Your goal is to level the playing field so that some individuals do not have more influence than others on elections. Have you considered the idea of censoring political blogs? Some bloggers have widely disproportionate influence, and by throttling their readership (perhaps by a government controlled internet filter occasionally injecting 404's), together we could take the "celebrity blogger" influence out of politics and level the playing field.
...or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free speech, much like your plan to make political donations illegal? Seriously, why don't you stop trying to undermine the 1st Amendment?
..or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free speech, much like your plan to make political donations illegal? Seriously, why don't you stop trying to undermine the 1st Amendment?
Exactly... If they want to restrict speech, they must amend the constitution. However, more and more people are starting to agree that the 1st amendment "goes too far [firstamendmentcenter.org]", so repealing or severely restricting it should be an easy go. Lessig is barking up the wrong tree without a paddle.
anyone who thinks that the first amendment goes to far, should simply find a place that fits their beliefs better, I hear china is nice when it comes to restricting freedom of speech
You, the one who wants to restrict free speech because you don't like the results, how would you feel if a right winger tried this only towards the kind of speech liberals like? Liberals didn't complain when it was only Soros' money, but when the Libertarian/Conservative Koch brothers adopt the same exact donation category, all of a sudden you hate it.
Take your slavery and shove it. People like you are the problem, not Koch and Soros.
Whoa! That was intense! Where did I say anything about "liberal/conservative" or Koch and Soros? What to they have to do with the price of rice? I am merely one who believes that "no law" means no law... Your post completely misses the mark, to the point of being completely off-topic.
I was speaking to the people who think the first amendment goes too far. not "you" you. Sorry about the confusion.
The people I hear complaining about Koch brothers are all liberals, and the ones wanting to restrict money in politics, while saying Unions and Soros can spend all they want. Some people want it both ways.
Yes, those complaining about the Citizens United decision are also liberals. the most hilarious ones are the professional media (employees of corporations) when they start complaining that SCOTUS had the audacity to continue allowing corporations to discuss politics. I don't care who you are, that is funny.
Exactly... If they want to restrict speech, they must amend the constitution. However, more and more people are starting to agree that the 1st amendment "goes too far"
I sincerely hope you meant that as sarcasm, but fear otherwise.
The first amendment has become a sad parody of itself, when we have "first amendment zones"; a press crippled by a tide of anti-whistleblower policies and laws; the complete disregard for religious proscriptions in business; and an inability to petition the government for redr
You are refuting your own point by that line of argument. Everyone has the right to speak, but not everybody has the same persuasiveness/loudness/venue/charisma for speaking. And it would be a horrible idea for the government to try to equalize people's speech. Similarly, everyone has the right to spend their money to advance a political cause, but not everyone has the same amount of money to spend.
So money and speech are very similar there, and what you perceive as "unfair" really just boils down to th
"Money" describes tokens of value used in trade for goods and services. "Speech" describes, in its most abstract form, the communication of ideas. The two have entirely different purposes, different modalities, different styles of accountancy/accountability (as appropriate).
Now, if you want to debate whether or not companies can use as much money as they have to directly share their own opinions with the public, such as Chik-Fil-A coming out as anti-gay, we can talk. But Walmart anonymously pumping billions into anti-union candidates or Tyson buying their way into anti-agricultural-whistleblower laws, come about as far from "speech" as that ham sandwich does from a duck.
Money, like speech, only has the value and power a person gives to it. There is nothing intrinsic about either, and it has absolutely no force of its own. Everybody here is wagging the dog in a quest for convenience and expediency. Go after the desire, not the object of that desire.
Go after the desire, not the object of that desire.
I think I made my motivation entirely clear in the original response to you: "if we do insist on a constitutional amendment as the fix, we damned well need to target the 14th, not the 1st". So not shooting for any goals-by-proxy here; I make no attempts to hide my stance that the real problem here involves giving human rights to fictional entities.
Money, like speech, only has the value and power a person gives to it. There is nothing intrinsic about
Correct, money is not speech but it provides the means to allow speech to be heard and read. Do you think those horrible terrorist of the 1770s were using magical printing presses that magically produced lead, paper and ink or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they had to spend their money to buy those supplies? Is that not pretty much the same as buying ads in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV?
Yup, allowing peole to have a thought not given to them by the government is certainly going to far. I certainly can't wait until we have fully adopted the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary so that this is no longer even possible.
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Whatever term you use, it's clear that you want to let the government take away our "freedom to spend our own money to get the word out about something". That means less freedom. Maybe you're happy with that, because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Using the government to outlaw political movies, political blogs (that cost money to operate), newspape
Ad hominem. I don't htink the mjm wants governments to "take away our freedom." Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities. Surely I don't have to point out examples of this over the last decade, with resulted in significant cost to the taxpayer. He likely thinks a reasonable balance could offset this other category of "loss of freedom.".."...is exactly contrary to the intent of the 1st Amendment."
"Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities." Those are the only entities that should have any influence. Imagine the outcome when only the government gets to have an opinion.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
The idea behind democracy was one person, one vote.
Not one dollar, one vote.
If dollars didn't have the ability to warp the debate, by raising the noise level based not on the number of people involved, but sheerly on how much noise that could be made, we'd simply laugh at all the campaign spending excesses as a waste of money.
But, while it's obvious that money alone cannot guarantee an election, it's obvious that a lot of people both con and pro think it can do something, and if we're to be any form of demo
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doe
You spoke of "egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment". It's interesting -- originally voting rights were much more restricted than today. You had to be a white male, and you also had to own 50 acres of land in many states before you could vote. I'm not aware of any restriction on political donations back then, though.
Money never has, is not now and never will be defined as equaling speech except in the minds of liberals/progressives. Being heard has always required money to be spent. Back at the time of the US Revolution, money was required to buy or hire printing presses to produce pamphlets. Today it is required to buy ads or electricity to run a blog or pay the hired hands to appear on TV and radio. It has always been the case that those with more money could afford more publicity. That is one reason why the 1st amen
Let's put it a different way. Suppose a Republican president comes to power with Republicans in both legislative houses, and it becomes the law of the land that nobody can donate to a Democratic party or politician. Donating money to Democrats is now illegal. So... we all know that is "not OK", but why exactly is it "not OK"?
The answer lies in the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, whether you like the "money=speech" idea or not. Tell me why I'm wrong, please!
