US Politics - Even an Aussie can start a thread about it

[ants]

Last thread closed.

I am on the fence about removing the aggregate campaign contribution limits. As you state, there are limits on free speech when good cause exists. Roose and ants, however, do not appear to believe that any amount of campaign contributions should enjoy constitutional protection. I disagree.

I would agree to some constitutional protections being created about a certain level of donations. But not under free speech.

I was just about to make a post using the yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater example myself.

I really think the argument that giving money to a candidate isn't "speech" is the wrong way for those opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling to go. Another cliche is "actions speak louder than words" -- all sorts of actions can express one's beliefs and I think that the examples above of giving someone a Christmas present and driving a campaign bus (if it's as an unpaid volunteer) ARE expressions of one's commitments and therefore can be construed as "speech." I think the argument should be that allowing the extremely wealthy to have such a louder megaphone by giving way bigger presents to candidates than anyone else is dangerous to other important values, just as yelling "Fire" in a crowded place is dangerous.

Actions may speak louder than words, and a picture may be worth a thousand words. That doesn't mean actions and pictures are automatically speech.

Just because it is a commitment does not make it speech. Voting isn't speech, but is clearly showing a commitment. Marching with someone isn't speech - which is why the right of free assembly is a separate provision in the constitution. There was no thought that your right to show commitment or solidarity by marching was speech.

Note: I also absolutely agree with the megaphone argument. Even if its free speech, allowing people to effectively squeeze out those less fortunate is wrong.

I disagree that the act in and of itself is not expressive. If a citizen donates his money to pro - choice candidates, his expression and desire to have pro - choice candidates represent him in government is quite clear. Further, I know of no restrictions on free speech based on use of an agent. Do you? That sounds like a lame gotcha argument against why corporations do not have free speech rights.

The fact that a citizen's donation might fund a politician's bus is beyond specious. Even if you could source the funds to unequivocally determine that a citizen's donation paid for the bus and not, say, tv advertisements, so what? The operational expenses make the undeniable speech aspects of the campaign possible. A better view, anyways, would be that donations pay for all expenses on a pro-rata basis.

Again, being expressive doesn't mean its speech. Nobody is saying you can't be expressive or supportive or give your time. But frankly, the idea that that is speech is ridiculous.

Use this analogy. Someone burning a flag is speech. Fine by that. But what if it's in your own home with nobody watching? Sure its expressive. But I'd argue it isn't speech since speech by its very nature means communication, and there is no attempt to communicate. What is speech in one context may not be in another, regardless of it being expressive. And I think donations (of time or money) although very expressive, are not speech.

And the bit about the bus is no specious at all. Campaign funds are spent on lots of things that cannot be construed to be speech at all. So in response to (one) of the original arguments, donations are not simply to have someone speak on your behalf.

[aceluby]

Donating money as 'speech' is laughably ridiculous. It's a transaction, regulated commerce, and why we have a commerce clause in the constitution that is separate from the 1st amendment. We have officially bastardized the constitution so our Supreme Court can more easily dictate the results of the other two branches of govt.

[Lord Mord]

My problem with the argument that donations are not speech, is then I don't get how flag burning, for example, is speech, or pornography or political cartoons or even editorials. The hazy distinctions drawn in these forums to distinguish recognized speech from money seem like so much hand-waving, mere rationalizations to force the desired outcome.

OTOH, I think this is also an area for reasonable limitations on an otherwise virtually unrestricted right. The way I look at is that to lift restrictions on contributions is to make access to our politicians, and ergo to make active direction of the political process a commodity. This is what infuriates me about the conservative argument. Rather than saying, "Yes, money will unfairly direct political action and that's not great, but it's a necessary evil in a free society" -- which of course is debatable, but at least shows a concern for actual rule by the governed -- instead, they've had the balls to say, "Yes, political clout is a commodity. The government is, has always been, and is, indeed, at its most democratic when it is for sale." For those conservatives not of this conviction, I'm sorry, but your standard bearers are shitbags, at least in this regard.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

My problem with the argument that donations are not speech, is then I don't get how flag burning, for example, is speech, or pornography or political cartoons or even editorials. The hazy distinctions drawn in these forums to distinguish recognized speech from money seem like so much hand-waving, mere rationalizations to force the desired outcome.

