# What would be a good strategy for American progressives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818 "2011-10-06T19:59:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/81 "2011-10-27T14:48:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look at the big picture – what I’m trying to do here is be extremely **stingy** with other peoples’ money. Especially the Koch Brothers’ – No, no, boys, save it for a rainy day; you always blow your allowance on that political stuff. Kids these days . . . No, what you are doing here is attempting to end run the First Amendment, and possibly the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, both to advance your own radical agenda. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/82 "2011-10-27T17:39:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Write-in** candidates get no airtime, and we already **have** ballot-access requirements – if ya wanna freeze out Goodspaceguy, just double the necessary number of petition signatures or whatever. You have to campaign and spend money to get the signatures, how do they choose who gets money for that? And he has been on the ballot many times. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/83 "2011-10-27T17:41:01Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No, what you are doing here is attempting to end run the First Amendment, and possibly the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, both to advance your own radical agenda. I’m quite confident of my **constitutional** position here. Another lawyer, Michael Lind, put it this way in [_The Next American Nation:_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031) > [@](#): > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. 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. As for “takings,” fine, let the Federal Elections Commission or whatever **pay** the networks for candidates’ (equal) advertising time, it’s a good and appopriate use of our tax dollars; there will still be a lot less money spent on the whole business than now. What matters is that (1) the fundraising pressure should be taken off the candidates and parties and, more importantly, (2) the fundraising **power** should be taken away from private interests. And **that** ain’t no radical agenda. Jefferson would’ve listened. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/84 "2011-10-27T17:57:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m quite confident of my **constitutional** position here. Another lawyer, Michael Lind, put it this way in [_The Next American Nation:_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031) SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, as you well know. > [@](#): > > As for “takings,” fine, let the Federal Elections Commission or whatever **pay** the networks for candidates’ (equal) advertising time, More deficit spending? Bad idea. All you’re trying to do here is censor the voices of those that oppose a radical leftist agenda. That’s not fair. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/85 "2011-10-27T18:27:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Got another: > > _ **Buckley v. Valeo!** _ :mad: > > Ya wanna get the **money** out of politics? Here’s how you do it: Make it illegal to donate money to political campaigns. Any. They won’t need money anyway. Each candidate in an election gets an equal share of free TV air time and that’s all the political advertising there is. It works well enough in France. > > Can you think of any other way? > > All we need (well, **first** thing we need) is for the SCOTUS to reverse [_Buckley v. Valeo._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._valeo) A 1976 decision holding that spending money to influence election campaigns **is** a protected form of free speech. > > So we’d better start thinking about making that a litmus-test issue next time a vacancy opens. And we’d better start shouting "Reverse _Buckley v. Valeo!"_ until Americans forget they ever even **heard** of _Roe v. Wade._ Just TV ads? For local candidates TV ads may not be the best venue. I’d rather see information about school board candidates in writing, for example. And it wouldn’t make sense for those candidates to have TV ads that cover the whole metro area when they are only running for our local school board. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/86 "2011-10-27T18:28:41Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, as you well know. :rolleyes: I know, Lind was **writing** about that decision and about why it was wrong and should be reversed, and **I** am talking about campaigning to reverse it. Like I said, campaign until it’s like the American people never even **heard** of _Roe v. Wade._ > [@Oakminster](#): > > More deficit spending? Bad idea. Trivial in the budget. > [@Oakminster](#): > > All you’re trying to do here is censor the voices of those that oppose a radical leftist agenda. That’s not fair. No, I’m offering them free airtime, paid for with my taxes, and **without having to go to any trouble for it** once ballot qualifications are met. We can have a system that freezes out a Goodspaceguy, without freezing out a Nader **or** a Buchanan. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/87 "2011-10-27T19:18:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > We can have a system that freezes out a Goodspaceguy, without freezing out a Nader **or** a Buchanan. But not without trampling on the First Amendment and censoring the voices of those who disagree with you. Essentially you are saying rich people can’t support candidates of their choice. You would not feel that way if the big money donors were favoring your candidates. You’re arguing tactics and ignoring principles. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/88 "2011-10-27T19:34:20Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Just TV ads? For local candidates TV ads may not be the best venue. I’d rather see information about school board candidates in writing, for example. And it wouldn’t make sense for those candidates to have TV ads that cover the whole metro area when they are only running for our local school board. Whatever. Whatever form of advertising costs the candidates **money** at present. that’s where public financing etc. needs to step in. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/89 "2011-10-27T19:35:33Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Essentially you are saying rich people can’t support candidates of their choice. No, I’m not. I’m saying they can’t support them any **more** than I, with **my** resources, can support candidates of **my** choice. That’s only fair. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/90 "2011-10-27T19:38:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Ya wanna get the **money** out of politics? Here’s how you do it: Make it illegal to donate money to political campaigns. Any. They won’t need money anyway. Each candidate in an election gets an equal share of free TV air time and that’s all the political advertising there is. It works well enough in France. Here is a scenario: let’s say I am a billionaire who likes a particular candidate. I go and buy ads in the papers, on TV, produce commercials, publish brochures, put up billboards that promote the candidate and criticize his opponents. How do you propose stopping me without repealing the first amendment? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/91 "2011-10-27T19:41:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Here is a scenario: let’s say I am a billionaire who likes a particular candidate. I go and buy ads in the papers, on TV, produce commercials, publish brochures, put up billboards that promote the candidate and criticize his opponents. How do you propose stopping me without repealing the first amendment? By reversing _Buckley v. Valeo._ What, you think a given SCOTUS’ interpretation of the Constitution settles the matter for all time? It can always be revisited. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/92 "2011-10-27T19:41:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Whatever. Whatever form of advertising costs the candidates **money** at present. that’s where public financing etc. needs to step in. Last presidential election Obama spent $1B on the campaign. Let’s say that the public financing will be capped at $200M or so. So - how does a candidate qualify for public financing? If you make it something tough like “collect one million signatures” - then once again, you allow the rich into the driving seat, because guess who will be funding the signature gathering effort. If you make it lower like “collect 20,000 signatures” then every Tom, Dick and Harry will be doing this. If you have 1,000 Presidential candidates and they each get $200M, the state has to provide $200B in financing. Weeee! Free money for everyone! ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/93 "2011-10-27T19:42:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > By reversing _Buckley v. Valeo._ What, you think a given SCOTUS’ interpretation of the Constitution settles the matter for all time? Ok, please explain exactly how you propose to phrase it so that you can somehow claim that my putting up a billboard for a candidate is not political speech? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/94 "2011-10-27T20:09:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Ok, please explain exactly how you propose to phrase it so that you can somehow claim that my putting up a billboard for a candidate is not political speech? Phrase what? The law? That’s for Congressional committees. As for getting around the constitutional problem . . . Well, you never know whether it has until someone brings a court challenge to the statute and a court decides. That’s how it works. And you never really, **finally** know, as decisions can always be reversed. That’s how it’s supposed to and **should** work. Look, if you had asked Jefferson, or whomever can best claim credit for the First Amendment, whether it was meant to guarantee a rich person’s right to spend money to influence elections, he would’ve looked at you like you were either fuckin’ nuts or a damned Federalist. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/95 "2011-10-27T20:46:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look, if you had asked Jefferson, or whomever can best claim credit for the First Amendment, whether it was meant to guarantee a rich person’s right to spend money to influence elections, he would’ve looked at you like you were either fuckin’ nuts or a damned Federalist. If you asked Jefferson whether the first amendment was meant to guarantee a rich person’s right to spend his money to express his own political opinions, he’d look at you like you’re fuckin’ nuts to even ask the question. Me putting up a billboard, taking an ad in a newspaper or on tv is the epitome of political speech. If you think that the first amendment was meant to only protect someone saying “I like this candidate” in the privacy of his own bedroom, you’re about as wrong as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/96 "2011-10-27T21:06:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, I’m not. I’m saying they can’t support them any **more** than I, with **my** resources, can support candidates of **my** choice. That’s only fair. Why is it fair to limit my speech because you underachieved? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/97 "2011-10-27T23:58:34Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Why is it fair to limit my speech because you underachieved? Same reason it’s fair not to give you an extra vote for every $20k in income over mine. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/98 "2011-10-28T00:23:55Z")
It’s funny, we’ve been coming up with all these technical strategies for achieving political success and the kids just came up with the best strategy: get out on the street and protest the hell out of what is going down! ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/99 "2011-10-28T01:03:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Same reason it’s fair not to give you an extra vote for every $20k in income over mine. False equivalency. The government has no right to tell me I cannot speak, or that I cannot purchase ads to express my views. You have the exact same right as I do. This country offers equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Some achieve more than others. If you want to spend more, you need to earn more. TANSTAAFL applies, always. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818/100 "2011-10-28T01:37:08Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > False equivalency. The government has no right to tell me I cannot speak, or that I cannot purchase ads to express my views. You have the exact same right as I do. This country offers equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Some achieve more than others. If you want to spend more, you need to earn more. TANSTAAFL applies, always. That means you get to **eat** better than I do. Why should it mean you get to have any bigger voice than I get in politics? I might not have any personal claim on your corporation, but I have the exact same personal claim as you have on this **country.** I have to live here and live with all the decisions our governments make or avoid making and all their consequences intended and unintended, just the same as you do, except that you probably don’t have to, etc., if you’re rich, and that’s part the of the problem. That’s why **votes** are equal – it’s not because all voters are assumed to be equally wise or good, it’s because all are assumed to be equally interested, and they are. We are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-a-good-strategy-for-american-progressives/598818.md?page=6)