Oh, GOD, mhendo, I don’t think we’ve agreed so much since you’ve been here but boy is this exactly what I mean. Wow! Our ability to make political statements is not encompassed by or derived from our relative ability or inability to support a politician. I agree completely and almost mentioned it in my previous post (I hadn’t read your most recent post at that time—so good thing I didn’t mention it: it was already covered! :p).
So many interesting comments. I’ll try and deal with as many as possible.
**
**
I’d support steps that increase free speech for those who lack it, rather than reduce free speech. E.g., I’d support free time for candidates on public radio and TV stations.
As far as public financing of elections goes, I can see pros and cons. If anyone wants to start a new thread on that topic, I’d be happy to debate it.
**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! **
Economic power isn’t proportional to economic power. E.g., union leaders and media owners have more power than people much richer than they are.
IF it were true that we’re “near the bottom of the [corruption] slope,” then extreme reductions in liberty might be justified. But, is political corruption really at an extreme level? One cannot just assert that it’s “near the bottom”. This statement needs to be proved! Is corruption worse than is has been in the past? Is the US government in critical condition? I don’t see it. I see a healthy democracy, running about as well as any country on Earth.
**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: **
Anyone else who chooses to work as hard as I did and manage their money as prudently can earn the same advantage. That’s part of “equality of opportunity.”
*Originally posted by dunne u. wurrie *
**“Can you demonstrate that limitations on donations really have created a better government?”
“Can you show that there really have been improvements due to limitations on donations?” - December
No, no more than you can prove the opposite.**
Actually I can prove the opposite. That is, I can show evidence that limitations on donations have had a bad impact on government. E.g., I believe that statistics would show that it has become almost impossible to defeat an incumbent who seeks re-election. I can point to the obviously unconstitutional free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold, as an illustration of the slippery slope. I can point to the corruption in just the Clinton administration to show that current restrictions haven’t worked.
** “(I think even the proponents of limitations would say they have failed; that’s why they want 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.**
By “don’t leave the job half-finished,” do you mean we should do away with all freedom of speech including freedom of the press, so nobody has an advantage?
Just kidding. Seriously, what do you mean?
**So to sum up:
We agree that there are loopholes in the present system. ** Yes.
We disagree on whether it is worth even trying to correct this problem.
More precisely, I’m unwilling to reduce Constitutional liberties in an effort 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. Yes
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mhendo *
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.
Fair comment. Let me re-word my challenge. Can you describe a system that is substantially more equitable? In particular, do you think that corruption has lessened since 1976 when we had some free speech rights taken away? Can you demonstrate any improvement since 1976, or have we given up some freedoms for nothing?
**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.**More precisely, I[m not willing to give up FOS in order to try to reduce current inequities, especially since I expect that effort to fail. Also, note that donation restrictions will make some types of inequities worse. E.g., union leaders and media, who already have disproportionate power, will gain even more power.
**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!). **
My Senator is John Corzine… 'Nuff said.
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.
I would support stronger reporting requirements. In fact, during the campaign W reported donations real-time on the internet. I’d like to see that system become the norm.
. 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”?
Amen. I also wish the media did a better job.
**… 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.). **
I’d say the exact opposite. The incumbents and the two major parties will almost always win, absent some special factor. In 1968, that factor was Stewart Mott’s huge contributions to Eugene McCarthy, so that he could challenge LBJ in the primaries. Today, such opposition wouldn’t be possible.
**And on the whole issue of where the real danger in control of elections lies, December wrote:
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.**
More precisely, I believe Government represents the biggest real danger to the power of individual citizens, not the only one. Certainly the founding fathers agreed with me (really I agree with them); the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government, not the power of churches, corporations, or millionaires.
**And as DPWhite (among others) has pointed out:
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. **
Those of us who support the right to burn flags believe that “speech” should be broadly defined, especially political speech. On this basis, giving money to a candidate so that she can promulgate her message seems like a clear case of “speech.”
**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:
[quote]
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 prohibited from expression of the idea?**
Yes, judgment must be applied. There’s no way around it. Regarding your example, McCain Feingold would substantially restrict your ability to buy advertisements supporting candidates who agree with your position regarding drugs. Don’t you think that’s a big loss of FOS?
No.
This debate still revolves, as it always did, around the idea that campaign finance is a form of free speech. This underlying assumption of your argument was critiqued by myself and several others. The closest you came was this:
Burning flags is an activity that can be undertaken by anyone with a Bic. Making meaningful campaign contributions takes a little more than a buck’s worth of cheap fuel.
Or:
Again, the Supreme Court limits the right to make political contributions because it is a form of speech that is directly contingent on economic success, which ought not to enter the public assembly, just as it did not enter into Athens’ assembly, as I mentioned.
Your assumption of superiority over others in political influence is atrociously undemocratic. I am upper-middle-class-whatever as well, by most estimates, but this does not mean that I try to assume some greater authority in the political arena than anyone else. The fact is, democracy is built on the principle that influence in politics should not be contingent on wealth. Even if we can’t fully control money’s influence on politics, we can sure as hell avoid enshrining it in our legally constituted political institutions.
The ball’s in your court.
-Someone Else
*Originally posted by someone_else *
**No.
This debate still revolves, as it always did, around the idea that campaign finance is a form of free speech.**
s_e, you have implied that you don’t think campaign contributions are a form of “speech”. What are your reasons? How far do you think the 1st amendment protects communication? I think the following should be protected forms of free speech: newspaper editorials, flag-burning, song parodies, political advertising, sharing the cost of political ads with others, giving money to an organization like Planned Parenthood to buy ads, giving money to a candidate to buy ads. S_e, what’s your limit on protected speech?
Burning flags is an activity that can be undertaken by anyone with a Bic. Making meaningful campaign contributions takes a little more than a buck’s worth of cheap fuel.
Are you saying that something cannot be “speech” if it has a substantial cost? If so, I disagree. E.g., I think a TV boradcast is protected speech, even though it costs millions of dollars.
Again, the Supreme Court limits the right to make political contributions because it is a form of speech that is directly contingent on economic success, which ought not to enter the public assembly, just as it did not enter into Athens’ assembly, as I mentioned.
I don’t agree at all. Can you find anything in the Buckley decision supporting the above statement? Or, any other cite?
Your assumption of superiority over others in political influence is atrociously undemocratic.
I don’t have any superiority over others, since I don’t make campaign donations. I do sometimes put bumper stickers on my car. Even if I gave a thousand dollars, I cannot imagine a candidate doing anything in exchange. OTOH the support of the NY Times or the Teachers Union is more valuable than millions of dollars. There’s nothing I could do to match their influence.
**The fact is, democracy is built on the principle that influence in politics should not be contingent on wealth. **
Cite? This condition hasn’t ever been met in any democracy AFAIK.
Even if we can’t fully control money’s influence on politics, we can sure as hell avoid enshrining it in our legally constituted political institutions.
Good luck. However, people who have money are free to spend it. One could try to get more equality by taking money away from everyone. That’s been done in Marxist economies. They wound up with very limited freedom, but they didn’t even get equality. High-level Party members lived like kings, while most others lived in poverty.
s_e, your post sounds as if you want to move the US in a Marxist direction.
december, i don’t have time right now to say everything i’d like to, because work beckons. I’ll come back tomorrow with more comments.
But just one thing. Much of your argument seems to center on two (largely unrelated) assumptions, namely:
- Money is speech (Supreme Court said so)
- Whether it’s speech or not, campaign finance reform won’t really help us anyway.
(There are other premises underlying your argument, but i’ll leave them for my next post).
Now, with respect to (2), i’d ask you to read this article and then explain how campaign finance reform wouldn’t help this situation and made America marginally more democratic and maybe even safer. (It’s not a very long article, and won’t take up too much of your time).
Campaign Finance Reform is already in effect, and it didn’t help this situation. Campaign finance reform was enacted after Watergate in 1976 or so. The program was designed by liberal Democrats. Corporations are totally barred from political donations. Individuals are limited to only $1000 IIRC of hard money to a candidate. These look like very strict limitations, but they didn’t work. Airlines were successful in lobbying for weaker security and they were successful in getting a bailout.
