# The 1st Amendment should protect campaign contributions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2001, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446 "2001-10-19T16:22:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/21 "2001-10-20T20:14:26Z")
I agree with December. The right to raise money for a political cause you believe in, to pay for advertisements to support your cause, and to organize into action committes to fund candidates is the _essense_ of free speech. The constitution supports free speech not because it recognizes some fundamental value in being able to pee on a stage for money (as Annie Sprinkle did, and which was allowed because of the 1st amendment), but because it recognized that free speech is required to allow for POLITICAL dissent. Campaign finance laws squelch political speech, which is the worst possible thing you can do. I’m all for disclosure laws, so that we can see who is supporting the various candidates, but making it illegal to spend money in support of a principle you believe in is wrong. Also, it’s counter-productive. Incumbents always have an advantage over non-encumbants. Taking away the ability for new people to outspend the incumbents helps to entrench the status quo. That’s why campaign finance has so much support in Washington. The only reason they all don’t support it is because there is some worry that it will benefit one party more than another. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/22 "2001-10-20T22:30:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > …but making it illegal to spend money in support of a principle you believe in is wrong. Ah, if only that was the effect of curtailing campaign finance contributions! Corporations would still be free to express their political views. The form that would take would not include giving campaign set-ups money. Not too difficult, don’t you think? I, for example, think that criminals imprisoned for drug use is wrong. I am not legally permitted to break them out of jail to make my point. Am I being prohibitted from expression of the idea? ---
**Author:** ![dunne\_u.wurrie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@dunne\_u.wurrie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dunne_u.wurrie)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/23 "2001-10-21T07:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. > \*\* December, these appear to be contradictory statements. Are you for limiting F of S when there is a “clear and present danger”? If so, then you seem to be philosophically in agreement with the Supreme Court. For the court sees the “clear and present danger” in unrestricted freedom of expression, which include scenarios itemized by Wolfman. Are you not in favor of any restrictions on freedom of expression? Then, must you not allow for the ugliest items on Wolfman’s list to occur? ---
**Author:** ![someone\_else](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@someone\_else](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone_else)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/24 "2001-10-21T19:23:59Z")
Yeah, so institutionalizing and reinforcing the means by which the wealthy have political influence is apparently a good thing. The logic behind this beautiful notion is that, well, we’re gonna be unequal anyway, so we might as well get rid of the mechanisms that try in some way to protect equality. **December** , this argument is pretty funny. What society has determined is that freedom and equality are two different things, two often opposed things, that must therefore be kept in some sort of balance. Limiting campaign contributions is a means to achieve this balance, by aiming at some equality of _right_–that is, equality of the right to have an influence on the political process. It is incredibly important that we distinguish between this concept and the concept of equality of _result_. If you feel inclined, you can challenge the idea of equality of right, but I don’t think you’ll have much support in doing so. So what if the Publisher of the New York Times, or Bill Gates, or whoever, has more influence than me, no matter what legal means exist to mitigate this imbalance? This fact should not lead one to conclude that we should remove these means. I like the fact that Gates cannot contribute more than a certain amount; even if it doesn’t make him and me equal per say, it gets closer to that goal. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/25 "2001-10-21T20:40:45Z")
If this thread shows anything, it is the value-laden nature of any decision made by the Supreme Court. **December** , as a result of either naivety about this, or maybe simply because it makes his/her argument stronger, chooses to see _some_ Supreme Court decisions as unproblematic, while deriding others as a violation of the first amendment. For example, the OP stated: > [@](#): > > 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. > > 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. And, in a later post replying to a critic, reiterated: > [@](#): > > Money IS speech, according to the USSC. So you are willing you accept as unproblematic one part of the Supreme Court’s decision (i.e. that money is speech), but then to criticize the subsequent part (it can be limited) on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment. In terms of internal coherence, your argument makes a certain amount of sense. **IF** money is speech, then there is a certain argument to be made for not limiting the way in which it can be used. But you have still failed to address the point made by **andros** at the very beginning of the thread, which was that: > [@](#): > > Nope. But I can imagine them saying that it [pornography] cannot be sold to minors. Nor have