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.
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.
I’m quite confident of my constitutional position here. Another lawyer, Michael Lind, put it this way in The Next American Nation:
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.
SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, as you well know.
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.
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.
: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.
Trivial in the budget.
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.
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.
Whatever. Whatever form of advertising costs the candidates money at present. that’s where public financing etc. needs to step in.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.