OTOH, I think this is also an area for reasonable limitations on an otherwise virtually unrestricted right. The way I look at is that to lift restrictions on contributions is to make access to our politicians, and ergo to make active direction of the political process a commodity. This is what infiriates me about the conservative argument. Rather than saying, "Yes, money will unfairly direct political action and that's not great, but it's a necessary evil in a free society" -- which of course is debatable, but at least shows a concern for actual rule by the governed -- instead, they've had the balls to say, "Yes, political clout is a commodity. The government is, has always been, and is, indeed, at its most democratic when it is for sale." For those conservatives not of this conviction, I'm sorry, but your standard bearers are shitbags, at least in this regard.

I feel like you actually have to admire those conservatives who are just willing to come out and defend the idea of the unfettered buying of political influence and patronage. You can disagree and find the position distasteful, but at least it's honest. What is a lot harder to swallow are those conservatives defending the total destruction of campaign finance restrictions on the premise of "Hey, speech is great! The more speech the better! Only a horrible person would want to cut back on FREE SPEECH!"

Even if you think the Supreme Court made the right call on campaign finance and if you think that First Amendment concerns should gut the rest of the campaign finance laws, there's a point at which you can defend a constitutional principle while still lamenting its use. Part of the idea of having certain constitutional protections is the idea that, sometimes, there are tough calls where defending the principle may lead to a result that's just bad, but necessary to protect a greater good. You know, very few people defend the actual content of a lot of atrocious hate-speech that has been found to fall within the protections of the First Amendment. I understand someone defending the right of Neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois when one out of every six members of the town was a Holocaust survivor or directly related to one, but I can't actually imagine anyone (who wasn't a Neo-Nazi, and by definition, a piece of shit) actually defending the content of their speech and arguing "the more swasticas the better!!!."

[SkynJay]

Is this the death of the 'repeal or nothing' strategy? The house hides some changes/fixes in other legislation that gives small businesses more coverage choices.

And while the GOP propped up all kinds of actors and people who didn't realize they could have actually saved money under the law, they missed a group that actually is hurt by the new law. Many Colorado mountain counties are finding actual sticker shock with the new law due to lack of coverage in their area.

Health-care costs are higher in the mountains: Kaiser Health News reported the Colorado All-Payer Claims Database shows that the average hospital inpatient cost in Summit County was $786 per insured person, 61 percent above the state average, even though admissions were 10 percent below the state average.

[Cuellar]

There is always someone who will lose out. You can't make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time.

[ants]

My problem with the argument that donations are not speech, is then I don't get how flag burning, for example, is speech, or pornography or political cartoons or even editorials. The hazy distinctions drawn in these forums to distinguish recognized speech from money seem like so much hand-waving, mere rationalizations to force the desired outcome.

....

I think the distinction is similar to what I wrote in the OP. Communication is one key component. All the examples above are meant to communicate something, to those watching/listening/reading. You burn the flag in the street, you are making a statement for all to see. You are communicating. You burn it in the privacy of your own home you may still be making a statement, but you're not communicating. I think the first is speech, the second is not.

You pay personally for an advertisement, I consider that speech. You're communicating.

You give money to someone else, it isn't. The money isn't a form of communication. Even if they're planning on using it to speak.

From a free speech point of view I have far more sympathy for the protection of Super Pacs than I do for campaign contributions. From my democratic principles, I hate Super Pacs far more than the organised, regulated, public campaign donorship system.

[ThinkerX]

My problem with the argument that donations are not speech, is then I don't get how flag burning, for example, is speech, or pornography or political cartoons or even editorials. The hazy distinctions drawn in these forums to distinguish recognized speech from money seem like so much hand-waving, mere rationalizations to force the desired outcome.