you taken up the distinction made by **erislover** on the difference between the content of speech and the method of its delivery. Your whole post _assumes_ what many others on this thread refuse to take for granted - that when the Supreme Court defined money as speech they were correct. And what about libel laws? Surely these also put a limit on freedom of expression. Are you in favour of them or against them? And what is your opinion of the sedition laws passed by congress at various important moments in American history? They were often used for little more than locking up people who disagreed with government policy. You are quite happy to refer to the Constitution’s lack of reference to the need for equality in elections, but do not mention the fact that **no part** of the Constitution equates money with speech. You might possibly make the argument that the Constitution needs to be re-examined in light of new technology etc. (and i would agree with you on that), but money was around in the late 18th century, and if the framers felt that money was speech, surely they would have referred to it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Are you a Constitutional absolutist, or aren’t you? You seem to want to have it both ways. I have always considered myself a free speech absolutist, but i’m afraid i have to take a different view than **erislover** in my attitude to money as speech. Despite the fact that we live in a society where money plays such an important role, the handing over of cash (or cheque or whatever) is **not** just freedom of expression. In fact, there are many instances when people hand money over in direct conflict with their political and social beliefs. For some, this is when they give their taxes to the government. When i pay money for my groceries, i’m not making a political expression, but simply succumbing to what is, in effect, a level of coercion. I live in a city so i can’t grow my own vegetables; paying for them reflects my lack of choice in this area of my life. I’m not really complaining about it, because i’m not much of a gardener anyway, but to equate spending with expression is simply to fall into the trap that everything can be assigned a specific monetary value. Now, **erislover** ’s point still needs addressing on a more practical level. It seems to me that if we are going to discuss whether or not money is speech in the context of campaign contributions, we have to look beyond the fact that handing money to someone might reflect an opinion on particular or general issues. The money itself does not express and idea or an opinion. It might be presented to help advance a particular opinion, but the transaction itself, and the money involved, should not, **in my opinion** , be considered speech. The fact that **december** simply assumes that they should, and argues from this unchallenged asumption, is a fundamental problem with the OP on this thread. Also, if we extend **erislover** ’s logic, then an attempt on the life of the President by someone who disagreed with his politics should also be considered a form of speech or expression. If money can be a vehicle for ideas, then surely a bullet can as well? Yet we are all (including me - i’m no fan of assassination) happy to subsume this type of expression under laws regarding murder, attempted murder, assault etc. Why not just place campaign contributions under the laws that govern bribery of public officials? After all, **if** such contributions are speech, then what are they saying surely includes the words “i’m giving you this money so you will legislate in my favour once you are elected.” Sounds like a bribe to me. I think that **erislover** and i come to the same conclusion from somewhat different premises. I think that erislover makes a key point here: > [@](#): > > 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. The key point here is that banning campaign contributions does not limit your ability to express support for your candidate. In fact, it may actually increase your individual level of support, because in the absence of a system of legalised bribery, you might actually have to go out and campaign for your candidate, and actually talk to people and try to concvince them of the value of the policies that you support. This is freedom of expression at its best. I suppose a final question i would leave for **december** goes back to the point i was making at the beginning of this post about the Supreme Court. That is: **If** the Supreme Court had come straight out and said that money IS NOT speech, and that campaign contributions could be limited or even banned by Congress, would you have accepted this as a valid decision? If the answer is ‘yes’, then even though i disagree with your argument i will concede that you show a certain consistency. If the answer is ‘no’, then this whole thread smacks of hypocrisy, given your apparent willingness to accept the Supreme Court’s initial decision as the whole basis for your argument. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/26 "2001-10-21T20:57:19Z")