There are a couple of problems with that. One, you seem to be saying that such a bad law as my hypothetical would have been constitutional prior to 1868. Two, if you don't have a fundamental right to support political causes with your money as a matter of political expression, then there's arguably nothing there to "equally protect". At least, I am sure that an entrenched monopoly party would find a way to suppress political donations if at all possible in the absence of strong 1st Amendment assertion of
So... we all know that is "not OK", but why exactly is it "not OK"?
Because there are different rules for the different parties, simple as that. They need the same set of rules, as do the Libertarian, Green, Justice, etc parties. As it is now, anyone who is not a D or R isn't allowed to debate on TV for president, because the people in charge of regulating presidential debates are Ds and Rs, and those are their rules. We don't even need to resort to hypotheticals to figure out why this is a problem. It's not even an issue of free speech, it's an issue of everyone having
Yes, they are allowed to debate on TV as long as they are willing to pay for the privilege just like the D and R candidates do. There is absolutely no law or regulation preventing it. A private organization pays for all that and has established its rules. All other candidates are currently allowed to join forces and organize all the debates they desire. If the public wants to watch them, the networks will air them.
A private organization pays for all that and has established its rules.
Yes it has, and it's called The Commission On Presidential Debates [wikipedia.org]. Guess who runs that commission? If you answered "the Democratic and Republican parties created and are in complete control of the commission", then you're correct! So guess why we only get to watch televised debates featuring Democratic and Republican candidates. Go ahead, guess. I'll wait.
Are you done guessing? Did you answer "if any network shows any other debate not sponsored by the commission, then the commission will blacklist th
Well, since PBS is basically government owned, I guess PBS could take over all the other debates or maybe all the other candidates could make it worthwhile for the for-profit networks to air their debates. If the solution to every problem is going to be don't get involved and let the government solve it, then nothing really matters anyway.
How is money not speech? Is any force involved? Do you have to vote for the guy with the biggest budget? Is mass media your only source of information? If so, then the problem is not the crooked politician, or the guy making the offer. If you want to take the money out of politics, then stop voting for big money. That is the only way you can win. Prohibition is tyranny, and I for one, will never vote for such a thing.
So you'd allow someone who wants to blog for a candidate to pay a hosting provider x amount of money and to pay another company to make sure they are top of google search results but wouldn't allow them to pay for an opinion piece advising people to vote to candiate x in the newspaper, local radio or TV?
but it takes money to run a blog so spending money to run a blog that makes political speech should be just as illegal as spending money for any other get-out-the-message activity.
So, just because the Warren Burger led supreme court went 5-3 (Justice Stevens did not take part) in Buckley vs Valeo in favor of this line of reasoning does not make it correct. It simply means that our Supreme court believed that it knew better than the majority of Congress, who felt strongly enough about limiting campaign money to override Gerald Fords veto.
There's a plausible argument to be made that the 1st Amendment requires that a government can't make it illegal to donate money to their political opponents. There's a plausible argument to be made that exactly zero corporations are owned by robots today -- they are owned and run by people. And finally, there's a plausible argument to be made that you are a somewhat under-informed parroter of left wing talking points.
"There's a plausible argument to be made that exactly zero corporations are owned by robots today "
Careful, you don't want to go down that line or reasoning.
Our own judgement will we keep about down what line of reasoning we want to go.
"...you are a somewhat under-informed parroter of left wing talking points."
You are growing increasingly shrill and defensive. Relax. I'm more of what I call a "pre-Rand" libertarian.
I don't care how you describe yourself, but it is my personal policy to become increasingly shrill and defensive when people suggest removing my 1st Amendment's protection from government control/tyranny.:p
There's a plausible argument to be made that the 1st Amendment requires that a government can't make it illegal to donate money to their political opponents.
The fact that money is classified as speech but prostitution is illegal doesn't match up. Paying for political influence should not be legal.
Perhaps you're oversimplifying this. It's not that "money equals speech"; the problem is that suppressing certain kinds of donations means preventing people from "getting the word out" about something important to them, and thus prevents them from joining in unison with their peers in an act of aggregate, unison political speech. Or something.
the problem is that suppressing certain kinds of donations means preventing people from "getting the word out" about something important to them
Outright disallowing donations is one thing. It's another to place limits on how much they can give. 196 people shouldn't be allowed to donate 80% of the money that goes to super PACs, that is simply buying political influence by those who can afford it. If the donation limit was capped at $1000 per person, for example, then that would change things. Mayday PAC is a good example - the word is out, and it doesn't require people to donate a million dollars each. People can still get the word out, but the power should be with groups of like-minded people rather than very wealthy individuals. Sheldon Adelson said it best:
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections," he shrugs. "But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."
The $11 million he gave to Gingritch is 0.044% of his $25 billion worth. That's the same as a person worth a million dollars donating $440. It doesn't matter to him, but it drowns out everyone else who can't afford to give $11 million. It also drowns out people like those who support Mayday, who combined can only muster a little over $2 million (so far, anyway).
OK, if it's so desirable to "level the playing field" so some people don't influence more than others, why not censor some highly influential political bloggers? Why not mandate surgically created speech impediments for the most charismatic political speakers? You still haven't gotten away from my accusation that your core goal is a bad goal. Looking at the money aspect and saying, "See! Dirty money!" doesn't change the fact that "leveling the playing field" is a bad goal to start with, and really a mis
OK, if it's so desirable to "level the playing field" so some people don't influence more than others, why not censor some highly influential political bloggers?
Because I am concerned with money, not actual speech. People can say whatever they want to say. It's not about leveling all playing fields everywhere in every domain, it is about restricting the influence of MONEY in politics. Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Jon Stewart can say whatever they want to say to their audiences, and if they can convince them to vote a certain way, fine. That is not even in the same arena as Sheldon Adelson giving Gingritch $11 million dollars to single-handedly boost his presidenti
No, I think I just put my finger on a fallacy on your part. You've made it very clear that it's the disproportionate influence of one person versus lesser influence of the masses of other people on elections that you can't tolerate.
But you still haven't given any reason why Sheldon Adelson's money is any different here than Famous Q. PolitiBlogger's virtual soapbox. In both cases, one person has drastically larger influence on the political debate than the masses of people around them. Why is this imbal
The blogger presumably has had to build an audience by displaying some sort of insight that attracts people and keeps them reading his stuff. Or hers, depending.