There was a right wing column in the local print paper making the same points today. Though with more name calling. The author did admit that small donations from ordinary folks would have far less impact than gargantuan donations from the super rich, but attempted a sort of reverse numbers game: very few superrich, therefor not that important.

[Lord Mord]

Then may as well adopt monarchy. As long as it's okay when there's only a few, then if there's only one, that'd be even better, right?

[Crazydog7]

My problem with the argument that donations are not speech, is then I don't get how flag burning, for example, is speech, or pornography or political cartoons or even editorials. The hazy distinctions drawn in these forums to distinguish recognized speech from money seem like so much hand-waving, mere rationalizations to force the desired outcome.

William F. Buckley might have been an old guard reactionary ass but he did know how to turn a phrase. Please allow me to share one with you

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said

The definiitons drawn by this forum are not "hazy" everyone knows that the super rich control this country at least indirectly because their wealth buys them a disproportionat influence over the political process. Money is money and speech is speech to suggest that an extra amount of one grants more of the other is insane. If you honestly think that your average man on the street has as much influence in Washington as Sheldon Adelson or one of the Koch brothers I would then need to ask you why?

What scares me is just how many people can't be bothered to educate themselves about this ruling and what it means (idiots) and of those that do how many express support for the holy honest trustworthy job creators (water carriers)

[awesome possum]

Excuse the source but I found this too funny to pass up. Seems like some of the teanuts have not learned from their past mistakes and are still intent on trying to take out those darn pesky RINOs

On Thursday, GOP state Sen. Glenn Grothman announced his challenge to 18*-term moderate Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.). In a conservative district that went to Mitt Romney by seven points in 2012, Grothman hopes to channel dissatisfaction with Republicans in Congress whom he believes haven't done enough to slow down the Obama administration's policy agenda.

Yep, that's right. This guy thinks Republicans haven't done enough obstructing.

But wait, there's more:

But he comes with some baggage of his own.

A teanut, with baggage? You don't say....

In January, Grothman introduced legislation to eliminate a state requirement that workers get at least one day off per week. "Right now in Wisconsin, you're not supposed to work seven days in a row, which is a little ridiculous because all sorts of people want to work seven days a week," he told the Huffington Post. Eliminating days off is a long-running campaign from Grothman. Three years earlier, he argued that public employees should have to work on Martin Luther King Day. "Let's be honest, giving government employees off has nothing to do with honoring Martin Luther King Day and it's just about giving state employees another day off," he told the Wisconsin State Journal. It would be one thing if people were using their day off to do something productive, but Grothman said he would be "shocked if you can find anybody doing service."

MLK Day and "Saturday" aren't the only holidays Grothman opposes. At a town hall in 2013, he took on Kwanzaa, which he said "almost no black people today care about" and was being propped up by "white left-wingers who try to shove this down black people's throats in an effort to divide Americans."

Nice. So let's recap, he thinks Republicans haven't been tough enough on Obama, thinks the seven day work week is something people really want, thinks Kwanzaa is a holiday used by white libruls to instigate race wars. Is that all? No? There's more? Of course there is:

When he's not advocating for people to spend more time working, Grothman has gotten in trouble for advocating that (some) people be paid less. "You could argue that money is more important for men," he told the Daily Beast's Michelle Goldberg, after pushing through a repeal of the state's equal pay bill. And he has pushed to pare back a program that provided free birth control, while floating a bill that would have labeled single parenthood, "a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect." Grothman justified the bill by contending that women choose to become single mothers and call their pregnancies "unplanned" only because it's what people want to hear. "I think people are trained to say that 'this is a surprise to me,' because there's still enough of a stigma that they're supposed to say this," he said in 2012.

Ahhh, yes. There's that trifecta I was looking for. You wouldn't be a true teanut dipshit if you didn't go for the trifecta of insulting 1) the working class 2) minorities and 3) women.

