Given that voting is still done anonymously, a number of people here have asked ‘how can anyone who buys your vote know who you ultimately vote for’. But, it can be more involved than that.
I think part of the justification for such laws was the realization that buying someone’s vote might actually include impersonating him/her with a stand-in who would make the ‘right’ vote. Or, and still liable to surprise defections, I admit, people could have been provided with a pre-marked ballot (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).
They tried to, with members from both parties collaborating on BCRA 2005. However, certain provisions in it were held to be unconstitutional.
What I don’t get is whether it would be legal to pay voters to complete a Likert scale on how happy they were for voting for one particular candidate, as doing so would be paying them to express a political opinion.
I also don’t understand why it’s constitutional to limit campaign contributions, since, like with PACs, the majority of funds from both PACs and campaigns are expended on electioneering communications.
There isn’t any good reason why citizens can’t sell their votes and they frequently do. It just can’t be a direct cash transaction. In fact, I would say almost every election hinges largely on which cantidate promises to give each person more money in their pocket, usually in the form of tax breaks. And it isn’t like our elected representatives don’t scurry right off to Washington and sell their votes to whoever promises to give them the most cash as well. Welcome to America.
Not in this case. The USSC has stated that to change this situation, our elected representatives have to change the Constitution. Which means my representatives need 3/4’s of the other members of Congress and 2/3’s of the states. All so BP and BoA can’t buy votes.
Fair enough. Even though he’s on my side, I don’t like what he’s doing either. It may be a case of bringing a gun to a gun fight, but I still don’t like it.
No more than allowing unlimited expenditure on campaign spending by the wealthy elite undermines the democratic process.
The issue is not what the law is, that’s settled for the moment. The issue is, under what circumstances does spending money fall under the First Amendment freedom of speech clause? I find it very suspicious that advocates of the Citizens United decision see spending money as virtually the same as speech, except in the one case that involves something that is already established as clearly illegal, i.e., buying votes, at which point it MAGICALLY becomes something other than speech, or at least, something that can be restricted, unlike other forms of spending. It is EXACTLY the approach I would expect someone to take whose only real desire is to extend the power of the wealthy with regard to politics. It is certainly not internally consistent. Perhaps you could explain to me this different quality that money has when it is used to buy votes outright, as opposed to buying media.
Why should they, when the ones who are elected are the ones who are bought and paid for?
It’s NOT “campaign” spending. That implies that the money is going to the candidates’ campaigns. This is money spent on speech about politics.
And I find it absolutely amazing that you can’t accept the obvious distinction between spending money on speech and spending money on something that isn’t speech.
If I spend money on toothpaste, that’s different from spending money on heroin. One is legal, the other isn’t. No magic necessary. There are legal distinctions between spending the money in different ways.
Circumstantial ad hominem.
One buys votes, the other buys media.
Really simple.
They aren’t bought and paid for. Bribery is illegal.
The voters decide who is elected, not the Koch’s. If the current reps are doing what the Koch’s want instead of the voters, they can replace them with someone else.
Seriously, are you just not reading what has been explained multiple times in this thread about this “money equals speech” strawman? Or are you just ignoring those posts? Why would explaining yet another time be of benefit to you?
No, the money is spent on buying media to broadcast speech about politics. The actual ads are relatively inexpensive. And all campaigns buy media for that purpose, it’s a basic thing they do.
Strange, I find it absolutely amazing that you cannot see the clear and present danger that unlimited political spending by the wealthy elite (and in secret, too) poses to democracy.
You’re just going back to “it’s illegal” which does not work, since I specifically said that that was not the issue. I am trying to figure out WHY money spent directly to buy votes is different from money spent to buy media. If money spent on speech is speech as you say, how is buying a vote not a form of speech. It seems like the most direct form of advocacy imaginable.
Not at all. You present one set of motives for your approach to money in politics, I see another set of motives that would produce exactly the same approach that you take. It’s reasonable to point that out.
And what differentiates the role of money in those transactions to make it regulatable in one case and an inviolable sacrosanct First Amendment right in the other?
Yes, and rich men write half million dollar checks without having a very specific response they are looking for from the recipient. Riiiiight.
I have yet to find an explanation that makes sense. “It is illegal to buy votes” is a matter of law, not logic. “It is aiding speech in the case of buying media but not when it is used to buy votes directly” makes no sense … the money used to buy a vote is being used to sway the voter in the most direct way imaginable. “Vote for candidate A and you will be 50 dollars richer!” is speech.
Pointing to election results and calling them a danger to democracy is absurd.
Because voting isn’t speech. You can’t simply try to define it as speech by calling vote-buying “advocacy.”
If you buy a banana, that’s buying a fruit. If you buy a TV, that’s not buying a fruit.
No, it’s not reasonable. It’s a circumstantial ad hominem. It’s an irrelevant fallacy.
The fact that one buys votes, and the other buys media. One is speech, and one is not speech.
Speech. Not speech.
Very simple.
Of course they have a reason. It’s not relevant. They have a constitutional right to say whatever they want, for any reason, and spend money saying it. Just like anyone else.