To all that say “Money is not speech”: this isn’t about limitng money . This about limiting speech. The money in question is being used to buy speech. Outlawing the purchased of speech and then saying “Hey, money isn’t speech” is as disengenuous as outlawing the use of cars to transport oneself to a political demonstration and then saying “Hey, cars aren’t speech”. elucidator > [@](#): > > “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” Yes, **created** equal. Note that it does not say **guaranteed** equal. You are proposing that not only should everyone start off equal, but they should stay equal, and anyone who dares achieve more power than another should be prosecuted. > [@](#): > > Otherwise, to what end the civil rights struggle, the Voting Rights Act, etc. They were about equality of **opportunity**. You’re talking about equality of **result**. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > 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. No it’s not. “You can’t type any statement against the President in capital letters” is just as much an abridgement of F of S as “You may not criticize the President”. > [@](#): > > It is no different than the FCC limits on bandwidth and transmission power in radio and television broadcasting. No, that is a completely different issue. In the FCC case, the argument is that airwaves are a public resource. Campaign contributions are not a public resource. > [@](#): > > 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), No, campaign contributions aren’t just a way of expressing support for the local senator. > [@](#): > > merely that you cannot give them campaign contributions. Which is an abridgement of F of S. > [@](#): > > Bullshit, man. In a move theater the person in the movie can yell fire with no ill effect. Wow. Rude and a nonsequitor at the same time. What does that have to do with anything? > [@](#): > > And corporate interests are free to find other channels to use their money to _express support_, like making commercials, ad campaigns, and so on. All of which are forms of campaign contributions. So not only is your arguent irrelevant, it’s wrong as well. > [@](#): > > I think corporations, as legal entities, should have a means of expressing themselves politically. I don’t think that includes greasing the wheels. Unless “greasing the wheels” became a technical term while I wasn’t looking, what this means is “I think speech should allowed, except for speech I don’t like”. > [@](#): > > I challenge you to demonstrate that compaign contributions are harmless when the case of corruption is rather clear. I challenge you to find any form of speech that is completely harmless. I challenge you to actually answer december’s points instead of constructing straw men. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > How in the world could my expression ever be equal to the owner of the NY Times? > > When you cast your vote and the CEO of the NY Times casts his/hers. That’s the whole point. [/quote] No, the whole point is that that vote is not the only opportunity for expression. Unless you are proposing making it illegal to express any opinion on a political matter beyond voting for or against it, your position is ridiculous. It is as if you were to see one man with no money, and another with a million dollars, and you give them each one dollar and say “There. Now you’re equal.” How does that work? How does their having equality **in one small area** mean that they are equal? > [@](#): > > I, for example, think that criminals imprisoned for drug use is wrong. I am not legally permitted to break them out of jail to make my point. Am I being prohibitted from expression of the idea? No. Why would you be? dunne u. wurrie > [@](#): > > For the court sees the “clear and present danger” in unrestricted freedom of expression, which include scenarios itemized by Wolfman. How can you claim that there is “clear and present danger” in a situation that has existed since the beginning of the nation and, in all that time, has not lead to the downfall of democracy? someone\_else > [@](#): > > Limiting campaign contributions is a means to achieve this balance, by aiming at some equality of right–that is, equality of the right to have an influence on the political process. It is incredibly important that we distinguish between this concept and the concept of equality of result. Yes, this is important, and you have failed to do so. Everyone has the same right to influence the political process. I have just as much a right to spend a billion dollars on politics as Bill Gates. The only difference is the **result** : I am not capable of taking advantage of this right, while Bill Gates is. That does not mean that Bill Gates has a right I lack. > [@](#): > > If you feel inclined, you can challenge the idea of equality of right, but I don’t think you’ll have much support in doing so. That’s exactly what you’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/27 "2001-10-21T21:47:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **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.** The Ryan and Sam Stone have done a great job of answering various objecitons. I’ll just add a couple of points. 1. I disagree with the statement which I underlined. Note that McCain Feingold DOES eplicitly limit the type of speech one can use. For a certain period before an election, an organization like Planned Parenthood would be restricted in the way they run ads supporting por-choice candidates, but they’d be free to run unlimited ads selling their services. So, content would determine what level of restriction applies. Under the current law, I can make unlimited soft money donations, but only $1000 IIRC hard money donations. Both types will substantially be used for advertising. Again, content determines how much freedom of speech is permitted. 1. I will repeat the challenge to describe some cenceptual, theoretical sturcture that permits roughly equalit of impact. I assert that none such exists, and campaign finance reform is chasing a will 'o the wisp. (However, it’s great for incumbants, and it probably helps Dems more than Reps.) ---