In my world, that is better than a guy we'll call "Rick 'the thief' Scott" instead of using his real name, which is "Rick 'the thief' Scott," who spent $73 million to buy his way into the Florida governor's mansion.
"And how did he get all that money?" you ask.
"He was CEO of Hospital Corporation of America when they were ripping off Medicare for bi
But you still haven't given any reason why Sheldon Adelson's money is any different here than Famous Q. PolitiBlogger's virtual soapbox.
One of them is money. As in, currency. Hard cash. Something that you exchange for goods and services. Something that nearly everyone is trying to get.
The other one is a group of people listening.
I can try to convince a woman to sleep with me all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I pay her for it, it's illegal.
I can try to convince a politician to do something all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I make an explicit agreement to pay her in exchange for a vote, that is illegal.
Fallacy 1: "Because one politician got his money from ripping off Medicare, all money in politics is corrupt." (Many other people get their money through legitimate means.)
Fallacy 2: "There is a discernable moral difference between a blogger's disproportionately large audience due to writing skill versus a rich person's disproportionately large audience due to purchasing power." (Both can only be described as morally neutral in the general case. If you're trying to "level the playing field", there is no
OK, you are giving some fine analogies. But really, we're not talking about making it illegal to explicitly buy out a politician, because that is already illegal. You are suggesting that it should be illegal (by analogy) to pay money to a woman at all, whether or not there is sleeping with oneself involved. Or that there should be limits as to how much money a man can pay a woman. You want to cut out the gold digger girlfriends, and don't care whether you destroy legitimate gift giving freedoms between
You are suggesting that it should be illegal (by analogy) to pay money to a woman at all, whether or not there is sleeping with oneself involved. Or that there should be limits as to how much money a man can pay a woman. You want to cut out the gold digger girlfriends, and don't care whether you destroy legitimate gift giving freedoms between couples in the process (again, all by analogy). Right?
Well, if that woman is a politician, then yes. I am suggesting that politicians have to play by different rules than everyone else when they receive money.
Politicians in power will use an ill-conceived campaign finance law like this as a hammer to silence political dissent, whether it's films, newspapers, bloggers, etc.
I'm optimistically assuming that any law will be worded so that can't happen. Something like that would be obviously unconstitutional, so any law that would regulate campaign finance must be constitutional or else it's a waste of time. I haven't seen any actual bills being proposed at this point, so I can't really say either way.
Something like that would be obviously unconstitutional
No it wouldn't be. Once Lessig's crowd drills it into everybody's heads that it's OK for the government to block expenditure of money for political ends, then the government will proceed to do so whenever and wherever it can get away with it -- that is, whenever it's to the advantage of the current administration. This is giving government a new avenue to restrict people's political freedoms, and it will certainly be abused.
Raising money to make a political documentary that we don't like? We're gonna sh
Yes, he 1st amendment was the only thing that prevented the government from shutting down that documentary dn yet, many on hear use that decision as the very reason why we need to alter the 1st amendment. Never mind that the most recent appointee to SCOTUS argued during the hearing that the government already was allowed to do just that (more specifically, prevent the publication of a book the administration deemed undesirable based on political content oriented at itself or a candidate for federal office).
Yes, you will allow them to say it in private all they want. Saying it in public, where it really matters, is what you have a problem with.
Or George Soros or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffet each, individually, spending more on anti-gun lobbying and advertising than 4 million citizens combined? As many have asked previously, why do you liberals ever only complain about one side of the spectrum doing this?
Who the hell is complaining about one side? I want it all to end. In fact, I want every single person in Congress right now to be kicked out on their asses and replaced with completely new people. Every one of them. I also want some Libertarian candidates on the ballots, but one thing at a time.
Or George Soros or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffet each, individually, spending more on anti-gun lobbying and advertising than 4 million citizens combined?
Yeah, that's pretty fucked up, isn't it? Do you think they should be allowed to do that? I sure as hell don't, and I sure as hell never said I did. Take your straw man somewhere else.
Yes, you will allow them to say it in private all they want. Saying it in public, where it really matters, is what you have a problem with.
You want Libertarian candidates on the ballot? Convince some to run. Convince some to run for every partisan office on the ballot, however obscure, so you show that the Libertarians are a serious party. They don't have to do much campaigning, nor worry about what happens when they're elected, but they should be on the ballot, and should be on promotional materials like voter guides you hand out. You want it to be possible to vote straight Libertarian.
You want Libertarian candidates on the ballot? Convince some to run.
I don't have to, they already do run. But they and all other smaller party candidates get little to no exposure based on the fact that the commission on presidential debates does not allow any small party candidates to debate on national TV. That's the major thing I want to get changed, I want control of the debate process out of the hands of any political party.
There's a plausible argument that people shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they get together in order to exercise them, or formalize their arrangement by forming a corporation.
There's also a plausible argument to be made that if you can't spend your money on, say, traveling places to speak or buying poster boards for signs, you can't actually speak. In fact, if you can't spend any money related to political speech, your speech is largely limited to speaking to yourself at home.
There's a plausible argument that people shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they get together in order to exercise them, or formalize their arrangement by forming a corporation.
If the employees of Walmart want to donate to a political issue, or group together to buy an advertisement, go for it. If the owners of Walmart want to donate to a political issue, go for it.
But just like we limit direct campaign contributions, there is no reason we couldn't limit individual political spending. Let everyone spend a total of 100 dollars, directly, on political issues. Travel, hotels, doesn't count. But buying tv time, buying posters, donating to a campaign, very direct and obvious polit
If the employees of Walmart want to donate to a political issue, or group together to buy an advertisement, go for it. If the owners of Walmart want to donate to a political issue, go for it.
Citizens United has nothing to do with Walmart. The "corporations" that Citizens United was about was not-for-profit corporations, specifically created for the purpose of citizen participation. You know, everything from the Sierra Club and the ACLU to Citizens United.
But just like we limit direct campaign contributions,
Why do you think we limited direct contributions? Because way back in our past we were closer to a fascist dictatorship?
This idea that I see brewing in conservative circles, that it should be alright to just flat out cut a check to a politician in any amount is baffling. If it keeps going the way its been going, you'll see, literally, the head of Walmart or some organization walk into the Chamber of Congress before a vote and hand people money.
And if you disagree with flat out cutting a check to a politic
This idea that I see brewing in conservative circles, that it should be alright to just flat out cut a check to a politician in any amount is baffling.
