The 1st Amendment should protect campaign contributions

Great Debates
1

This thread is a spin-off from the flag-burning thread, as suggested by Gaderene.

Buckley v. Valeo found that campaign contributions were a form of free expression, but nevertheless permitted them to be limited. The basis was essentially the USSC saying they think these limits are a good idea, so screw the 1st Amendment. (See a discussion at: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley1.html )

To see the idiocy of the decision, consider the following arguments:

The Court ruled that campaign contributions ARE a kind of speech, but they can be limited nevertheless. Can you imagine the Courts finding a book partially pornographic and ruling that it could be sold, but limiting the number of copies to, say, 1 million copies? If donations are free speech, they shouldn’t be restricted at all.

“The Court found no evidence to support the appellants’ allegations that the contribution limitations discriminated against nonincumbent candidates.” (see cite) So what? There’s nothing in the Constitution about free expression affecting non-incumbents and incumbents differently. (BTW, this finding is also ridiculous. It’s quite obvious that incumbents have a huge advantage, which might be offset by a large amount of money.)

2

**December[/]b, you know very well that there are and have always been limits on free expression. To suggest that because something is a form of speech it cannot be limited is just disingenuous.

Nope. But I can imagine them saying that it cannot be sold to minors.

3

Having invited this thread, december, I’m sorry to say that I’m going to be incommunicado this weekend. Here’s a previous thread, however, in which I make my viewpoint plain. Feel free to respond to anything I say there by quoting it here. I’ll be back Monday.

Again–police power, appearance of impropriety, sanctity of the democratic system (particularly, public confidence therein). And andros is right on.

4

I don’t see this as a bad thing. Any Governmental absolutes are bad policy. Free speech is a principle, that is strongly regarded, and Campaign contributions can easily be regarded as an element of free speech. However allowing it without limit, while supporting the idea of free speech, doesn’t nessasarily favor a good govenrnment.

for example.

  1. Bill Gates says I will write a one-million dollar check to any Senator or Congressman who votes yes on bill ABC-12345.

  2. Bill Gates says I will contribute one million Dollars to the re-election campaingn of any Senator or Congressman who votes yes on bill ABC-12345.

  3. Bill Gates says I will contribute one million Dollars to the general fund of the party of any Senator or Congressman who votes yes on bill ABC-12345.

4.Bill Gates says I will contribute one million Dollars to the general fund of the party of any Senator or Congressman who puts an employee of mine as an advisor for bills like ABC-12345 on their staff.

5.Bill Gates says I will contribute one million Dollars to the general fund of the party of any Senator or Congressman who is willing to have a three day meeting with me on bill ABC-12345 their staff.

  1. Bill Gates says I will I will contribute one million Dollars to the general fund of the party of any Senator or Congressman who I feel represents my interests and has a record of voting for bills like ABC-12345.

  2. One Million Joe Sixpacks say we will each send 10 dollars to to any Senator or Congressman who votes no on bill ABC-12345.

  3. One Million Joe Sixpacks say we will each send 10 dollars to to any Senator or Congressman who we feel represents our interests and has a record of voting against bills like ABC-12345.
    Under an absolute Free Speech system all of those would be allowable, but most people would feel that some, especially number one would be a horrible system of Government. Most people would feel that allowing number 8 is a nessecity of a Democratic form of government.

It’s all shades of grey, different degrees of what is most morally appropriate, and people will all find different places that they feel the threshhold between good representation and bribery takes place. Setting limits is one of the most workable ways to fiddle with the threshhold.

5

That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

At best money can be thought of as Amplification of speech, There is no constitutional right to amplification.

You have the (nearly unfettered) right to say what you want about any candidate. But giving them money is another thing entirely. That can, and should be regulated.

It’s one person one vote, not one dollar one vote. Not regulating campaign contributions would be an equal protection violation.

tj

6

Money talks. However, it does not have 1st Amendment rights.

This crapola is a blatant attempt by the Right to put yet more power in the hands of the wealthy, but seek some sort of intellectual/Constitutional justification for it, rather than just say it out loud “We’re whores!”

7

wolfman, you have given a reasonable argument for the value of limiting campaign contributions. My response is in two main points:

A. Despite these restrictions, huge inequities will always exist.

Most proposed forms of censorship appear to have some value. If an appearance of value can justify censorship, then Freedom of Speech is out the window.

A. Inequities still exist. E.g., media support can be worth more than millions of dollars

–Rush Limbaugh’s enthusiastically supported Bush over Mc Cain. If RL had supported Mc Cain with equal enthusiasm, he’d have been the nominee IMHO
– The NY Times saved Clinton’s ass during the Lewinsky scandal. If the Times had called for his resignation, they would have started a snowball that would have driven him out of office.