**Author:** ![someone\_else](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@someone\_else](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone_else)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/28 "2001-10-22T00:42:44Z")
**The Ryan** : We’re talking here about what should be constitutionally protected. Your logic flows like this: 1. Money is used to buy speech. 2. Spending money politically is exercising free speech. 3. Everyone should be able to exercise free speech. 4. Point #3 is mitigated only by clear and present danger laws, which do not apply in this case. 5. Therefore, people should be able to contribute however much money they want politically. We’re agreed that freedom should also be contingent upon equality of that freedom. And what you say is that limiting contributions does not translate into equality of right; it translates into equality of result. You therefore defend the idea that someone’s political influence should be a direct function of their accruance of wealth. However, the very idea of equality of political right is to mitigate the influence of the socially and economically powerful upon politics–that is to say, the power that the wealthy wield in private life should not translate into power in the political realm. The reason is that politics affects all of us equally. There is little consensus on governmental control over people’s private lives (whence the socialist/capitalist divisions); however, in America there’s a rather strong tradition that equality of influence in politics must be maintained, or at least strived after. Of course, it will even with enforced limits on contributions, since rich people can make the maximum contribution at all, and I can’t. In Athens, democracy was based on the idea that within the Assembly, a fisherman had the same voice as a wealthy aristocrat; the state of affairs outside the Assembly was another matter entirely. You fail to make this distinction, arguing that someone’s public influence should be a function of their private power. This is undemocratic. I remain faithfully yours, Someone Else ---
**Author:** ![someone\_else](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@someone\_else](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone_else)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/29 "2001-10-22T00:46:30Z")
Sorry, I screwed up and the site won’t let me edit the post: “Of course, it will even with enforced limits on contributions, since rich people can make the maximum contribution at all, and I can’t.” This makes no grammatical sense and should be changed to: “Of course, there will be inequality of influence even with enforced limits on contributions, since rich people can make the maximum contribution and I can’t.” Someone Else. ---
**Author:** ![dunne\_u.wurrie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@dunne\_u.wurrie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dunne_u.wurrie)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/30 "2001-10-22T00:53:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > > dunne u. wurrie > > > [@](#): > > > > For the court sees the “clear and present danger” in unrestricted freedom of expression, which include scenarios itemized by Wolfman. > > How can you claim that there is “clear and present danger” in a situation that has existed since the beginning of the nation and, in all that time, has not lead to the downfall of democracy? > \*\* Quite simply, by recognizing that this (“leading to the downfall of democracy”) is not the only criterion for establishing a “clear and present danger.” There are many “clear and present dangers” which will not lead to the downfall of democracy. But, if you must, feel free to re-read my post, substituting the term “problem” for the term “clear and present danger.” Then, please, feel free to address the point made therein. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/31 "2001-10-22T01:25:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dunne u. wurrie \* > Are you for limiting F of S when there is a “clear and present danger”? If so, then you seem to be philosophically in agreement with the Supreme Court. For the court sees the “clear and present danger” in unrestricted freedom of expression, which include scenarios itemized by Wolfman. Yes, I’m for limiting F of S when, and only when, there’s clear and present danger. Of course this standard is subject to interpretation. E.g., some might think that electing Pat Buchanan as President was a clear and present danger. Of course, it’s no such thing. It’s not “present” – the danger would be months in the future. It’s not even clear. It’s merely my political opinion that he’d be a poor choice. Similarly, I don’t see unrestricted campaign contirbutions as a “clear and present danger.” **duw** – you seem to be saying that the USSC specifcally found that unregulated hard money donations do constitute a C&PD. I’d be interested in seeing a cite or their exact quote on this topic. > [@](#): > > Are you not in favor of any restrictions on freedom of expression? Then, must you not allow for the ugliest items on Wolfman’s list to occur? Yes, I’m afraid so. In the real world, they’re unavoidable, anyhow. AFAIK every attempt at campaign finance reform has left loopholes where those who wanted to buy influence could do so. To name just a few, – PAC’s – Soft Money – the huge, huge power of media – illegal contributions – sweetheart stock tips – money laundering via the options market – Presidential library donations – contributions of work effort, as is sometimes done by union members – the powers of incumbancy IMHO there’s no conceivable way to even the playing field. In particular, the most powerful group are media, who are rich and also control access to the public. Restrictions on donations do make the rich less powerful, but they make the media even more powerful. E.g., if Planned Parenthood advertisements are restricted, then Rush Limbaugh’s inflence becomes all the greater. I’ve challenged **duw** and those agreeing with him/her to describe even conceptually a system where we all have roughly equal political influence. So far, none of you has made an attempt. ---
**Author:** ![someone\_else](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@someone\_else](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone_else)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/32 "2001-10-22T01:31:12Z")
**december** , the issue is not whether a system of true equality of influence is conceivable. It isn’t. The issue is what the justice sytem, as the expression of traditional democratic principles and the rule of law, can do to try to mitigate the huge differences that exist between people in their influence. Our system may not be perfectible, but it is improvable, and the Supreme Court judgment is an attempt at doing so. Someone Else ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/33 "2001-10-22T01:42:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by someone\_else \* > \*\ ***december** , the issue is not whether a system of true equality of influence is conceivable. It isn’t. The issue is what the justice sytem, as the expression of traditional democratic principles and the rule of law, can do to try to mitigate the huge differences that exist between people in their influence. Our system may not be perfectible, but it is improvable, and the Supreme Court judgment is an attempt at doing so. > > Someone Else \*\* Yes, SE, I agree with you that the USSC agreed that the restrictions they approved in Buckley constituted a significan improvement. But, were they right? E.g., those restrictions didn’t stop Bill Clinton from selling a pardon to a drug kingpin and selling pardons to Hassidic Jews in exchange for votes for Hillary. They didn’t stop big donations from the PRC. They didn’t stop the Vermont milk farmers from getting the government to keep the price of milk up. Can you show that there really have been improvements due to limitations on donations? (I think even the proponents of limitations would say they have failed; that’s why they wnat more limitations. This is the kind of reasoning that made Vietnam such a “success”) Can you demonstrate that limitations on donations really have created a better govrnment? ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/34 "2001-10-22T02:31:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*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! \*\* Keep in mind that **december** is self-admittedly upper middle class if not in fact wealthy. _Of course_ he thinks that political power should be proportional to wealth :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![someone\_else](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@someone\_else](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone_else)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/35 "2001-10-22T03:56:48Z")
December: More to the point, can you argue that getting rid of the currently existing restrictions would improve the equality of the political system? If you support more limits, your analysis is valid. If you would rather get rid of limits altogether, which is what you’ve been in favour of so far, your analysis fails. Anyway, you seem fairly certain that the restrictions do work in some way: “Restrictions on donations do make the rich less powerful” So on logic as well as evidence, your point is moot. Someone Else ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/36 "2001-10-22T04:03:03Z")
Hold it, guys. The effect of campaign finance IS to make political power proportional to wealth, because it doesn’t prevent private citizens from spending their own wealth on their own campaign. So Steve Forbes and Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg won’t have to worry about competition from you rabble rousers, because the only way you can outspend them is to raise money through political action committees, and those will be subject to campaign finance laws. So Bill Gates can spend a zillion dollars of his own money to advertize for the new “All Microsoft Party”, but if you think he’s wrong, you won’t be able to do much about it. And of course, incumbents don’t need to spend as much money as challengers because they have name recognition, a ‘free’ party structure to get their message across, and free access to the media. So any laws that limit how much money can be spent in elections will benefit the incumbent. Then there is one of the major objections Republicans had, which was that campaign finance reform (at least in its original form) didn’t limit campaign spending by trade unions, which gave the Democrats an unfair advantage. ---
**Author:** ![dunne\_u.wurrie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@dunne\_u.wurrie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dunne_u.wurrie)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/37 "2001-10-22T06:52:34Z")
[QUOTE] [ **duw** – you seem to be saying that the USSC specifcally found that unregulated hard money donations do constitute a C&PD. I’d be interested in seeing a cite or their exact quote on this topic. Well, December, you got me there. The use of the phrase “clear and present danger” was based on a lack of understanding, so was ill-advised. Please accept my humble apologies. The decision refers not to a “clear and present danger,” but to “the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process” against “the reality or appearance of improper influence…” [http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley1.html](http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley1.html) My point, which still stands, BTW, is that without restriction of FOS, we end up with unlovable scenarios, as you admit here: > [@](#): > > Are you not in favor of any restrictions on freedom of expression? Then, must you not allow for the ugliest items on Wolfman’s list to occur? “Yes, I’m afraid so. In the real world, they’re unavoidable, anyhow.” “Can you demonstrate that limitations on donations really have created a better govrnment?” “Can you show that there really have been improvements due to limitations on donations?” - December No, no more than you can prove the opposite. “(I think even the proponents of limitations would say they have failed; that’s why they wnat more limitations. This is the kind of reasoning that made Vietnam such a “success”)”- December If by this “kind of reasoning,” you mean, “don’t leave the job half-finished,” I agree. It is also the kind of reasoning that made the Bill of Rights such a success, in that the Founding Fathers didn’t stop after the 3rd Amendment. So to sum up: We agree that there are loopholes in the present system. We disagree on whether it is worth even trying to correct this problem. We agree that the present system limits FOS. We disagree on whether this limitation is desirable, in comparison to the alternative. Did I miss any points of contention? Must go to bed now. See you tomorrow. And SAM, the problems you mention only describe the system as it is presently constructed. Nothing contained in your post looks like an unsolvable problem. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/38 "2001-10-22T07:07:57Z")
**December** wrote: > [@](#): > > I’ve challenged **duw** and those agreeing with him/her to describe even conceptually a system where we all have roughly equal political influence. So far, none of you has made an attempt. Well, first of all, it is not necessary to describe some ideal system in order to argue that the system we have can possibly be made **more** equitable through legislation such as campaign finance reform. As **Someone\_else** wrote: > [@](#): > > The logic behind [**December’s**] beautiful notion is that, well, we’re gonna be unequal anyway, so we might as well get rid of the mechanisms that try in some way to protect equality. You concede yourself, **December** , that “Restrictions on donations do make the rich less powerful,” so by arguing against restrictions you are effectively saying that you support current inequities. **Sam Stone** argued that: > [@](#): > > The effect of campaign finance IS to make political power proportional to wealth, because it doesn’t prevent private citizens from spending their own wealth on their own campaign. So Steve Forbes and Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg won’t have to worry about competition from you rabble rousers, because the only way you can outspend them is to raise money through political action committees, and those will be subject to campaign finance laws. I think he meant “campaign finance _reform_,” but you all know what he’s saying anyway, right. The first paragraph of this quotation misses a key point, because although it is correct that PACs would be subject to restrictions under most reform proposals, virtually none of these proposals (and certainly none that have even a chance of success) suggest eliminating all contributions altogether. The general strategy, as **December** implicitly recognised in at least one post, is to put a ceiling on the amount of donations in an attempt to level the playing field among donors. It is true that the wealthy can spend lots on their own campaigns, but past experience has shown (and i believe the rule would often hold) that many people see these self-promoting billionaires as too greedy and power-hungry to warrant serious attention (of course, we think that about many politicians too!). At least when a billionaire spends money on his own election campaign, it is immediately obvious to the electorate where the money is coming from and what its purpose is, and people can make their decisions accordingly. Under current campaign finance condtions, however, it is not always directly obvious whose money is influencing a particular politician to take a particular position. Now some have said that all we need is greater transparency and disclosure regarding donors, and this would certainly help, but it would be useless while the media make no effort to inform the public of how money and power intersect in the political game. When was the last time you heard Dan Rather say: “Well, that was an interesting speech on the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge by Congressperson X, but bear in mind that he took $420,000 from the oil industry/Sierra Club/whoever in the last election campaign”? **Sam Stone** also said: > [@](#): > > So Bill Gates can spend a zillion dollars of his own money to advertize for the new “All Microsoft Party”, but if you think he’s wrong, you won’t be able to do much about it. > > And of course, incumbents don’t need to spend as much money as challengers because they have name recognition, a ‘free’ party structure to get their message across, and free access to the media. So any laws that limit how much money can be spent in elections will benefit the incumbent. The second paragraph seems to be disproved to a certain extent by the first. Bill Gates is not an incumbent, yet i would be willing to bet that his “name recognition” is higher than about 98% of Congress. Same could be said for Perot in his Presidential campaigns. An issue that has been little addressed is the reason that so many on Capitol Hill aren’t too keen on finance reform. The reason is that, whether reform would benefit one party over the other or not (i have seen evidence offered in both directions on this issue), there is little doubt that the current situation entrenches the two-party system at the expense of potential challengers to that system (whether Nader, Buchanan, Perot etc.). Because one of the worst things about current campaign financing patterns is that while