What is baffling is that you consider this a problem, without any evidence whatsoever. Contrary to what you have been indoctrinated to think, the US is not a paradise created by rich people for rich people; there are far better places in the world to be rich. If anything, it is the US middle class that is far too powerful in US politics and enriching themselv
Seriously, stop trying to undermine the entire concept of a democracy. Or, in your lingo, a republic (even if that means you think the US and China have the same form of electing leaders... oh, wait, that would explain a lot of things).
OK. But you ignored and did not address my point. If it is desirable to "level the playing field" and make sure some people don't have more of a voice than others, then it should be OK to censor some political blogs, right? (Assuming we got that pesky 1st Amendment reduced in scope.)
Doesn't it undermine the entire concept of democracy if some political bloggers have wider readership (and more influence) than others? That is the core idea behind why you want to change the money flow, right? It's not ul
Proportional influence is an interesting idea. So we should ban unions since their large membership will give their leaders disproportionate influence with politics? How about newspaper editors they have a large readership and their recommendations in elections can be very helpful? How about political bloggers if they write about one candidates negatives and the others positives? These people become disproportionately important to politician election chances and therefore they are given greater access and i
Banning corporate donations should go along with banning union donations. No donations by organizations.
Political speech itself cannot and should not be restrained. If some person impresses me as knowledgeable or insightful, I can take that person's opinion into account while voting (for quite a few years, I just voted Mom's choices for school board, figuring that I'd get results I'd like that way without bothering to do the research). I have no respect for Limbaugh, but he has exactly as much right t
Karl Rove and his "maths" spending a quarter billion dollars and still loosing badly.
You are such an idiom. And a maroon. (Just kidding, of course, but there must be a numbered Fundamental Internet Law that says that online insults of other people's intelligence always contain a misspelling of some sort.)
Regardless of what China claims, the US is a constitutional republic. It basically means we have a constitution that defines the role of our government and that we elect representatives to vote on laws for us. Amazing that words have actual meaning, isn't it? And that the meaning need not change just because a dictatorship chooses to misuse those words in describing itself.
So you think our current system is perfect; anyone with access to millions of dollars should be allowed to influence elections in any way they see fit. That must be why congress has the best approval ratings we've seen in years and politicians don't have to waste any time/resources campaigning when they could be, you know, doing their jobs.
Give me a break.
I agree that we should be careful with how we restructure elections. Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing wit
Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing with "first amendment" issues) we should prohibit all political donations and give all candidates a set amount to work with to reach their constituents.
ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?
Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, t
Okay, so maybe it should be structured differently. Like a voucher system. Everyone gets, say 5 vouchers per election cycle they can donate to any candidate or party they would like. With those vouchers, candidates or parties can "buy" airtime/billboards/whatever. Let's not tie this to major parties only, please. I personally don't give a shit if the American Nazi Party gets airtime. We have to rely on people to filter out the bullshit on their own, otherwise we'll necessarily end up with censorship.
The core issue is conflating money with speech. That has always been a lie, payed for by the very rich to ensure that they maintained absolute control, and is grossly exacerbated by the more recent "corporations are people" lie.
Combine the two, and you have legalized bribery. And not just random Joe Millionaire trying to protect his own indulgences, but multi-billion dollar companies spending the money of their employees to keep entire swaths of congress in their pockets.
So you are saying that when people band together to accomplish something, they no longer have rights as people. Banded together, they may be censored by the government. They may have their property arbitrarily seized. All the normal rights of people are taken away, right?
I don't think you've thought this through. Corporations are people. They are not owned or run by robots. If you disagree with that, then you're not thinking deeply about it yet.
Pretty sure you're the one who needs to think this through. The people still have rights. The people may speak freely, donate to politics or otherwise exercise any rights enjoyed by We the People. But the corporation, the group, the amassed collection of people does not have rights. CocaCola does not get a vote in November. All of the Coca Cola employees do, sure (assuming non-felons, US citizens, etc) but the corporation is not a person.
I didn't band together with the CEO of my company to accomplish
But the corporation, the group, the amassed collection of people does not have rights.
Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?
CocaCola does not get a vote in November.
Yawn, straw man fallacy.
I didn't band together with the CEO of my company to accomplish something political.
You don't own the company you work for, so this is irrelevant. The rights of the company to freedom of speech should be equivalent to the rights of the owners of the company, since the company does what they say and speaks for them.
I'd wager that the vast VAST majority of Americans didn't pick their current job because of the political leanings of the C-suite (if those political leanings are even allowed to leak into public knowledge)
Who cares? Private companies are owned and run by people. Tho
Huh? Nobody's talking about anybody losing their freedom of speech. If two people work together, they can donate twice as much as one person as individuals. If one is a better speaker or blogger, the second can help the first.
Nobody's talking about shutting down the NYT's editorial department. We're talking about not allowing the New York Times to contribute to political organizations. They want to print editorials urging people to vote pro-Dadaist, that's their right. They want to encourage people
While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond. Maybe someone else will read through it and learn something.
Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?
It's funny that you mention strawman later, because that's exactly what this is. [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] You're setting up a false argument on my behalf (that would be the "completely fabricating" part), so that y
While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond.
Wasn't intentionally trolling, thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I actually debated somebody else on Slashdot who took your argument to another level and said that no company should be allowed to engage in political advocacy. I raised the example of the NYT and asked if he would axe their editorial department (as far as political commentary/advocacy goes), and was shocked that he said he would. Of course, it wasn't fair to paint you with that brush...
And the only group saying that "corporations are people" are liberal groups and liberal politicians. The conservative and libertarian side have ever only made the claim that the people organizing into groups, even if they incorporate for the purposes of money-management, do not lose that right. In other words, the corporation they formed is allowed to enter into contracts to produce and distribute advertising or books or movies instead of having to have 1,000 or 1,000,000 individuals sign the contracts and
Because CocaCola is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in November either. (We all know that many of them will anyway, but they have no right to do so.)
but the corporation is not a person.
Yes it is. Being a "person" under the law doesn't require one to be a human being. There is still a class of human beings who are not "persons" under the laws of the USA. You need to understand the underlying premise here.
The Constitution refers to "Persons", "The People" and "Citizens". These are three distinct types of entity under
Suing a corporation has nothing to do with them being people, and everything to do with them being deflector shield for the criminals in charge.