The Tea Party: Fighting Hard for (rich, white, conservative) America

ETA: Oh geez, and let's make it a double whammy:

Minnesota Republican congressional candidate Aaron Miller's gripe with Washington is personal. Speaking at the district convention on Saturday, Miller, an Iraq War vet who won the nomination to challenge four-term Democratic Rep. Tim Walz, explained that he was running for office in part to ensure that his daughter won't have to learn about evolution at her local public school.

And the totally-meant-to-be-unironic kicker

He also called for more religious freedoms.

Oh Teanuts, you're so teanutty.

[Fez]

I absolutely think monetary donations should be protected as free speech. Who you give it to reveals your political preference and your policy choices, and it does so in a quick and easy manner that doesn't require you to make the time to actually talk at a rally/event/public forum/etc. It allows people who are too busy working/raising a family/etc. to still have an impact prior to the actual voting, and make their preferences heard during the candidate selection process. Yes it allows the rich to have a greater impact, but there's no way you can give a right to only some people.

At the same time, it is the interest of democracy to not have corruption or the appearance of corruption, and SCOTUS definition of that here is laughable. Just as there are certain limits on what you can say (can't attempt to incite a riot, can't physically threaten the president, etc.) there should be limits on how much you can donate.

[TrackerNeil]

At a town hall in 2013, he took on Kwanzaa, which he said "almost no black people today care about" and was being propped up by "white left-wingers who try to shove this down black people's throats in an effort to divide Americans."

I think it's amazing that white Glenn Grothmann knows what black people care about.

[TrackerNeil]

In other words, Republicans are cynically exploiting Americans' dissatisfaction with the mandate in order to gain power, after which they'll pretty much leave Obamacare more or less like it is.

But will that gain them power? The Democrats are disadvantaged this year not because of the ACA, but because of the gains they made in 2008 plus an unfavorable electorate plus a president with weak approval ratings. I don't think many people are going to vote one way or the other based on the ACA.

[davos]

Excuse the source but I found this too funny to pass up. Seems like some of the teanuts have not learned from their past mistakes and are still intent on trying to take out those darn pesky RINOs

Grothman is a piece of work. The links you provided only scrap the surface.

Its really sad that he is actually a threat to Petri. Rep. Petri is my parents' represenatative, and was mine for a while when I was growing up. 15 years ago he would have been considered far right. Certainly not to my tastes politically, but he's also rationale, willing to hold dialog with people who disagree with him, and generally just not batshit insane. Of course, in the new normal, where irrational, dogmatic commitment to an idealogy is a prerequisite to be a Republican, he now looks moderate. And in that district, he could well loose that primary. And if he doesn't, he's going to know he has to tow the party line or else.

I dispair for the future of this country.

[awesome possum]

I imagine the people who claim they'll be hitting the polls because of the ACA are the same ones who would list Benghazi (sorry, I mean BENGHAZI!!), the IRS and Obama trying to take their guns and free speech as other legitimate concerns.

Grothman is a piece of work. The links you provided only scrap the surface.

Its really sad that he is actually a threat to Petri. Rep. Petri is my parents' represenatative, and was mine for a while when I was growing up. 15 years ago he would have been considered far right. Certainly not to my tastes politically, but he's also rationale, willing to hold dialog with people who disagree with him, and generally just not batshit insane. Of course, in the new normal, where irrational, dogmatic commitment to an idealogy is a prerequisite to be a Republican, he now looks moderate. And in that district, he could well loose that primary. And if he doesn't, he's going to know he has to tow the party line or else.

I dispair for the future of this country.

How likely would it be for a Democratic candidate to kind of swoop in and beat Grothman should he win the primary? I know the article said it was a conservative district, but would a potential Mourdock/Akin situation be within reason or is whoever is running as the Republican candidate all but guaranteed a win?

[Maithanet]

Here's the question I have: how long has the inner workings of the GOP known that the gig was up? Did it take the symbolic 3/31 / 7 million threshold, or has it been much longer? I mean, I think there was some hope of repeal had the GOP won big in 2012.