you, as an individual, might give to the Republicans, your friend might give to the Deomocrats, and i might give to someone else, the large donors who are the target of finance reform (especially corporations) often give to both Democrats **and** Republicans (often one gets a bit more than the other) in order to hedge their bets and maintain a certain level of influence no matter who wins. And on the whole issue of where the real danger in control of elections lies, **December** wrote: > [@](#): > > If the government also controls the elections, then we citizens have lost our primary source of power. This statement betrays an assumption common to quite a few people on this thread, namely that government presents the only real danger to the power of individual citizens in the electoral process. As media analyst Robert McChesney points out in [this article](http://www.monthlyreview.org/398rwm.htm), government is not > [@](#): > > the only anti-democratic force in our society. Government can be and at times is a threat to democracy—and deserves constant vigilance—but this is not a meritocratic society otherwise. Nearly all theories of democracy from Aristotle to Madison to the present have recognized that democracy was fundamentally incompatible with pronounced social inequality. In our society, corporations and the wealthy enjoy a power every bit as immense as that enjoyed by the lords and royalty of feudal times. This class power works through means like campaign spending to assure inequality and limit democracy. Second, markets are not value-free or neutral; they not only tend to work to the advantage of those with the most money, but they also by their very nature emphasize profit over all else. A commercial marketplace of ideas may generate the maximum returns for investors, but that does not mean it will generate the highest caliber of political exchange for citizens. In connection with such issues, **december** has been singularly unwilling to respond to a whole variety of questions and points about campaign financing. For example, **jshore** asked: > [@](#): > > 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? This is a fairly simple question, yet it has not yet been dignified with even the most cursory response. And as **DPWhite** (among others) has pointed out: > [@](#): > > 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. But **december** continues to base this whole thread on the assumption that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of money as speech was correct, and that every other argument must follow from that premise. There has not even been any attempt to answer my earlier question: > [@](#): > > IF the Supreme Court had come straight out and said that money IS NOT speech, and that campaign contributions could be limited or even banned by Congress, would you have accepted this as a valid decision? **December** is quite willing to go on making statments like: > [@](#): > > I consider it very dangerous for Courts to be deciding that they can limit F of S to some “appropriate amount.” but is not willing to even consider the possibility that limiting campaign contributions does not equate to limiting speech. **The Ryan** at least attempts to address the issue, but does it by saying: > [@](#): > > To all that say “Money is not speech”: this isn’t about limitng money . This about limiting speech. The money in question is being used to buy speech. Outlawing the purchased of speech and then saying “Hey, money isn’t speech” is as disengenuous as outlawing the use of cars to transport oneself to a political demonstration and then saying “Hey, cars aren’t speech”. Well, if you really want to get into a debate over the legal limits of where you can and can’t drive your car (on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for example), and who can and can’t drive (children and the blind, for example) then you had better start another thread because it could take all year to come to any conclusions. As i pointed out previously in a slightly different context, an extension of this logic would allow political assassination as a form of free speech. And **erislover** made a similar point, saying: > [@](#): > > I, for example, think that criminals imprisoned for drug use is wrong. I am not legally permitted to break them out of jail to make my point. Am I being prohibitted from expression of the idea? Then: > [@](#): > > **erislover** said: > > I challenge you to demonstrate that compaign contributions are harmless when the case of corruption is rather clear. > > > [@](#): > > > > And **The Ryan** replied: > > > > I challenge you to find any form of speech that is completely harmless. I challenge you to actually answer december’s points instead of constructing straw men. Well, responding to one challenge with the opposite challenge does not constitute an answer. Demonstrating that campaign contributions can be harmful does not, as a matter of logic, require **erislover** to demonstrate that no other types of speech can be harmful. It seems like **The Ryan** is the the building with straw in this case. **The Ryan** also asserts: > [@](#): > > “You can’t type any statement against the President in capital letters” is just as much an abridgement of F of S as “You may not criticize the President”. This has to be the most simplistic comparison i’ve seen for a while. It can be disproved by the most simple test: Under the first rule (“You can’t type any statement against the President in capital letters”), i would not be allowed to type: “THE PRESIDENT’S DECISIONS INDICATE THAT HE IS AN IGNORAMUS” but i would be allowed to type: “the president’s decisions indicate that he is an ignoramus.” Under the second rule (“You may not criticize the President”), i could not type either