While the decision may not help my prefered political party as much as it may help others this is a good decision. The aggregate limits basically said “you have a right to free speech but only as much speech as we limit you to.”
If there is anything the 1st amendment should protect it is the ability of an individual to speak as much as they wish.
Do I wish the decision had gone the other way for my own selfish reasons, yes. But overall this was the “right thing” for the court to do so I am happy with the decision.
Wrong…but it takes money to reach a broad audience, the right to publish is also the 1st amendment. What use is political speech if it does not reach an audience?
Are you claiming that there is no cost in the production of books or leaflets? Or are you claiming the 1st only protected the act of speaking or publishing and did not protect the effectiveness of that speech? Would a law that only allowed you to yell in a soundproof room alone be OK?
Note that this case was not about the AMOUNT per se, it was limiting the aggregate number.
So it was OK if you talked about lets say…two topics (or candidates) but arbitrarily culled your ability to speak about other topics.
So after N number topics you were shut up, this is why it did not meet the level of scrutiny applied to these types of laws.
But hey…the rights of others are free to toss away if it furthers our cause right…
Spending money to publish a book is not the same as spending money to elect a candidate. A campaign contribution may be used to pay for an advertisement - or it may be used to pay for a hotel room. Do you see the difference?
Disagreeing over the scope of a right is not the same as “tossing it away”.
Are you seriously claiming that a hotel room is an unreasonable cost and not part of spreading a candidate’s word?
Did you completely forget that the freedom of association is a part of the 1st?
By what method does exercising one right (freedom of association) invalidate or arbitrary limit my ability to associate with another who will speak for me, in a country that is a representative democracy?
So I am only allowed to belong to N number? How is the threshold for N number set? Is there a compelling government interest in quelling my right at this threshold? Why is it good and wholesome below N and evil and “democracy ending” above the N level.
If I am a backer of the SPLC, ACLU, two unions and an environmental club, at which level do I lose my ability to back potential legislators which will fight for my interests? Should I just randomly pick one to ignore each year because it is above N and thus some how invalid political speech or I am just not allowed to associate with another campaign?
How is it not quelling the freedom of association, the press and speech?
For someone complaining that other people are going to get this sent to the pit, you might want to reconsider your tone.
I certainly am not claiming such. That’s why candidates are free to spend as much as they like on hotel rooms.
No, I didn’t. You hadn’t previously raised any arguments regarding freedom of association.
I have no idea what this means.
Or this. Are you referring to the aggregate limits? I agree they’re not a very good idea, but I fail to see how they are linked to freedom of the press or speech. Or freedom of association, for that matter. You can’t just arbitrarily equate money with everything else.
Meh. Of all the ways that billionaires have disproportionate power to affect the political process, the ability to make direct contributions to marginally more individual candidates is small potatoes.
On the law, I don’t think the answers are clear at all. Using corruption as a rationale for restricting funding additional campaigns is a rationale that would not stay cabined to political contributions, I promise you. It’s a path that would eventually haunt us non-billionaires.
OK, so candidates aren’t allowed to associate with others, to raise money, to further their political will. How about unions…are they limited too? Can they not collect money from like minded individuals into a common pool to further their cause?
The fact that you admit that you don’t know what a representative democracy is or how a republic functions means I am wasting my time trying to debate you.
This law was silly…and only those who believe the lefts version of (the birther) narrative seem to parrot the cause.
As a liberal I want our side to understand that the restriction of political speech is fraught with danger. “you have the freedom to talk to N number” of associations is a massively evil and bad law.
But as with most cases that protect core rights the people who tend to win are those people who you don’t really want to be associated with.
But to be clear, the freedom of association/press/speech in the 1st was not codified so that you can open random house and print harry potter books, it was to protect unpopular speech and to prevent the government from trying to suppress views that were counter to it’s current position.
Us, in the left, trying to quell political speech to further our cause is just as evil as the right trying to invoke poll tests again.
Perhaps you can point out where I said they aren’t allowed to associate with others.
The fact that you think commentary like this is appropriate in a debate (not to mention the fact that you are completely misquoting me) means you are wasting your time trying to debate anyone.
I am under the impression that confined and cabined are synonyms.
To expand on my point a little further, I think you have basically three legal paths if you want to restrict campaign contributions: (1) You say money isn’t speech; (2) You say the threat of corruptions outweighs the speech interest; and/or (3) You say there’s some democracy or equality value that outweighs the speech interest.
I don’t think any of those are viable without opening the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate.