Why, as much as you might like, since those are good and worthy goals, not like Republican themes which reflect their status as running dog jackals of the ruling class…
Oh, wait, I see what you did there, you tricked me into revealing the rank hypocrisy and authoritarian basis of our agenda! Darn, you tricked me again, you clever rascal you!
That is one of the issues though – no one is planning to regulate the “volume” of incumbent press releases, or the enormous media apparatus running through ABC, NBC, CBS, and the AP that views its job as getting Hillary Clinton elected. Paid advertising is the only avenue available for dissenters from the center-left monolith (whether they be conservatives, libertarians, or socialists and others to the left of Clinton). The goal is, in fact, to circumscribe the speech of those who dissent from the Clinton/Obama bloc, while doing nothing about the enormous “volume” of free communication available to them.
There’s a reason McCain-Feingold was dubbed the “Incumbent Protection Act.” Harry Reid can go on Meet the Press every week and the Daily Show every month and say whatever he wants without it counting against the rules; his primary opponents have to report a teenager making a “vote for Smith” blog post as a “donation in kind” or face fines and prison. It’s so obviously viewpoint-discrimination censorship that I question the motives of anyone who claims not to understand that.
Curses! Foiled again…
So as far as the one actual non-bumper-sticker plan put forth in this thread:
You cannot ban people from buying “all political ads.” It’s a content-based restriction on speech and plainly unconstitutional going back to the 1920s. The “volume” thing is an analogy, not an argument, and has no real relevance.
You could ban contributions to politicians or political campaigns. A case for how you should do this is forthcoming, presumably.
People spending money to run ads saying “I don’t like abortion” rather than donating money to politicians in exchange for anti-abortion positions is, presumably, the exact removal of corruption from the process that you claim to want.
We don’t ban that now, but we do limit it. Too many people think that CU lifted the restrictions on campaign contributions. It did not.
“Getting money out of politics” a perennial topic for supporters of democracy. Whenever I make the claim that a certain government action is illegitimate because it violates rights, I am quickly informed that all government action is legitimate because “the people” decided it through their representatives. The thing is, “the people” continually choose candidates who take loads of money from questionable sources. That should settle the issue if supporters of democracy were not hypocrites.
It is never a problem if a particular favored candidate is an audacious globe-trotting grift artist, for example. If a particular party or candidate was truly against money in politics, they could practice what they preach, and force the issue to be confronted by the other party or candidate. This will never happen because the Democratic Party wants to keep this issue alive so they can trot it out when it suits them. Just like their other wedge issues.
Ah, the conspiracy! Yes, of course, the unified center-left monolith. Made up of Democrats who are all* totally *on board. Not like herding cats, but training them to march the goosestep, in ranks upon ranks in crisp, machine like lockstep. Outside of the bald assertion that It Is So, is there the least shred of evidence of such a Borgish unity?
And while I’m at it, this “violation” of First Amendment rights, the pristine virgin in her Communion dress ravished and soiled? Seriously? There are no rights that are not infringed as need be. Not the first, nor the second, nor any that follow. Not even that most sacred of human rights, the right to private property. Even that most divine principle is trimmed and hedged as needed!
So can we not pretend that Lady Liberty is in danger of being the unifying center of a Mongolian clusterfuck? Just so we can conduct our discussion with a semblance of reality? K, tx, bye.
Nobody suggested unity. You are outing yourself, bud. It is in each candidate’s interest to feign willingness to address campaign finance reform, while simultaneously raking in large amounts of cash from questionable sources. This is why it persists. Democrats have a particular incentive because their base is ready-made to receive hollow populist rhetoric. Republicans, especially in the South, are also ready to swallow similar throwback bullshit.
Only an elderly ideologue could be so blind to his own criticisms. “As needed” and “need be” being terms suggestive of religious fervor unmatched by even early Methodists. We must March onward behind our sanctified machinery of State to the promised land of Equality, Uniformity, and White Body Suits. We must build our Kingdom, individuals will be sacrificed “as need be”. Meet me at the Lincoln Memorial, I’ll bring the incense, as we warble hosannas until we collapse unto ourselves.
Oh, dear. I use the terms according to my understanding of a common vocabulary, where the terms are suggestive of pragmatism and practicality. For those of you like friend Will here, for whom the terms are suggestive of religious fervor, please adjust accordingly.
Maybe its religious fervor I don’t understand? I was raised by Methodists, and the only religious fervor I noticed was the determination not to be confused with Baptists. That and a tendency to name male children John Wesley. In a family with a metric buttload of cousins, that can get very confusing…
He’s not an ideologue.
Silence, puppy, your elders are pontificating.
The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*
*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.
:rolleyes: Once again:
Bad analogy. It’s not “volume” that is limited it’s “quantity”. By limiting spending, you limit the quantity, which is a limit on speech, plain and simple. Please keep in ming that we are not talking about limits on campaign contributions, since CU kept those limits in place. We are talking about issue advocacy and when you tell someone they can only spend X amount of money advocating for a political position, you are limiting the amount of speech you are allowing.
If you want to argue that it’s OK to limit speech, fine. But don’t pretend you’re limiting speech when you are, in fact, limiting speech.
And there is not a single right enshrined in the Constitution that is not similarly limited by practicality, pragmatism, or in the interest of the common good. Justice and political equality is a common good, it is a gift we give each other, the dignity of a fellow citizen.
Are we asked to accept that wealth bestows more political power as a right? That the right of free speech is intended to shelter and nourish an injustice? Or if it does it by accident of history, an unintended consequence, we are nonetheless bound by principle to accept that injustice? Well, shit, that’s a kick in the pants, but nothing can be done, because free speech? Darn, better just give up, it was ever thus…
Now, true, that does have the grace of heritage and tradition, it was ever thus, the Golden Rule prevails, the guy with the gold makes the rules. Many of us don’t hold with that, would prefer that we separate ourselves from traditional injustice. (Did anyone else hear the soft rustle of pearls being clutched?)