AFAIK nothing in McCain Feingold would have helped, either – not even the blatantly unconstitutional parts. This example illustrates my point that those who want to buy influence will always find a loophole.
Typically, The Nation doesn’t bother to point out that they have no suggestion to fix the problem. They’re content to just whine.
You CANNOT separate money from speech. Freedom of speech doesn’t just mean freedom to utter words, it means freedom to use your own resources to gain access to a pulpit.
For example, let’s consider this scenario: The government passes a new law that says that newspapers must pay a $10,000 tax whenever they publish something that the government finds objectionable. Hey, they still allow it, you just have to pay the tax.
Is there anyone here who would argue that this isn’t an infringement of speech? ANYONE? If not, please tell me how limiting campaign donations is any different?
Let’s say a 1 minute ad on television costs $2,000,000 dollars. Let’s further assume that the government has limited the amount I can spend on a campaign ad to $1,000,000. Have they not just as effectively prevented me from speaking through that medium as they would have if they passed a law making it illegal for me to talk about politics on TV? Where is the difference?
And if incumbents get all kinds of national media exposure due to their positions of power, does that not give them a huge advantage over challengers?
By the way, if you are still not convinced, might I bring up the example of the government of Chile in the early 1970’s? They were condemned by the U.N. (and the United States) for suppressing speech. How? By taxing newsprint to such high levels that no one could afford to print their anti-government newspapers. Of course, the government-run newspapers were tax-exempt.
Campaign finance laws also benefit established political parties, because their activities are not counted. For example, the Democratic Party can establish a ‘get out the vote’ campaign and mobilize 10 million volunteers across the country to campaign door to door. The SamStone party doesn’t have that infrastructure, so if I want to compete against them in public awareness, I have to spend money. But then I run up against campaign finance limits. This helps to maintain the status quo at the expense of challengers.
Tell you what: Re-write the campaign finance laws so that they include a money-equivalent for party activity (i.e. an auditor will sit down and figure out how much money the ‘free’ stuff the incumbents who are in office get, and that candidates for established political parties get, and deduct that amount from the allowable limits of their campaign funds or increase the allowable limits by challengers by a like amount), and see how much support you get from Congress. The current politicians will run like jackrabbits from any such legislation.
Because they are removing the necessity to have to pay 10,000 to get a politician’s ear. Its, er, the opposite of this scenario. No?
Huh? You lost me on that one. My point was that either way, you are limiting someone’s access to a platform for speech, through government action. Do you not agree? What’s the difference?
Or if you want to make it closer, how about if we say that the government passes a new law saying that if you want to print something objectionable to the government, you can only spend $100 to do so. That’s a pretty effective limit on your speech, don’t you think? You either have to be a writer of enough stature to get published for free or pay in a major market paper, or you’re going to be writing your missives in the community league newsletter, even though you have the resources to reach as many people as you want. Is that not a restriction on speech?
If by “equality” you mean “equality of opportunity” not “equality of result”, then yes.
Not “should”. “Can”. It would be nice if everyone were equal. But that doesn’t mean that we should try legislate away all inequalities.
That is an interesting political theory, but not one to which I subscribe. I believe that the idea of equality of political right is to provide a non-arbitrary method of determining political rights and to prevent a destructive struggle over the distribution of political rights. If we were to allow “special” people to vote twice as often as others, the vast majority of politics would be spent in determining who these “special” people should be rather than on actually governing the country. The degree to which a person’s power in private life translates to de jure political power is not a natural domain of governmental purview, and should not be determined by governmental decree.
No, it doesn’t.
Were fishermen allowed in the Assembly? Regardless, it would be naïve to think that events outside the Assembly would have no influence on events inside.
Again, it is not what I believe should be, but what is. Do not mistake opposition to a governmental remedy to a situation for approval of the situation.
Don’t worry; I don’t agree with your postion, but at least most of it makes enough sense that I’m able to to understand you when you don’t make sense :).