Case in point: General Motors. GM knowingly allowed a defect pass into production, and that defect killed over a dozen people. Somewhere along the line someone (Director, VP, or CEO) decided that it was cost effective to just let people die, rather than issuing a recall and fixing the defect. But that person is legally NOT culpable for negligence or any malfeasan
One is the playing field where the elected representative is being influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets, the other is where voters are being influenced by the press, including bloggers.
The first one is reprehensible, the representative has to work for his constituents, not the guy with most money.
The second is exactly what democracy is about, the constituents are influenced by whatever rocks their boat and then they vote.
If money is speech then let's just bypass the circus and get payed directly to vote. We could even have a government marketplace for buying votes, to make sure the rich don't have to pay extra. Of course, our legislators would never allow that level of competition.
I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for
nothing. I gave them nothing for something.
-- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil
Should the US government censor political blogs? (Score:2, Insightful)
...or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free speech, much like your plan to make political donations illegal? Seriously, why don't you stop trying to undermine the 1st Amendment?
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly... If they want to restrict speech, they must amend the constitution. However, more and more people are starting to agree that the 1st amendment "goes too far [firstamendmentcenter.org]", so repealing or severely restricting it should be an easy go. Lessig is barking up the wrong tree without a paddle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.
You, the one who wants to restrict free speech because you don't like the results, how would you feel if a right winger tried this only towards the kind of speech liberals like? Liberals didn't complain when it was only Soros' money, but when the Libertarian/Conservative Koch brothers adopt the same exact donation category, all of a sudden you hate it.
Take your slavery and shove it. People like you are the problem, not Koch and Soros.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoa! That was intense! Where did I say anything about "liberal/conservative" or Koch and Soros? What to they have to do with the price of rice? I am merely one who believes that "no law" means no law... Your post completely misses the mark, to the point of being completely off-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
I was speaking to the people who think the first amendment goes too far. not "you" you. Sorry about the confusion.
The people I hear complaining about Koch brothers are all liberals, and the ones wanting to restrict money in politics, while saying Unions and Soros can spend all they want. Some people want it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, those complaining about the Citizens United decision are also liberals. the most hilarious ones are the professional media (employees of corporations) when they start complaining that SCOTUS had the audacity to continue allowing corporations to discuss politics. I don't care who you are, that is funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I sincerely hope you meant that as sarcasm, but fear otherwise.
The first amendment has become a sad parody of itself, when we have "first amendment zones"; a press crippled by a tide of anti-whistleblower policies and laws; the complete disregard for religious proscriptions in business; and an inability to petition the government for redr
Re: (Score:1)
Money is not speech.
Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So money and speech are very similar there, and what you perceive as "unfair" really just boils down to th
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
For the same reason a ham sandwich isn't a duck?
"Money" describes tokens of value used in trade for goods and services. "Speech" describes, in its most abstract form, the communication of ideas. The two have entirely different purposes, different modalities, different styles of accountancy/accountability (as appropriate).
Now, if you want to debate whether or not companies can use as much money as they have to directly share their own opinions with the public, such as Chik-Fil-A coming out as anti-gay, we can talk. But Walmart anonymously pumping billions into anti-union candidates or Tyson buying their way into anti-agricultural-whistleblower laws, come about as far from "speech" as that ham sandwich does from a duck.
Re: (Score:1)
Money, like speech, only has the value and power a person gives to it. There is nothing intrinsic about either, and it has absolutely no force of its own. Everybody here is wagging the dog in a quest for convenience and expediency. Go after the desire, not the object of that desire.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I made my motivation entirely clear in the original response to you: "if we do insist on a constitutional amendment as the fix, we damned well need to target the 14th, not the 1st". So not shooting for any goals-by-proxy here; I make no attempts to hide my stance that the real problem here involves giving human rights to fictional entities.
Money, like speech, only has the value and power a person gives to it. There is nothing intrinsic about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Poe's law?
Re: (Score:3)
Correct, money is not speech but it provides the means to allow speech to be heard and read. Do you think those horrible terrorist of the 1770s were using magical printing presses that magically produced lead, paper and ink or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they had to spend their money to buy those supplies? Is that not pretty much the same as buying ads in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, allowing peole to have a thought not given to them by the government is certainly going to far. I certainly can't wait until we have fully adopted the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary so that this is no longer even possible.
Re: (Score:1)
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't. Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions. Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Whatever term you use, it's clear that you want to let the government take away our "freedom to spend our own money to get the word out about something". That means less freedom. Maybe you're happy with that, because governments never, ever abuse their position when given leeway to curtail personal freedoms?
Blogs (and the internet, for the most part still) are fairly democratic institutions.
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
Using cash to drown out the majority of voices is tyranny. A more egregious twisting of the intent of the 1st amendment I cannot imagine.
Using the government to outlaw political movies, political blogs (that cost money to operate), newspape
Re: (Score:1)
Ad hominem. I don't htink the mjm wants governments to "take away our freedom." Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities. Surely I don't have to point out examples of this over the last decade, with resulted in significant cost to the taxpayer. He likely thinks a reasonable balance could offset this other category of "loss of freedom." .."...is exactly contrary to the intent of the 1st Amendment."
You're reaching. The concept of mone
Re: (Score:2)
"Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities." Those are the only entities that should have any influence. Imagine the outcome when only the government gets to have an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you define "democratic" differently than I do.
The idea behind democracy was one person, one vote.
Not one dollar, one vote.
If dollars didn't have the ability to warp the debate, by raising the noise level based not on the number of people involved, but sheerly on how much noise that could be made, we'd simply laugh at all the campaign spending excesses as a waste of money.
But, while it's obvious that money alone cannot guarantee an election, it's obvious that a lot of people both con and pro think it can do something, and if we're to be any form of demo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure who you are replying to. You seem to be addressing statements that you think somebody made... but I don't see any of them in my post.
Of course money can be exchanged for greater access to an audience. Money can be exchanged to a lot of things. But that doesn't make it any of those things. Money is rarely regulated in the same manner as the things it can be exchanged for.
When the majority of voices do not have some means of access to be heard, there is no such thing as free speech. (In fact, doe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, with the original intent being that everyone has an equal right to speak. When money=speech, only those with money will have the right to speak.
If you want to look into the wayback machine, there was a time when corporations weren't people too. Ah, well, one step forward and two steps back.
