Read the sentence again, John. I think you missed it. To “permit” or “protect” or “encourage” free speech is one thing. A crucial element of our American philosophy, to be sure. But to “permit” one citizen unequal access to speech over another is a different kettle of piranha.
How to realize this laudable goal without suppressing anyone’s free speech rights? A tricky and difficult question, to be sure. I cheerfully invite any insight you may have in that regard. Personally, I think the McCain-Feingold laws are a stumbling and rather inept move in that direction, clearly not the ideal, and needful of much refinement.
The money tends to follow the better arguments, I believe. Thjat’s how groups like the AARP and the NRA grow so powerful - by convincing people to join, and support their goals financially.
I think, elucidator, that you’re arguing for the subsidization of less popular political views.
How that equates to freedom of speech is really beyond me.
For the most part I agree, but political power really comes from being able to make a credible threat to withdraw - or at least substantially vary - support. Really rusted-on voters have little power, since they can always be counted upon to hold their noses. I suppose this is more important in my system (compulsory preferential voting) than yours.
My point was about the role of money in campaigns. If you have a really decisive advantage in rusted-on voters, the campaign is not important. But if you don’t, money matters a great deal: you can use it to appeal to the undecideds without much alienating your natural support base - important for turnout and longer-term party viability. Without money you can only appeal to the middle by shifting your major policy positions (further) away from those liked by your natural support base.
An extraordinary proposition, Moto to be sure! So when groups like the NAACP formed to combat racial inequality, the skies rained money down upon them in torrents? An exceptional view of history.
You may think what you like, of course. The example I actually used would belie your assertion, in that one political party enjoys a considerable monetary advantage over the other, despite irrefutable evidence of equal popularity.
We know. We’re working on that, and have great faith in you.
My access to a soapbox does not equate to your denial of one. Speech is not a finite quantity that needs to be rationed, and so the only way to equalize speech is to suppress it for those most vocal.
I don’t see “speech equalization” as a laudable goal, so I’m not really interested in exploring ways to get there. And, fortunately, our constutution doesn’t set that as a goal either, so good luck in finding a method to reach your goal that is also in accord with the constitution.
I don’t know if a union is required to inform you of your rights or in exactly what manner they may have to do that. The fine print may be so dense that you need to be a lawyer to understand it. BUT, the point is that there is a law to protect union members. There is legal recourse.
OTOH, there is no law to protect anyone from subtle coercive pressures promulgated by a boss, such as issuing a letter that “requests” you support his favorite candidate/party. And there should be.
You have rather an exceptional view of history yourself. The fact is, the NAACP was able to recruit significant numbers of people to its organization, and raise a good bit of money. The organization today is quite large, and controls significant assets.
The NAACP state and local chapters control millions more. Incidentally, lots of this money comes from corporations, including Microsoft, Archer-Daniels Midland, Lockheed Martin and Heinz, among many others.
All of this money was tempting enough to attract unscrupulous individuals. The scandals from several years ago were well publicized, and hurt the organization’s reputation considerably. Surely you remember this?
At any rate, it proves the point admirably, that if an organization has a message that resonates with people, that organization will have no problem raising money and articulating its message further.
That is true. However, dragging the union to court to demand they follow a law that they should have been following all along isn’t an ideal circumstance, don’t you agree?
The fact is, unions routinely flout the law requiring them to notify employees of their Beck rights, and only correct the injustice when they are dragged before the NLRB or into court. They only obey the law when they’re caught in lawbreaking. And that’s not right.
Well, where do you draw the line? Bosses have free speech rights as well.
I find this part of your post quite amusing, because it’s a stock comedy routine - the flustered, indignant person, stamping his foot and saying, “There oughta be a law!”
Oh, come on now, Moto. You serious, or just having a bit of fun with ol 'luce?
Sure, everybody’s on your side when you win! In 2001, the NAACP was well funded, funded well enough to attract hypocrites and scoundrels. And to think it only took some ninety-five years! If, as you claim, money follows the better argument, it certainly seems to take its own sweet time in doing so! Perhaps what your really mean is “money follows the better argument…eventually.”
Indeed, the devil is in the legislation. I make no bones about this, it is crucial to the spirit and the intent that bosses, rich folks, mindless trust-fund slacker lounge lizards,…should be able to support the political party that panders to thier craven desires. As well, we must ensure that poor and working class folks do not sieze a disproportionate share of political power: power which exceeds thier actual cumulative political rights. I submit that, so far, this doesn’t seem to be a problem.
All sarcasm aside, it is a thorny problem, and not amenable to easy formulae. I expect we will wrangle over this again and again. So be it. Well worth it.
Sorry, elucidator. I don’t have NAACP records from ninety-odd years ago, nor the means to place them in context.
However, the NAACP was able, over these years, to build membership, raise funds from them, and help effect significant social change. They have been a remarkably successful organization, even in the face of significant political opposition and institutionalized racism.
If you want to find an example of a struggling organization, that wouldn’t survive unless the rights of other organizations were curtailed, the NAACP wouldn’t be your best example. That’s all I’m saying.
And quite right you are, as far as that goes. Of course, since I’m making no such argument, it hardly matters. Were you to suggest that Hydrox cookies are vastly superior to Oreos, you would also be right, and just about as relevent.
(Of course Hydrox is better than Oreos. Even a strict constructionist knows that!)
Agreed. But similar situations happen all the time, for instance with insurance companies and HMO’s. The solution is to make the penalties for disobeying the law tougher.
I draw the line where I drew it previously. The boss is free to tell anyone who he supports. However anything that directly requests people who work for him/her to follow in his footsteps should be construed as potentially coercive and therefore illegal.
I’m only trying to be reasonable here. OTOH, seems to me you are flailing about, trying to support your case beyond all logic and reason. This is of course, not untypical of Repub’s these days, forever constrained to flounder around in Bush’s muck .
btw: shouldn’t you be working at whatever defense project you do instead of posting here during work hours?
You’re not being reasonable, though, iamme99. You’re arguing as if there’s an equivalence between what Mr. O’Neal did and what unions routinely do, when it’s clear that the union behavior is far, far worse.
As far as where the line should be drawn, I think that if there is a clear quid pro quo, or if the politicking contributes to an intolerably bad workplace, then there is a clear case of someone’s rights being violated.
However, existing laws on harassment and fair hiring seem quite up to the task here. And you’ve not been able to cite a case where these laws were broken. Mr. O’neal’s example clearly doesn’t make the cut, however distasteful you find it.
