Our government is corrupt and too driven by donations. We need to limit campaign contributions to $1000, for both individuals and corporations. Also, ban PACs, and lobbyists. America always prides itself on being a democracy. Democracy means government of the people, by the people, for the people, but our government is ruled by billion dollar corporations. Let’s put the emphasis back on all the people, and not just people who can afford bribes.
So will you be repealing the entire First Amendment, then?
Free Speech != bribery. I do think having a free press is also very important.
I want to shell out my own cash to put up a billboard in favor of a particular candidate; will you let me? Will you let me buy a newspaper ad? Bankroll a television commercial? Pay for a radio spot? What would I be allowed to do, in your world?
And yet you want to prevent people from publishing political advocacy, or forming political associations.
Dear constituent:
I like your idea and wish to give it my utmost consideration. Unfortunately unless you can match the donations of all those whose interests are supported by the current system I’m afraid I can’t support this position. Please feel free to contact me again when you have come up with the required capital.
Sincerely,
Congressman Exon Mobile
Define “campaigning”. What if the incumbent attends public events that gets plenty of press-How does the opponent counter this without spending money? How do you stop someone from publically criticizing/praising a candidate?
That’s not what I want to do. People should be allowed to say whatever they want about a candidate.
But, again, can I shell out cash so I can say that stuff on the radio, or on television?
As long as they don’t publish it, or spend money on getting their message out, or say it as part of a group, or say it to the candidate himself or one of his employees.
Should an incumbent stop appearing in public, or stop making publically popular decisions during campaign seasons? If not, how is the opponent supposed to counter this type of campaigning without spending money?
I think the OP should get people organized to send a spokesman to Washington to convince Congress of the merits of this proposal.
Obviously, this individual will be a spokesman, not a lobbyist.
No. I’d go back to the original First Amendment.
The idea that money is a form of speech isn’t in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. It was declared by the court in the Buckley decision in 1976.
I was alive in 1975. We had freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly back then.
No, free speech requires that people have the right to publish and disseminate that speech. Free association means that people have the right to organize around an issue, select people to represent them on that issue, and send those people to talk to their representatives in congress.
I recognize the problems that people who disagree with Citizen’s United are concerned about. I just think their proposed solution is worse. Ideally, we would change the way government works in such a way that while money could freely be spent on politics, its effects wouldn’t be worth it.
Reducing the size and power and influence of government would do just that. Government is a tempting investment for those with money precisely because the return on that investment is so great. Rather than limiting the amount that can be invested, I would support limiting the potential gains that investment could return.
Do you think “the press” works for free?
Can you quote the part of the decision that said “money is a form of speech”? My copy of Buckley v. Valeo seems to be missing that section.
I heartily agree. I have no great love for lobbyists or those who otherwise spend fortunes promoting their agenda. But as long as power is concentrated there will be people doing their damnedest to get close to it. I support the sentiment of “get the money out of politics,” but there’s always going to be many smart people whose job it is to find ways around any restrictions put in place. If donations are limited, then they’ll donate to multiple similar groups. If a candidate can’t receive money, then they’ll just receive various other perks. I simply don’t think any set of rules can be crafted that won’t be circumvented or bent to one group’s advantage. The only real solution is to make it so that lobbyists’ efforts are best spent elsewhere, and that means reducing the amount of influence that can be peddled.
Taking money out of politics is like taking bulls out of the rodeo.
Reducing the power of the government to reduce the reach of private power is an option. It’s probably the best logic the right has to convince someone on the left to drown the government in the bath tub. The only problem is that we saw what happened when the government was too weak to rein in private power. There’s also the problem that free market capitalism is in Bigfoot territory and it’s not clear how many would really appreciate getting rid of the shield that is state capital. So many sectors depend on the state protecting them from the destructive forces of the free market. This is how modern economies are run.
AFAIK, there’s not a lot of evidence that publicly funded elections change things much. It seems to be more of a bromide of the left, hoping against hope to fix the rigged game from the outside. But that’s something else you could try.
I have to ask: are all those posting sarcastic comments trying to say that they don’t think the above statement is true? Or are they saying that they like it that way?
That is just so profoundly wrong in my view. It’s so axiomatic that it seems ridiculous to have make the statement that government is an essential institution because it’s the only legitimate representative of the people’s interests. If this vital institution has fallen into the wrong hands, it seems unspeakably wrong-headed to then cripple the institution itself. What are you left with then? An unchallenged corporatocracy. It doesn’t solve the problem – worse, it undermines the only possible solution to the problem.
How about the set of rules that work in political systems that don’t seem to have that problem?
In the present situation, the government is largely controlled by corporations and the wealthy oligarchy. In your “solution”, corporations and the wealthy oligarchy effectively become the government. There would not even be the pretext of a people’s authority to limit their power. They could form monopolies without limit, engage in unlimited profiteering and price-fixing collusion, sell unsafe and shoddy products, rob investors blind, and destroy the last vestiges of social institutions. It would be like the glory days of the early industrial revolution and the robber barons, only better! The only thing that prevents those abuses, while providing the services essential to a healthy society, is a strong and vigilant government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Money is not speech, but it is an essential prerequisite. Even the most basic form of political speech requires it, because even word of mouth requires that you spend money to transport yourself to within shouting distance of the recipient.
Not only that, but money is an essential prerequisite to modern life, which is itself an essential prerequisite to speech. It’s why you get these fucking internet lynch mobs who work to ruin the livelihoods of people who disagree with them.