Re: (Score:2)
Money never has, is not now and never will be defined as equaling speech except in the minds of liberals/progressives. Being heard has always required money to be spent. Back at the time of the US Revolution, money was required to buy or hire printing presses to produce pamphlets. Today it is required to buy ads or electricity to run a blog or pay the hired hands to appear on TV and radio. It has always been the case that those with more money could afford more publicity. That is one reason why the 1st amen
Re: (Score:2)
The answer lies in the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, whether you like the "money=speech" idea or not. Tell me why I'm wrong, please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way you cut, it is only a "simple" constitutional fix away, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So... we all know that is "not OK", but why exactly is it "not OK"?
Because there are different rules for the different parties, simple as that. They need the same set of rules, as do the Libertarian, Green, Justice, etc parties. As it is now, anyone who is not a D or R isn't allowed to debate on TV for president, because the people in charge of regulating presidential debates are Ds and Rs, and those are their rules. We don't even need to resort to hypotheticals to figure out why this is a problem. It's not even an issue of free speech, it's an issue of everyone having
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are allowed to debate on TV as long as they are willing to pay for the privilege just like the D and R candidates do. There is absolutely no law or regulation preventing it. A private organization pays for all that and has established its rules. All other candidates are currently allowed to join forces and organize all the debates they desire. If the public wants to watch them, the networks will air them.
Re: (Score:2)
A private organization pays for all that and has established its rules.
Yes it has, and it's called The Commission On Presidential Debates [wikipedia.org]. Guess who runs that commission? If you answered "the Democratic and Republican parties created and are in complete control of the commission", then you're correct! So guess why we only get to watch televised debates featuring Democratic and Republican candidates. Go ahead, guess. I'll wait.
Are you done guessing? Did you answer "if any network shows any other debate not sponsored by the commission, then the commission will blacklist th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since PBS is basically government owned, I guess PBS could take over all the other debates or maybe all the other candidates could make it worthwhile for the for-profit networks to air their debates. If the solution to every problem is going to be don't get involved and let the government solve it, then nothing really matters anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
How is money not speech? Is any force involved? Do you have to vote for the guy with the biggest budget? Is mass media your only source of information? If so, then the problem is not the crooked politician, or the guy making the offer. If you want to take the money out of politics, then stop voting for big money. That is the only way you can win. Prohibition is tyranny, and I for one, will never vote for such a thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
but it takes money to run a blog so spending money to run a blog that makes political speech should be just as illegal as spending money for any other get-out-the-message activity.
Re: (Score:1)
That's easy. A blog is speech. Money isn't.
So... a law that says Lessig can’t raise money to run ads for his campaign—that would be constitutional, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So, just because the Warren Burger led supreme court went 5-3 (Justice Stevens did not take part) in Buckley vs Valeo in favor of this line of reasoning does not make it correct. It simply means that our Supreme court believed that it knew better than the majority of Congress, who felt strongly enough about limiting campaign money to override Gerald Fords veto.
Should the US government censor political blogs? (Score:1)
There's a plausible argument to be made that money isn't speech and corporations aren't people.
It's almost intuitive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"There's a plausible argument to be made that exactly zero corporations are owned by robots today "
Careful, you don't want to go down that line or reasoning.
Our own judgement will we keep about down what line of reasoning we want to go.
"...you are a somewhat under-informed parroter of left wing talking points."
You are growing increasingly shrill and defensive. Relax. I'm more of what I call a "pre-Rand" libertarian.
I don't care how you describe yourself, but it is my personal policy to become increasingly shrill and defensive when people suggest removing my 1st Amendment's protection from government control/tyranny. :p
Re: (Score:2)
There's a plausible argument to be made that the 1st Amendment requires that a government can't make it illegal to donate money to their political opponents.
The fact that money is classified as speech but prostitution is illegal doesn't match up. Paying for political influence should not be legal.
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem is that suppressing certain kinds of donations means preventing people from "getting the word out" about something important to them
Outright disallowing donations is one thing. It's another to place limits on how much they can give. 196 people shouldn't be allowed to donate 80% of the money that goes to super PACs, that is simply buying political influence by those who can afford it. If the donation limit was capped at $1000 per person, for example, then that would change things. Mayday PAC is a good example - the word is out, and it doesn't require people to donate a million dollars each. People can still get the word out, but the power should be with groups of like-minded people rather than very wealthy individuals. Sheldon Adelson said it best:
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections," he shrugs. "But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."
The $11 million he gave to Gingritch is 0.044% of his $25 billion worth. That's the same as a person worth a million dollars donating $440. It doesn't matter to him, but it drowns out everyone else who can't afford to give $11 million. It also drowns out people like those who support Mayday, who combined can only muster a little over $2 million (so far, anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, if it's so desirable to "level the playing field" so some people don't influence more than others, why not censor some highly influential political bloggers?
Because I am concerned with money, not actual speech. People can say whatever they want to say. It's not about leveling all playing fields everywhere in every domain, it is about restricting the influence of MONEY in politics. Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Jon Stewart can say whatever they want to say to their audiences, and if they can convince them to vote a certain way, fine. That is not even in the same arena as Sheldon Adelson giving Gingritch $11 million dollars to single-handedly boost his presidenti
Re: (Score:3)
But you still haven't given any reason why Sheldon Adelson's money is any different here than Famous Q. PolitiBlogger's virtual soapbox. In both cases, one person has drastically larger influence on the political debate than the masses of people around them. Why is this imbal
Re: (Score:2)
The blogger presumably has had to build an audience by displaying some sort of insight that attracts people and keeps them reading his stuff. Or hers, depending.
In my world, that is better than a guy we'll call "Rick 'the thief' Scott" instead of using his real name, which is "Rick 'the thief' Scott," who spent $73 million to buy his way into the Florida governor's mansion.
"And how did he get all that money?" you ask.
"He was CEO of Hospital Corporation of America when they were ripping off Medicare for bi
Re: (Score:2)
But you still haven't given any reason why Sheldon Adelson's money is any different here than Famous Q. PolitiBlogger's virtual soapbox.
One of them is money. As in, currency. Hard cash. Something that you exchange for goods and services. Something that nearly everyone is trying to get.
The other one is a group of people listening.
I can try to convince a woman to sleep with me all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I pay her for it, it's illegal.
I can try to convince a politician to do something all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I make an explicit agreement to pay her in exchange for a vote, that is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
(Many other people get their money through legitimate means.)
