to concede a general tendency for the more well-financed campaign to win, their argument is that winning campaigns begets money. They are saying that we are confusing the cause with the effect. This seems dubious on the face of it: generally, funding of campaigns precede the elections.
No, I did not.
Cecil’s point (or his correspondent’s point, which Cecil accepts) was that in law, the enunciation of certain exceptions shows that those are the only exceptions in the law: when a general principle is stated, followed by exceptions A, B, and C, we cannot somehow infer exception D also exists, because we know that the drafters intended to create specific exceptions and no others:
That’s not at all a concept that would apply to Evil Captor’s argument. His argument would be strongest if no under-financed candidate had ever won an election. Each subsequent example of one winning weakens his argument. There is never a case of one exception “proving the rule” he would have us adopt. No exceptions is his best case. One exception weakens his claim a bit. Two exceptions weakens it a bit more, and so forth.
And Shodan’s citation appears to provide more than two.
It’s the fact that they ARE exceptions that proves the rule. Don’t you remember the huge fuss that was made over Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina’s losses in the last election when they were so very, very, very well funded? I’ll concede to Shodan’s cite, but not your argument.
What was the fuss? I remember stories about how that funding couldn’t overcome a massive Democratic registration advantage. Not much more than that.
Proof of the above - Democrats have a 13-point registration advantage over Republicans.
That’s only true if you accept the premise that an infringement occurred. As I’ve posted, helping one person to speak does not infringe on other people’s speech.
I could see where it could be seen as infringing. If the money a candidate raises is related to how much support they have, both in depth of support (big donations) and width of support (lots of donations), then giving more money to someone with less support would seem to be creating extra noise in the signal. This assumes that the more people that support a candidate, the more money they can raise, which is not necessarily true.
Would the addition of speaker systems producing a white noise hiss in protest zones be an infringement of speech?
It’s Alabama in the Deep South in 1955. The people of the state have decided that white candidates for office get $10,000 in subsidies. Black candidates get nothing.
There’s been no infringement of the right of black candidates to free speech, nor any infringement of their right to campaign for public office. Right?
Regards,
Shodan
I think his point is that this law offers everyone the money. That notwithstanding, I’m speaking in the abstract regarding Justice Thomas, not about this specific law.
Wrong. That’s pretty much the exact situation I described as being a clear rights violation.
So explain it to me: in what way does the existence of an exception prove the rule?
If there were no exceptions, would the rule be disproved?
If there were MORE exceptions, would the proof for the rule be stronger or weaker?
Wrong. Compensating for a disadvantage is not creating an advantage.
Now, can you tell us why, in the competition of ideas that is a campaign, ideas pushed by a candidate that has much more money, and hence more ability to get those ideas communicated, should have that advantage? And why, in the interests of democracy and the free market of ideas, that advantage should not be compensated for in any way?
If you’re right, then it means that the result of an election will be mostly dependant on whom can raise the most money, rather than whom well informed voters would elect.
Which would be why people have a problem with not leveling the playing field.
I have a problem with “leveling the playing field” because I don’t see how it can be squared with the Constitution.
Imagine a marginal party with no hope of electoral victory. This may even be a racist or extremist party. It would get little support in a normal electoral scheme, in a system where they were granted per voter matching funds they would get a few dollars from the state. But with this scheme the success of their opponents’ message would guarantee them a level of political funding they did not earn - paid for by people who did not support that message at all.
Let’s remember that the First Amendment includes many rights - among these is a right to free association. This right cannot be guaranteed if your political activity (that is, normal donations to candidates you support) is subverted by the government based solely on that support into contributions to politicians you oppose.
The “government” didn’t force this idea on anyone. This law was enacted as a voter initiative. It was the people of Arizona who wanted this law. So they have no problem with their money being spend this way.
Are laws permitted to be unconstitutional if they are passed as voter initiatives?
You are correct - I missed that part. Your position is consistent, although not (IMO) valid.
Change the scenario - it is now Alabama in 2011. The White Separatist Party can only raise $14.82, whereas the Democrats have raised millions. Is the taxpayer now obliged to subsidize the WSP, or are we going to pick and choose which parties get the goodies and which are SOL?
Regards,
Shodan