Just because money is spent on something does not make it speech. Money spent on buying illegal weapons is not protected by the Second Amendment; in just the same way, money spent on bribes to politicians is not protected by the First Amendment. Just because money is involved, the activity cannot be presumed to be covered by constitutional protections.
Political speech is given broad protections by the First Amendment. Because actual political speech is protected, it follows that attempts to regulate money may have the effect of restricting speech and may be impermissible. I don’t totally agree with this view, because I think reasonable restrictions on campaign contributions and campaign activity are not burdensome restrictions on speech and have a great benefit in discouraging a corrupting influence of money in elections. However, the principle isn’t that hard to understand: the government must be very careful when it attempts to restrict speech by means of restricting the use of money.
**There is no convincing case, either in law or by logic, that voting is speech.**The First Amendment does not mention voting in any way. Speech and voting are dealt with in different provisions of the Constitution. Speech and voting are carried out in substantially different ways: speech is generally spontaneous and voting is not (I can publish something any time I want, I can only vote when the government has organized an election. Only certain people may vote, generally everyone enjoys free speech (political opinions are not restricted to adult citizens who are not convicted felons). Speech is public, voting is done in private.
Just because there are aspects of elections that are bad today, does not mean that it is okay to make things worse. In one breath we hear complaints about the corruption of politics with money and how Citizens United is a terrible decision, and then in the next breath we hear that we should throw ALL the rules out the window and let people be paid to vote. This is not a reasonable argument. Just because I drink an unhealthy soda every now and then is not a justification for me to take up unhealthy activities like heroin, smoking, and Russian roulette. Furthermore, if you are going to complain that drinking soda (adding more money money to politics) is a terrible activity, why on earth are you saying that drinking ten times more soda (adding more money to politics) than is currently the case is a justifiable activity?
The purpose of any restriction on spending on speech is nothing more than to restrict the speech itself. The claim is that the speech is excessive, or that it should not come from a certain source. That is why restrictions on money spent on speech are not permissible.
Restrictions on campaign contributions are not restrictions on speech. Their purpose is not to restrict how much speech a candidate has. They are, for that reason, constitutional. Restrictions on spending by a candidate (“campaign activity”), like those on anyone else, are not constitutional, because they restrict speech.
Restrictions on spending on speech have no relation to corruption either. Spending money on speech is simply spending it on speech - no corruption involved, unless there is coordination with a campaign to evade contribution limits. Contributions, on the other hand, clearly have a logical connection with corruption and can be (and are) limited.
I completely agree. Money is not speech, nor entitled to the same constitutional protections that speech is.
My thought is that if you can regulate money to prevent people from using it to buy votes, you may regulate it in other ways to prevent it posing a direct threat to democracy, as for example in the case of unlimited secret contributions to SuperPACs.
I agree, so long as the regulations address a threat to the democratic process and are not crafted so as to favor one group over another. A simple cap on contribution sizes, for example, would solve the whole SuperPAC problem in a trice.
The act of voting may not be speech, but the act of using money to sway a voter into voting your way could reasonably be seen as an analog to speech. I personally think this poses a direct threat to democracy and am comfortable with regulations that deny everyone the ability to buy votes, but I don’t see any reason to pretend that buying votes with money is not analogous to speech.
My point is that if we throw away the rules about regulating money wrt Citizens United because money used to further political causes is speech, we should be consistent and allow vote-buying too. I personally think it would be far wiser to ban voting buying and put a cap on campaign, PAC and SuperPAC donations.
Money isn’t protected. The act of spending money on speech is protected. It’s part of the speech itself.
You need to stop thinking about the money, and start thinking about what is done with the money. Money is a thing; spending it is an action. The action is what matters.
Just as a I have a right to spend my money on, say, a newspaper ad without limits, I have a right to go to my neighbor and ask if he wants to chip in to buy an even bigger ad. It’s freedom of association. I have the right to form a group and act as a group, including political activities such as speech. That’s why you can’t distinguish between donations and spending when it comes to speech, and why donations to groups like Super PACs can’t be limited.
Well, no, it can’t. It’s laughable, in fact. You sound like a lawyer trying to get his client off with a whacky theory he knows won’t work, but has to try. “Your honor, my client was exercising his first amendment speech rights when he bribed that politician.”
No, it cannot be at all. Just because money is used for something doesn’t mean it is speech. Slipping a juror $100 in cash is not an analog to a convincing closing statement. Money and speech aren’t freely interchangeable, speech and voting aren’t freely interchangeable, voting and money aren’t freely interchangeable.
What is with this endless repetition of a false dilemma? Either we go back to the pre-Citizens United days (which is fine with me), or we proactively advocate the total and complete corruption of the electoral process with money flowing everywhere completely free of any regulation at all?
Do you hold similar opinions on other public policy issues? Like, since it is legal to own firearms for self-defense, we “should be consistent” and allow people to own anti-personnel landmines, too? Since some states allow for medicinal marijuana use, do you think they “should be consistent” and also allow for “medicinal” (wink-wink, nudge nudge) use of PCP and crack? Since it is already a social norm to tip waiters and taxicab drivers for good service, maybe we “should be consistent” and legalize the tipping of politicians for good service to their constituents?
I cannot help but think of the aphorism about foolish consistency being a hobgoblin. Consistency is no substitute for judgment.