– Very rich candidates have enormous advantages, e.g. Jon Corzine or Michael Bloomberg
– Incumbents have enormous advantages
– Third parties have almost no chance. (Note that Ross Perot could spend his fortune on himself, but not on another candidate.)
– Law-breakers have a big advantage. E.g., Clinton’s illegal foreign money couldn’t easily be matched by legal contributions to Republicans
– Soft money is a huge loophole
– AFAIK all state campaign reform plans have had enormous loopholes; they seem impossible to eliminate.

B. Starting with wolfman’s point that freedom of speech is not absolute, I could argue that Flag-burning harms the country, so it’s OK to ban it. I could argue that pornography harms the country, so it’s OK to ban it. Or, certain newspaper opinions are unfair, so they could be banned. Etc., etc. If censorship can be applied just because some of us think that it serves a purpose, then Freedom of Speech doesn’t exist.

8

Money IS speech, according to the USSC.

(same cite as above.)
They allowed a limit on contributions even though “it appeared that the contribution limitations did restrict a particular kind of political speech.”

As for the “amplification” argument, how would we feel if broadcasters couldn’t amplify their opinions through audio-visual electronics? Of course CBS can “amplify” their POV into 50 million homes, so why can’t I amplify my POV by a much smaller amount by buying an ad? Why is it fair that the Wall Street Journal can run a series of editorials blasting Bill Clinton, but Clinton could be prohibited from spending his campaign money to buy an ad refuting the attack?

9

My feelings on this would be less ambivalent if I was sure that first amendment protection applied only to individuals, similar to the way the courts have treated fourth amendment rights. Corporations are not individuals (and neither are labor unions, etc.).

10

December, we need to establish a premise for this. My premise: as much as is humanly possible, the political rights of each individual voter should be equal. It is, or should be, the responsibility of the government to undertake this effort, as it is a reflection of the collective will of those voters.

Ideally, we do not permit that race, creed, etc. shall impact an individual voters political rights. By what justification do you propose to exempt economic status?

11

On gut instinct I like having limits on contributions, but as far as supporting it legally, i run up against a problem. contributions are to re-election campaigns, right? meaning the only reason an elected official would see this money as a benefit to him/his party is that he believes it will help in an election. The money they spend never goes directly to voters, just to convince them. Basically the limits to contribution argument seems to say voters are too stupid to know who to vote for, so we smart people need to make sure they don’t get too many flashy shiny objects distracting them.

Mabye the problem isn’t too much money for the top candidates, but too little money for the rest (can’t get elected if you can’t get heard).

Same argument applies to term limits.

Obviously, a simple answer to this crit would be if too much money for one candidate pushes the other guys message completely out (buys all airtime, ads, etc) but i can’t really think of a realistic situation in which that would happen

12

I just want to point out that the last round of proposed campaign finance reform WOULD HAVE taken away that right in the months preceeding the election.

It would have prohibited advocacy groups from commenting on candidates and their positions.

13

elucidator, I’m glad you wrote this, because it sharpens the points of difference between us. The principle that each citizen should have equal impact on an election certainly sounds reasonable. However, I see three problems with it.

  1. That principle is not in the Constitution. I do not believe we should give up any Constitutional rights to move toward it.

  2. Equality of impact is impossible to achieve, not even approximately. E.g.,
    – No matter how much money some rich person donates, they’ll never have the impact of Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather
    – Many people have no interest in the election, and so will have no impact.
    – Those who don’t commiunicate well will have less impact
    – Those who obey the law and ethics will have less impact than, e.g., those who made big donations in exchange for Presidential pardons.

We could do great harm to other aspects of our system of government, if we strive too hard toward an unattainable goal. Each step toward equality seems to be greater restrictions on freedom of speech. E.g., there are forms that candidates must fill out, before they can speak freely. Ultimately, the only way to have equal impact is to allow NO campaigning and NO free speech by anyone. :frowning:

  1. As a general rule, I prefer the government to regulate elections as little as possible. My POV is this. The government has great power over citizens. They take 40% of my income in taxes. They make laws and regulations which I must obey, or I could be fined, imprisoned or even executed. They require innumerable permits and regulations for me to engage in business. Etc. This power is exercised by elected representatives and by government employees.

This type of governmental power is appropriate, since the US is a representative democracy. Still, my one chance to exert control over the government is by means of elections. If the government also controls the elections, then we citizens have lost our primary source of power.

I know this may sound like theoretical nonsense. However, one area where it applies is the power of incumbents to get re-elected. Limitations on campaign donations is one of many ways in which incumbents protect their elected position. As a practical matter, Americans barely have retained the freedom to oust incumbents in an election.