I’m really having trouble seeing how anyone could not consider financing speech to be itself speech. Here’s my reasoning. Tell me where our views diverge.
- In the 1st Amendment, “speech” does not refer simply to literally making sounds with your mouth. It refers to all attempts at communication.
- People contribute to campaigns in the belief that it will cause their views to be expressed.
- Therefore, campaign contributions are speech.
Huh? What does that have to with the issue? Is music not a form of free speech because not everyone can afford time in a recording studio? The ability of everyone to use a method of speech has nothing to with whether it is a form of speech.
How is it being enshrined?
I’d like to preface my comments with an apology–I did not read the Buckley decision. I have been attempting to argue on the basis of the principle of limiting campaign contributions; clearly my assumptions about the basis of the supreme court judgment in and of itself can be challenged, and I’d thank December for doing so. However, as to the ethics and so on, I think there’s still an interesting debate to be had.
First, on democratic principles:
Me: The fact is, democracy is built on the principle that influence in politics should not be contingent on wealth.
December: Cite? This condition hasn’t ever been met in any democracy AFAIK.
It hasn’t, but no one ever said it did. I see democracy as aiming towards a few goals, one of these being that people’s wealth should not enter into the political arena. You seem to agree, by challenging whether the principle has been achieved as opposed to whether the principle is a good one. My contention is that if it is a good principle, it ought to be maintained.
Second, on the nature of speech:
SamStone: Or if you want to make it closer, how about if we say that the government passes a new law saying that if you want to print something objectionable to the government, you can only spend $100 to do so. That’s a pretty effective limit on your speech, don’t you think? You either have to be a writer of enough stature to get published for free or pay in a major market paper, or you’re going to be writing your missives in the community league newsletter, even though you have the resources to reach as many people as you want. Is that not a restriction on speech?
(Emphasis added by myself)
The analogy does not hold. Campaign finance limits do not judge the donations based on the content of the ad.
But more generally, SamStone also wondered:
Let’s say a 1 minute ad on television costs $2,000,000 dollars. Let’s further assume that the government has limited the amount I can spend on a campaign ad to $1,000,000. Have they not just as effectively prevented me from speaking through that medium as they would have if they passed a law making it illegal for me to talk about politics on TV? Where is the difference?
The reason the government has done this is to limit your ability to dominate political debate. Let’s say there were no limits and you had $100 million to spend on ads; another person had, say, $2 million. Your influence will be 50 times greater than the other group.
You may call this fair because you’ve made 50 times more money. Here I get to the whole thing about December being upper-middle class.
December, I don’t care whether you’re UMC or not; the point is that you tried to defend the principle of proportional influence on the basis of your having worked hard for your money and so on: “Anyone else who chooses to work as hard as I did and manage their money as prudently can earn the same advantage. That’s part of ‘equality of opportunity.’” Your argument is therefore that political influence, that is to say democratic right, must, IN PRINCIPLE as well as in practice, be earned; I call that anti-democratic. To throw the whole Marxist contention right back at you, Party functionaries had to earn their influence through being able to survive the cut and thrust of Soviet politics. They had to earn their influence as well.
Remember, we’re talking here about balancing the inputs of various groups into the political debate. The reason? See above for the democratic principles, which you guys have not challenged on theoretical grounds.
Someone Else
PS: By the way, I’ve had a helluva lot of fun debating this with you guys. It’s been pretty interesting.
dunne u. wurrie
Yes, perhaps that was unwarranted hyperbole. But when contemplating an abridgement of one of the freedoms on which democracy is founded, it is necessary to establish that what is in “clear and present danger” is something that is, if not democracy itself, at the very least something of sufficiently vital importance to democracy to justify the abridgement. Surely you would agree that proof that there is a “clear and present danger” of the Yankees not winning the World Series would be quite irrelevant to whether people should be allowed to criticize the Yankees?
Again, simply showing that there is a “problem” is insufficient. What I am concerned with is whether that problem is more important than free speech.
mhendo
Do you think that december has been somehow remiss for not addressing it? Is it not admissible to express disagreement with a policy without proposing an alternative?
