Could you be a bit more specific about the parade of horribles you foresee? I am generally willing to bow to your wisdom on this sort of thing but it feels like you’re operating very much on a hunch here.
The quote was complete and unedited.
Maybe you did not read the decision.
So here is your chance.
How is a arbitrary limit on the number of campaigns that you can contribute to…thus associate with not a restriction of the righe right of association? And how does the that limit not quell the right to collectively persue those goals?
The state failed to convey a state interest in doing so except to restrict access to the political system.
Voting is a right though case law. How does a limited number of campaigns you can support effect the right to vote?
Same way a law against prostitution isn’t.
I don’t see how “money isn’t speech” would open that door.
I love how my phone is remembering my typos.
Flesh this one out please I am not following your line of reason here.
The “money isn’t speech” argument is fundamentally flawed and can be discounted as rhetoric. Effective “speech” requires the expenditure of money so restrictions on spending quelled speech.
But that doesn’t seem to be as good of a sound bite.
Which constitutional provision guarantees the freedom of “effective speech”? How does one guarantee “effective speech”?
I was referring to this:
That was you misquoting me. I said nothing even remotely resembling either of those statements.
Can you not see the difference between “quelling” speech and allowing speech to be overwhelmed?
The progressive candidate gets one of those conical megaphones they used to use in the 20’s. The ruling class candidate rolls up in a million dollar tour bus with Marshall amps and Godzilla speakers that can be heard in the next county.
That’s fair because they are both “free speech”? You kidding?
Well, let’s not do the dumb arguments again that we heard in the wake of Citizens United. There is no drowning out effect. We do not need to stop some people from speaking so that others can be heard. There is no finite amount of speech such that rich people can buy it all, leaving us with none. I speak on this discussion board just fine despite Sheldon Adelson.
The freedom of the press…to publish for one. But you are conflating the issues. The reason that this decision was made was there was no compelling state interest in to restrict a fundamentally right. The state can not place arbitrary restrictions on a fundamental right without one.
That is not a misquote… Were you thinking of a strawman?
It is not even that. To elect a candidate that will further your interests you need to join an association to help get them elected. This process requires resources to win that election. Part of " spreading the word" may require travel and thus a hotel.
I stand by my claim of your missunderaning of the process.
“Right of association” does not apply to commerce. Buying a whore is commerce, and so is buying a candidate or a party or an election.
No this is exactly why this issue is important. Under this law a group of teachers who pool their resources would have to be selective in the causes they supported. Where as single issue interests could amass large numbers of individual donations. The Gates foundation would be restricted and the NRA could always outspend them.
But one again. The fact that protecting fundamental rights may be more advantageous to a cause that is counter to your wishes is not a good reason to violate fundimental rights.
OK I was giving your argument way too much credit.
How did thus law…which restricted the number of candidates you supported relate to this or the right to vote as you claimed before?
This seemed to be nothing more than a red herring
That argument does not answer my question to Richard Parker, which is, if the SCOTUS did rule that money != speech, how would that “open the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate”? This matter is, after all, not symmetrical as between left and right; the right has a lot more money behind it.
As for your argument, it is refuted well enough below. From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):
They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.
From the same book, pp. 311-313:
“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.
FWIW, some 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).
Of course there is, as between competing messages. What is finite is not the speakers’ speech but the voters’ attention. It works the same way in commercial advertising, doesn’t it? Even with an inferior product, you can probably outsell your competitor if your advertising budget is bigger.
Each legal course has a different parade. But let me paint a plausible picture for you.
Imagine there’s a major terrorist attack perpetrated by, I don’t know, Estonians. In the wake of the attack, Congress passes legislation that says you can no longer donate to entities doing charitable work in Estonia promoting breast cancer awareness because there’s too high a risk that the funds will aid or end up in the hands of shadowy Estonian radicals. Or, if you prefer, imagine a Tea Party Congress and President Rubio decide to outlaw private donations to organizations that promote comprehensive sex education in Mexico.
In a world in which money is not speech (or association), you have no protected First Amendment interest in funding these organizations. I think that’s a big problem.
And lest you think this is entirely fanciful, it’s not. The first scenario above concerning the Estonians is essentially what the Bush Administration tried to do with the material support statutes in the wake of 9/11. Most of the First Amendment challenges were ultimately rejected (in split decisions), but the issue is live and evolving. Declaring that money is not speech would critically wound the effort to fight back against overbroad material support laws.
Those are examples outside the world of politics, but other examples in that world also demonstrate the point. If Congress can forbid a group of citizens from pooling their money into a legal organization and airing a movie denouncing Hilary Clinton right before an election, then Congress can forbid Comedy Central from ridiculing Sarah Palin right before an election.
Now, if you want to try to confine your “money is not speech” rationale solely to political contributions to candidate for office, you need to add some other justification, like corruption. That’s a different path with a different parade of horribles. But they are equally horrible. Allowing a generic corruption rationale to trump admitted speech is also a nasty can of worms.
One thing I’m interested in (and it’s been touched on by a few posts in this very thread, but I’d like more detail) is a specific outlaying by conservatives of why they don’t believe (as liberals do) that loosening/eliminating campaign contribution laws essentially allows the rich to buy elections/government pawns.
I think #2 and #3 get hard to define. I’m all for #1, especially because in the Internet era, money really isn’t speech. People can build up followings online without needing any money to do so, if they’ve got something to say that strikes a chord with people.
What money allows you to do is skip the step of having to build a following.
I don’t see how defining speech to exclude money would bother a liberal. I think it would encourage small-d democracy, whatever point on the political compass it comes from. I don’t mind that teabaggers can get their word out; the problem is when the Koch brothers are essentially using them as Astroturf.
When corrected for popularly, which tends to increase donations, there is little evidence that spending is an effective way to win an election for a candidate.
Nor is there evidence that individuals giving small amounts to a varying number of candidates increased corruption. If this had been shown the decision may have gone the other way.
This law was an attempt to stack the deck in the favor of particular interests and it did so by violating a fundimental right.
I am not happy with what the potential impact of this decision is. However it was the correct decision.