14

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” Granted, this is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but that seems to me rather a more fundamental document to the matter at hand.

While it may me true that I cannot quote you chapter and verse where it states the above principle, I also take it as “self-evident”. Otherwise, to what end the civil rights struggle, the Voting Rights Act, etc. Is it your contention that these were extraneous indulgences, a debating society moot court writ large? No, sir! They are at the very heart of the set of rights we generally refer to as “Constituional”. The right to vote is the essential of political equality, without it all the other rights are shallow and delicate. If we do not “move towards it”, the rest are not worth having, nor will we keep them long.

In trying to follow the rest of your argument, I feel rather like I am tracking someone in a snowstorm: the footprints are clear enough, but the destination is evasive. You trudge past “the media”, “voter apathy”, stop breifly for a refreshing slam at William Jefferson Clinton, then wander off into something about how a politician has to fill out forms before he can express his political views. You lost me. Entirely. I no longer have any idea where you are going with this. I think maybe you are suggesting, in that final sentence, that only an utter absence of political rights by all will be a state of political equality. On the other hand, it might be a ringing endorsement of states rights. I have no idea.

Then, finally, in your penultimate paragraph, you state my case rather succinctly. Of course, that put me on my guard, this is a slippery character, I says to myself, he is likely lulling me, this could be a ruse.

And finally, snap! he’s got me, I had no idea this discussion was about term limits. All this time, I thought it was about economic as compared to political equality.

Or it might be about the Anti-Masonic party.

I have no idea.

15

The Supreme Court has stated what the law is. That does not mean that what they say is correct or or even a good idea.

Money is not in fact speech. Spoken words are speech. (Written words are press). They are hardly equivilents. If they were, I’d be rich.

Is money necessary to politics. As politics are practiced in this country money is necessary. Otherwise you cannot get the word out. But there certainly is a point where it stops being money and starts being a purchase price for a politician and a smothering of the rights of others to have their views get attention too.

16

Okay, december, so given that you don’t want to restrict campaign donations because you figure it violates freedom of speech. SO, then, what do you support? Would you support public financing of elections?

Or do you think our system of legalized bribery and effective political power proportional to your economic power is just find and dandy the way it is? Talk about a slippery slope…The difference between your slippery slope and ours is we’ve already slid down almost to the bottom of the hill on our slope!

17

This is where the delusion of Constitution-worship can take you.
december devalues political equality merely because it isn’t enshrined in the Holy Writ. He would trade his equal say in how things are run for a guarantee that authorities won’t force him to take some soldiers for roommates or for an exemption from double jeopardy.

He goes on to use the term “representative democracy” with a straight face.

Just my 2sense

18

Campaign contributions, even at face value, serve to be a means of expression. I am very unclear how anyone could possibly say otherwise while living in a market economy and keep a straight face. I suppose the matter could be open to debate, but I fail to see how.

However, in the realm of politics we already have a means of expression: the vote. Allowing campaign contributions gives people more than one vote by allowing them to express themselves more than once.

So the question becomes: which is more important, allowing equal expression in a representative democracy (winks at 2sense) or fostering a system which demands unequal expression.

The choice is simple to me: equal expression. Nix campaign contributions.

19

**erislover seems to be saying that we don’t need full Freedom of Speech; we only need enough Freedom of Speech. His/her position is reasonable; in fact it’s more-or-less what the USSC said in Buckley.

I disagree. I consider it very dangerous for Courts to be deciding that they can limit F of S to some “appropriate amount.” When Speech is a clear and present danger (calling “fire” in a crowded theatre), let’s limit it. When F of S seems like non-optimal policy, let’s protect it.

I totally reject the possibility of erislover’s offered choice of “equal expression”. No such thing is conceivable. I challenge my debating opponents to describe a system that would maintain full equal expression, without totally destroying freedom of the press. How in the world could my expression ever be equal to the owner of the NY Times?

20

Well, admittedly I didn’t elaborate much.

But this isn’t a strict freedom of speech case. They aren’t limiting what one can say, only how one can say it. The difference is important. It is no different than the FCC limits on bandwidth and transmission power in radio and television broadcasting. No one is saying that you can’t express support for the local senator at all (which is all campaign contributions would do as a means of expression), merely that you cannot give them campaign contributions.

Bullshit, man. In a move theater the person in the movie can yell fire with no ill effect. And corporate interests are free to find other channels to use their money to express support, like making commercials, ad campaigns, and so on. I think corporations, as legal entities, should have a means of expressing themselves politically. I don’t think that includes greasing the wheels.

I challenge you to demonstrate that compaign contributions are harmless when the case of corruption is rather clear.

When you cast your vote and the CEO of the NY Times casts his/hers. That’s the whole point.