sentence. And, on a completely irrelevant note, and in case you are a constitutional absolutist who believes that everything should be exactly as it was when the Constitution was framed, it should be noted that according to [this website](http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltypewriter.htm), the first practical typewriter was not marketed until 1873, so no-one in the early days of the Republic would have been typing anything at all. > [@](#): > > **Erislover** wrote: > > And corporate interests are free to find other channels to use their money to express support, like making commercials, ad campaigns, and so on. > > > [@](#): > > > > And **The Ryan** wrote: > > > > All of which are forms of campaign contributions. So not only is your arguent irrelevant, it’s wrong as well. Hello? A corporation making a commercial or running an ad campaign is not a form of campaign contribution. Such campaigns may express political sentiments, but they made directly by the corporation and not given to a political party or candidate to do with as they see fit. For example, GM might run a general campaign extolling the virtues of free trade, but this is not the same as handing over wads of cash to a candidate who is likely to vote for free trade legislation in Congress. **December** wrote: > [@](#): > > Yes, I’m for limiting F of S when, and only when, there’s clear and present danger. Of course this standard is subject to interpretation. Well, personally, i can think of very few instances where any speech, in and of itself, presents a clear and present danger. Certainly not the type of speech that has frequently been suppressed by various sedition and libel laws in American history. The hoary old “fire in a crowded theatre” chestnut gets dragged out and dusted off time and again, to little real effect. And your post here still assumes that the Supreme Court’s equating of money with speech was a reasonable decision. You are perfectly entitled to believe this but, despite repeated questioning on the topic, have failed to state the reason behind your belief. Surely if you base an argument on a first principle such as this, you should be prepared to defend your adoption of that principle. In the first quote of yours that i used on this post, you complained that some others had failed to respond to one of your questions, which was actualy quite peripheral to the central issue. Yet at the same time you fail to respond to a question that goes directly to the heart of your OP. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/39 "2001-10-22T07:32:40Z")
Wow, this is exciting. **mhendo** , thanks for your post. Very nice. I consider political corruption to be a clear and present danger to a representative democracy. I consider that campaign contributions are a very simple method of promoting corruption. **The Ryan** addressed me fairly directly, so I will respond as such. > [@](#): > > “You can’t type any statement against the President in capital letters” is just as much an abridgement of F of S as “You may not criticize the President”. So then are you implying that limiting campaign contributions are as arbitrary a cutoff as prohibitting all caps statements? Intriguing. > [@](#): > > No, that is a completely different issue. In the FCC case, the argument is that airwaves are a public resource. Campaign contributions are not a public resource. That’s a public office these politicans are running for. > [@](#): > > No, campaign contributions aren’t just a way of expressing support for the local senator. You’re right; they are also a method to promote and utilize corruption. This is why they are under such scrutiny. > [@](#): > > What does [an actor in a movie yelling ‘fire’ while themovie is playing in a crowded theater] have to do with anything? The charge was that a person couldn’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because that was clearly a C&PD scenario. I mentioned that there are circumstances where a person could yell “fire” even if there was no fire. See, the _method_ of expression changed, not the expression itself. > [@](#): > > Unless “greasing the wheels” became a technical term while I wasn’t looking, what this means is “I think speech should allowed, except for speech I don’t like”. Yep. Precisely! Ever hear the following joke? [ul]A man approaches a very attractive woman and asks, “Would you have sex with me for ten million dollars?” She responds, mouth agape, in the affirmative. “Well, then,” he continues, “would you sleep with me for five dollars?” She retorts snottily, “No! what do you think I am?!” He wittily responds: “Well, ma’am, we’ve already determined _what_ you are, now we’re just haggling over the price.”[/ul] We’ve already determined that there are types of speech that “we” don’t like. Now it is just a matter of finding out which speech falls into those categories. ---
**Author:** ![dunne\_u.wurrie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@dunne\_u.wurrie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dunne_u.wurrie)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446/40 "2001-10-22T07:45:34Z")
Oh, one more thing. With royalties to ANDROS. > [@](#): > > 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. > \*\* All who agree, raise your hands. Now, all who think that it should be legal to show children homosexual pornography (with apologies to any who might be gay) while exercising your right to freedom of expression, raise your hands. No hands up? This is what we call a reasonable limitation of the right of free speech. I point this out, December, because when Andros posted the same point, it seemed to fly under your radar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1st-amendment-should-protect-campaign-contributions/88446.md?page=3)