After all, revolution and radical experiment is also part of our tradition.
Will it be simple, and easy? No reason to think so, hasn’t been so far. But if we won’t even try for justice and equality, then we suck at being American. Lot of us here want to fix that, and we could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do.
What’s the overwhelming social good? People can’t be trusted to be exposed to too much political speech? If there was a limited amount of speech available, one can imagine the need to prevent individuals from monopolizing it. But there isn’t.
John, that’s nonsense masquerading as a succinct and cogent point. It has the virtue of brevity, yes, but that is not enough.
Political equality amongst our citizens, I assert, is a social good, whether or not it is “overwhelming” is a semantic question which I will engage only if you insist. It is a widely accepted social good, which can be measured by how much hypocrisy it attracts, how often claims are made that invoke it.
We are mostly all committed to dismantle political injustice based on race, is there some reason that political inequality based on wealth is exempt? Is there some reason we are bound to respect it, is it a “private property” issue?
And this: “… People can’t be trusted to be exposed to too much political speech?..” Has anyone actually said such a thing? If someone did, by all means, criticize them for it. But at least wait until they actually do. I sure as hell didn’t! I can put my own words in my own mouth, thanks anyway, but I don’t require any help with that.
That sort of thing has always been beneath you, John, keep up the good work!
I’m not sure if “overwhelming” is the precise legal term, but our system does not allow you to subvert a right just because there is some “good” to be achieved by doing so. There needs to be a higher standard. That is what I meant by that term.
So, how much money can an individual or group spend on speech and how are you going to determine that?
If people can be trusted being exposed to too much speech, then what exactly is the problem? Surely it’s not the speech itself, hanging in the air unheard. What you are saying is that too much of a certain kind of speech has a bad effect on society. How is that effect realized if not through the action of people upon hearing the speech?
Our system “does not allow” the subversion of a human right? Sure used to, didn’t it? Even a fresh-faced youth like yourself is likely to have that as part of your living memory. But that’s all fixed now? No need for any further correction? No political party makes any decisions influenced by the availability of campaign contributions?
Wasn’t that largely the point of the Clintonista movement in the Dem Party? To form a more “business friendly” party in order to get a larger share of the campaign contributions of businessmen? Apparently they seemed to think that campaign monies were a crucial part of political power in America, they were wrong?
Am I given to believe that campaign contributions and PAC money is of no importance, it isn’t effective, and these rich guys are just throwing their money away? The Republican Party seems convinced otherwise, they do their level best to preserve their advantage, are they wrong as well?
If this is so, can you prove it?
I suppose we will work that out the same way we work out everything else, by hassling, arguing and eventually compromising. Problem?
If I had a thousand dollars for every environmental crime committed by the Koch Brothers alone, I could afford to strike out with a much better class of women. If they can enact their agenda of deregulation and were made free from interference, I daresay the affect on our society would be negative. Poisonous, point of fact.
Boiled down it comes to this, that you and I have a portion of political power that is ours by right. Do you contend that a rich man does not have more political power to affect decisions by way of his choice of contributions? Is that also a “right” that is conferred by money? Am I bound to respect that, defer to it, permit it? If you think I must, or even that I should, would you tell me why?
The problem is that while it may be the case that money equals speech it, money given to a candidate is also bribery, something that is specifically mentioned in the constitution among the “high crimes”. Therefore something that I think we can all agree even the founding fathers had a problem with.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the so called “independence” requirement for Super Pacs is a sham. And although the public isn’t privy to who exactly are making the donations, you can bet that each candidate knows who is buttering their bread. Saying that these donations have no effect on the politicians once they get into office is hopelessly naive. I can guarantee a candidate will look more favorably on a government contractor who gave him $10,000,000 worth of campaign ads than he would for the one who slid him $10,000 in unmarked bills under the table.
So yes, I support the slight abridgement of free speech that is necessary curtail the high crimes that underlie the speech, in the same way that I support the slight abridgment of speech that is in involved the outlawing phoning in a bomb threat.
That’s not what I said. I said you don’t get to subvert (override is probably a better term) a right simply because some good can be achieved by doing so. Yes, we override rights all the time, but only when there is a legitimate government interest in doing so.
I don’t know how effective it is. I trust people to make up their own minds. I wonder how many people on this MB would say that they are swayed in their beliefs by what they hear from the Koch Brothers. I’m not. Are you?
Also, I’m going to ask once again that we differentiate between campaign contributions and political speech. CU did not change the amount of money that can be contributed to political campaigns. It doesn’t serve the purpose of honest debate to conflate the two.
Doesn’t work that way. You want to limit a right, you have to prove that there is a legitimate government interest in doing so.
No, this is an issue of rights, so it’ll be decided by the courts, not the legislature. You’re Justice Kennedy, casting the decide vote. How much money can people spend? Or, if that doesn’t suite your taste, what is your own personal opinion on the subject? How much do you think we should allow people to spend?
Ah, but now you’re focused on the particular content of speech, not “speech in general”. I don’t find it at all convincing that one particular side of the political debate doesn’t like speech from the other side. It was always thus and always will be thus.
The political power that we posses is in the vote we can cast. We can try and persuade others to vote as we want them to, but that is not a source of political power. Now, if we’re talking about a situation where there is a quid pro quo from our elected officials tied to money spent, then I think we have something where we can agree that action needs to be taken.
But just because person A is able or willing to engage in more speech than person B does not mean that person A has more “political power”. The only way we could equalize that would be to ensure that no single person spends more money on speech than the poorest person in the country is able to.