Fallacy 2: "There is a discernable moral difference between a blogger's disproportionately large audience due to writing skill versus a rich person's disproportionately large audience due to purchasing power."
(Both can only be described as morally neutral in the general case. If you're trying to "level the playing field", there is no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are suggesting that it should be illegal (by analogy) to pay money to a woman at all, whether or not there is sleeping with oneself involved. Or that there should be limits as to how much money a man can pay a woman. You want to cut out the gold digger girlfriends, and don't care whether you destroy legitimate gift giving freedoms between couples in the process (again, all by analogy). Right?
Well, if that woman is a politician, then yes. I am suggesting that politicians have to play by different rules than everyone else when they receive money.
Politicians in power will use an ill-conceived campaign finance law like this as a hammer to silence political dissent, whether it's films, newspapers, bloggers, etc.
I'm optimistically assuming that any law will be worded so that can't happen. Something like that would be obviously unconstitutional, so any law that would regulate campaign finance must be constitutional or else it's a waste of time. I haven't seen any actual bills being proposed at this point, so I can't really say either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like that would be obviously unconstitutional
No it wouldn't be. Once Lessig's crowd drills it into everybody's heads that it's OK for the government to block expenditure of money for political ends, then the government will proceed to do so whenever and wherever it can get away with it -- that is, whenever it's to the advantage of the current administration. This is giving government a new avenue to restrict people's political freedoms, and it will certainly be abused.
Raising money to make a political documentary that we don't like? We're gonna sh
Re: (Score:2)
And one of those services you buy is "spreading the word" or speech if you will.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he 1st amendment was the only thing that prevented the government from shutting down that documentary dn yet, many on hear use that decision as the very reason why we need to alter the 1st amendment. Never mind that the most recent appointee to SCOTUS argued during the hearing that the government already was allowed to do just that (more specifically, prevent the publication of a book the administration deemed undesirable based on political content oriented at itself or a candidate for federal office).
Re: (Score:1)
I can try to convince a woman to sleep with me all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I pay her for it, it's illegal.
If you pay a woman to have sex with you, in most places, that's illegal.
If you pay other people to tell this woman why she should have sex with you, that's not illegal.
Buying votes is illegal. Paying people to tell others to vote the way you want them to should not be illegal.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you will allow them to say it in private all they want. Saying it in public, where it really matters, is what you have a problem with.
Or George Soros or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffet each, individually, spending more on anti-gun lobbying and advertising than 4 million citizens combined? As many have asked previously, why do you liberals ever only complain about one side of the spectrum doing this?
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell is complaining about one side? I want it all to end. In fact, I want every single person in Congress right now to be kicked out on their asses and replaced with completely new people. Every one of them. I also want some Libertarian candidates on the ballots, but one thing at a time.
Or George Soros or Michael Bloomberg or Warren Buffet each, individually, spending more on anti-gun lobbying and advertising than 4 million citizens combined?
Yeah, that's pretty fucked up, isn't it? Do you think they should be allowed to do that? I sure as hell don't, and I sure as hell never said I did. Take your straw man somewhere else.
Yes, you will allow them to say it in private all they want. Saying it in public, where it really matters, is what you have a problem with.
The straw is really flying
Re: (Score:2)
You want Libertarian candidates on the ballot? Convince some to run. Convince some to run for every partisan office on the ballot, however obscure, so you show that the Libertarians are a serious party. They don't have to do much campaigning, nor worry about what happens when they're elected, but they should be on the ballot, and should be on promotional materials like voter guides you hand out. You want it to be possible to vote straight Libertarian.
Don't worry so much about being elected President
Re: (Score:2)
You want Libertarian candidates on the ballot? Convince some to run.
I don't have to, they already do run. But they and all other smaller party candidates get little to no exposure based on the fact that the commission on presidential debates does not allow any small party candidates to debate on national TV. That's the major thing I want to get changed, I want control of the debate process out of the hands of any political party.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have a problem with Michael Bloomberg giving $50,000,000 to promote anti-gun politicians?
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Sure do. Have you not been paying attention to anything I've said? Have I qualified any statement with a political affiliation?
Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a plausible argument that people shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they get together in order to exercise them, or formalize their arrangement by forming a corporation.
There's also a plausible argument to be made that if you can't spend your money on, say, traveling places to speak or buying poster boards for signs, you can't actually speak. In fact, if you can't spend any money related to political speech, your speech is largely limited to speaking to yourself at home.
It's almost intuitive.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a plausible argument that people shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they get together in order to exercise them, or formalize their arrangement by forming a corporation.
If the employees of Walmart want to donate to a political issue, or group together to buy an advertisement, go for it. If the owners of Walmart want to donate to a political issue, go for it.
But just like we limit direct campaign contributions, there is no reason we couldn't limit individual political spending. Let everyone spend a total of 100 dollars, directly, on political issues. Travel, hotels, doesn't count. But buying tv time, buying posters, donating to a campaign, very direct and obvious polit
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United has nothing to do with Walmart. The "corporations" that Citizens United was about was not-for-profit corporations, specifically created for the purpose of citizen participation. You know, everything from the Sierra Club and the ACLU to Citizens United.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think we limited direct contributions? Because way back in our past we were closer to a fascist dictatorship?
This idea that I see brewing in conservative circles, that it should be alright to just flat out cut a check to a politician in any amount is baffling. If it keeps going the way its been going, you'll see, literally, the head of Walmart or some organization walk into the Chamber of Congress before a vote and hand people money.
And if you disagree with flat out cutting a check to a politic
Re: (Score:2)
What is baffling is that you consider this a problem, without any evidence whatsoever. Contrary to what you have been indoctrinated to think, the US is not a paradise created by rich people for rich people; there are far better places in the world to be rich. If anything, it is the US middle class that is far too powerful in US politics and enriching themselv
Re: (Score:1)
Because money is not speech.
Seriously, stop trying to undermine the entire concept of a democracy. Or, in your lingo, a republic (even if that means you think the US and China have the same form of electing leaders... oh, wait, that would explain a lot of things).
Re: (Score:2)
Because money is not speech.
OK. But you ignored and did not address my point. If it is desirable to "level the playing field" and make sure some people don't have more of a voice than others, then it should be OK to censor some political blogs, right? (Assuming we got that pesky 1st Amendment reduced in scope.)