The fact december is debating that question implies the he (she?) has considered it. Perhaps what you meant to say is “will not accept”. If you wish people to accept a premise, it is you burden to show that it is true.
I thought that it was rather clear that it was meant as an analogy, and not meant as a foray into driving restrictions. My point is that if one outlaws the use of X in the commission of Y, then the focus should be on Y, not X. There are laws against using knifes to rob people, but that is because society is opposed to robbery, not knives in general. Similarly, when society opposes the use of money to promote speech, I conclude that society is opposed to speech itself, not to money. So “money is not speech” is irrelevant because it is not money that is being targeted, it is speech.
What is “this logic”, and how would your propostion be supported by it?
I see irony is not your forte.
Implying that erislover has not sufficintly supported his postion is “building with straw”? erislover’s question contains two implications. One is that december is arguing that campaign contributions are harmless. Since december has not claimed that, this is a straw man. The other implication is that december’s failure to do so supports erislover’s position. IOW, that if something is not harmless, it should be restricted. My question implied that unless erislover suports the restriction of all types of speech, harm is not sufficient to justify restriction.
How does this disprove my statement?
“Campaign” in this situation refers to a substained effort to have someone elected to a public office. A commercial which supports a candidate (which, from the context, is what I assumed we were talking about), contributes to that candidate being elected, and therefore contributes to the campaign. IOW, is a campaign contribution.
I never claimed that it is given for the candidate to do as he sees fits. Are you saying that you think that normally, campaign contributions are given with no restrictions, and no expectations that the candidate will act a certain way? If so, then what is your objection to campaign contributions, if they don’t affect candidates’ actions?
erislover
I take you meant the phrase in brackets to be implied (I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but as I said before your statement is irrelevant otherwise). Do you consider the present state to be such a danger, or do you consider a potential future state to be such a danger? Also, could you define “corruption”?
No. What I’m saying is that “Campaign contributions are not allowed, but other forms of expression are still allowed, so free speech isn’t being infringed” makes as much sense as “all caps statements are not allowed, but other forms of expression are still allowed, so free speech isn’t being infringed”.
So the appropriate analogy would not be restrictions on what people can say with a radio station, but what they can say to get a radio station
No, it was the expression itself that changed. Normally when people give this hypothetical, they are talking about someone yelling “Fire!” in such a way to express the idea that there is a fire in the theater. If an actor yells “Fire!”, they are expressing the idea that there is a fire in the movie. They are expressing a completely different idea. There are all sorts of ways that someone could shout “Fire!” without presenting a C&PD. They could shout “I should FIRE that guy!” or “Actually, the giant didn’t say fi OR fum!” Just because two people say the same thing doesn’t mean that they are expressing the same thing.
But we haven’t agreed that that is enough to justify outlawing such speech.
[quote]
! Our ability to make political statements is not encompassed by or derived from our relative ability or inability to support a politician. [/quiote]
What if the political statement you wish to make is that you support a particular politician? Then isn’t the ability to make political statements not only encompassed by and derived by our relative ability or inability to support a politician, but in fact synonymous?
Of course they do. Ads that have to do with politics are subject to the limits. Ads having to do with which soap detergent you should use aren’t. Looks like content-based laws to me. But if this isn’t good enough for you, how about changing the italicized portion to any speech about the government, positive or negative?
You didn’t really answer his question. What is the difference?
I don’t see how a statement of fact can be anti-democratic. There is simply no way to guarantee equal political influence. Your Soviet example just comfirms that; even when people set out with the goal of equality, some people ended up being “more equal than others”. Some people are just better at getting resources than others. Just as some are better at getting money, some are better at getting political power. And both take work. NO matter what, political power must be “earned”.
I take it you posted this prior to seeing my more recent posts?
Free speech as a whole? It seems to me that the comparision should be between allowing campaign contributions or not. What are we really going to have to give up to restrict the current loopholes? Not all that much it seems to me. 'Course we’re not getting much in return but this would at least be a publicity coup for our federal government’s tattered legitimacy.
Just my 2sense