Doesn't it undermine the entire concept of democracy if some political bloggers have wider readership (and more influence) than others? That is the core idea behind why you want to change the money flow, right? It's not ul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning corporate donations should go along with banning union donations. No donations by organizations.
Political speech itself cannot and should not be restrained. If some person impresses me as knowledgeable or insightful, I can take that person's opinion into account while voting (for quite a few years, I just voted Mom's choices for school board, figuring that I'd get results I'd like that way without bothering to do the research). I have no respect for Limbaugh, but he has exactly as much right t
Re: (Score:2)
Karl Rove and his "maths" spending a quarter billion dollars and still loosing badly.
You are such an idiom. And a maroon. (Just kidding, of course, but there must be a numbered Fundamental Internet Law that says that online insults of other people's intelligence always contain a misspelling of some sort.)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of what China claims, the US is a constitutional republic. It basically means we have a constitution that defines the role of our government and that we elect representatives to vote on laws for us. Amazing that words have actual meaning, isn't it? And that the meaning need not change just because a dictatorship chooses to misuse those words in describing itself.
Re: (Score:1)
So you think our current system is perfect; anyone with access to millions of dollars should be allowed to influence elections in any way they see fit. That must be why congress has the best approval ratings we've seen in years and politicians don't have to waste any time/resources campaigning when they could be, you know, doing their jobs.
Give me a break.
I agree that we should be careful with how we restructure elections. Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing wit
Re: (Score:1)
Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing with "first amendment" issues) we should prohibit all political donations and give all candidates a set amount to work with to reach their constituents.
ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?
Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, t
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, so maybe it should be structured differently. Like a voucher system. Everyone gets, say 5 vouchers per election cycle they can donate to any candidate or party they would like. With those vouchers, candidates or parties can "buy" airtime/billboards/whatever. Let's not tie this to major parties only, please. I personally don't give a shit if the American Nazi Party gets airtime. We have to rely on people to filter out the bullshit on their own, otherwise we'll necessarily end up with censorship.
The mai
Re: (Score:1)
These "vouchers" that you are describing sound an awful lot like...money.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
The core issue is conflating money with speech. That has always been a lie, payed for by the very rich to ensure that they maintained absolute control, and is grossly exacerbated by the more recent "corporations are people" lie.
Combine the two, and you have legalized bribery. And not just random Joe Millionaire trying to protect his own indulgences, but multi-billion dollar companies spending the money of their employees to keep entire swaths of congress in their pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
more recent "corporations are people" lie
So you are saying that when people band together to accomplish something, they no longer have rights as people. Banded together, they may be censored by the government. They may have their property arbitrarily seized. All the normal rights of people are taken away, right?
I don't think you've thought this through. Corporations are people. They are not owned or run by robots. If you disagree with that, then you're not thinking deeply about it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you're the one who needs to think this through. The people still have rights. The people may speak freely, donate to politics or otherwise exercise any rights enjoyed by We the People. But the corporation, the group, the amassed collection of people does not have rights. CocaCola does not get a vote in November. All of the Coca Cola employees do, sure (assuming non-felons, US citizens, etc) but the corporation is not a person.
I didn't band together with the CEO of my company to accomplish
Re: (Score:2)
But the corporation, the group, the amassed collection of people does not have rights.
Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?
CocaCola does not get a vote in November.
Yawn, straw man fallacy.
I didn't band together with the CEO of my company to accomplish something political.
You don't own the company you work for, so this is irrelevant. The rights of the company to freedom of speech should be equivalent to the rights of the owners of the company, since the company does what they say and speaks for them.
I'd wager that the vast VAST majority of Americans didn't pick their current job because of the political leanings of the C-suite (if those political leanings are even allowed to leak into public knowledge)
Who cares? Private companies are owned and run by people. Tho
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Nobody's talking about anybody losing their freedom of speech. If two people work together, they can donate twice as much as one person as individuals. If one is a better speaker or blogger, the second can help the first.
Nobody's talking about shutting down the NYT's editorial department. We're talking about not allowing the New York Times to contribute to political organizations. They want to print editorials urging people to vote pro-Dadaist, that's their right. They want to encourage people
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond. Maybe someone else will read through it and learn something.
Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?
It's funny that you mention strawman later, because that's exactly what this is. [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] You're setting up a false argument on my behalf (that would be the "completely fabricating" part), so that y
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond.
Wasn't intentionally trolling, thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I actually debated somebody else on Slashdot who took your argument to another level and said that no company should be allowed to engage in political advocacy. I raised the example of the NYT and asked if he would axe their editorial department (as far as political commentary/advocacy goes), and was shocked that he said he would. Of course, it wasn't fair to paint you with that brush...
... that to me the fr
... except
Re: (Score:2)
And the only group saying that "corporations are people" are liberal groups and liberal politicians. The conservative and libertarian side have ever only made the claim that the people organizing into groups, even if they incorporate for the purposes of money-management, do not lose that right. In other words, the corporation they formed is allowed to enter into contracts to produce and distribute advertising or books or movies instead of having to have 1,000 or 1,000,000 individuals sign the contracts and
Re: (Score:1)
CocaCola does not get a vote in November.
Because CocaCola is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in November either. (We all know that many of them will anyway, but they have no right to do so.)
but the corporation is not a person.
Yes it is. Being a "person" under the law doesn't require one to be a human being. There is still a class of human beings who are not "persons" under the laws of the USA. You need to understand the underlying premise here.
The Constitution refers to "Persons", "The People" and "Citizens". These are three distinct types of entity under
Re: (Score:2)
Suing a corporation has nothing to do with them being people, and everything to do with them being deflector shield for the criminals in charge.
Case in point: General Motors. GM knowingly allowed a defect pass into production, and that defect killed over a dozen people. Somewhere along the line someone (Director, VP, or CEO) decided that it was cost effective to just let people die, rather than issuing a recall and fixing the defect. But that person is legally NOT culpable for negligence or any malfeasan
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations can be the targets of legal action precisely because they are persons under the law.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
One is the playing field where the elected representative is being influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets, the other is where voters are being influenced by the press, including bloggers.
The first one is reprehensible, the representative has to work for his constituents, not the guy with most money.
The second is exactly what democracy is about, the constituents are influenced by whatever rocks their boat and then they vote.
Re: (Score:2)
If money is speech then let's just bypass the circus and get payed directly to vote. We could even have a government marketplace for buying votes, to make sure the rich don't have to pay extra. Of course, our legislators would never allow that level of competition.