I think that 2012 was the death knell of "repeal Obamacare" as an actual possibility, instead of just a cause to get people worked up. If Romney had won, along with a small majority in the Senate and a larger one in the House, they could have worked something through to get rid of it, even though it would waste a ton of money and screw over some people. But with Obama in the White House there's just no way, and by the time he's gone in 2017, it'll be the new normal. Or even the not-all-that-new-anymore normal.

[awesome possum]

Another "fun" little news blurb. A review of 600 Fox News segments in 2013 showed that the network's reporting on climate change was 28% accurate and 72% misleading. This is up from 7% in 2012 thanks in part to Bill O'Reilly changing his mind.

UCS reviewed nearly 600 segments mentioning "global warming" or "climate change" across the networks' most prominent evening and weekend programs during the 2013 calendar year. Segments that contained any inaccurate or misleading representations of climate science were categorized as misleading; otherwise they were characterized as being accurate.

...

The UCS analysis found that Fox News Channel hosts and guests were the most likely to accuse scientists of manipulating or hiding climate data. Fox hosts and guests often conveyed misinformation about scientific findings, including many false claims that global warming is not occurring.

...

However, Fox did have some accurate climate coverage, including interviews with policymakers and fact-checking segments. Special Report with Bret Baier and The O'Reilly Factor were responsible for almost all of the network's accurate coverage, though both shows also had segments that featured inaccurate representations of science. The Five was the main culprit behind Fox's climate inaccuracies, and was responsible for 53% of the network's misleading coverage. If not for this program, Fox would have had a climate reporting accuracy rating of 45%.

CNN was reported as 70% accurate while MSNBC was 92% accurate.

[Durckad]

I absolutely think monetary donations should be protected as free speech. Who you give it to reveals your political preference and your policy choices, and it does so in a quick and easy manner that doesn't require you to make the time to actually talk at a rally/event/public forum/etc. It allows people who are too busy working/raising a family/etc. to still have an impact prior to the actual voting, and make their preferences heard during the candidate selection process. Yes it allows the rich to have a greater impact, but there's no way you can give a right to only some people.

At the same time, it is the interest of democracy to not have corruption or the appearance of corruption, and SCOTUS definition of that here is laughable. Just as there are certain limits on what you can say (can't attempt to incite a riot, can't physically threaten the president, etc.) there should be limits on how much you can donate.

I was pretty firmly against the idea that money = free speech until this thread. Now I still find the idea questionable (mostly in that the Republicans seem to focus primarily on the free speech as it pertains to the wealthy) but I'm not totally against the idea anymore.

But... (there's always a but right?)

If we all accept the idea that money = free speech and that ergo limitations on campaign contributions are a violation of that, then is money always free speech or only in certain instances? If it is, then why can't I buy pot or hire a prostitute (if I wanted to do so)? Wouldn't my inability to spend my hard-earned freedom bucks be a violation of my free speech rights?

On another thought, if entertainment such as music or video games or television are also covered under freedom of speech, why can't I see boobies on NCIS or why can't I hear someone exclaim 'fuck' on the nightly news? Is that a comparable infringement on free speech?

We already live in a society that has plenty of restrictions on the first amendment and to say that limitations on contributions is egregious enough to make an issue out of it is ridiculous. Why don't we just let everyone vote as many times as they want too? I mean, if I really like a candidate then I should be able to show as much support as I want, in whatever capacity that may be.

[davos]

How likely would it be for a Democratic candidate to kind of swoop in and beat Grothman should he win the primary? I know the article said it was a conservative district, but would a potential Mourdock/Akin situation be within reason or is whoever is running as the Republican candidate all but guaranteed a win?

Hahahaha. If there isn't a major scandal or something similar that really hurts the Republican candidate, its a GOP seat, regardless of who is running. Prior to the recent redistricting, it held some moderate areas that might have made it competitive with a extrimist like Grothman as the GOP candidate. Now the Republicans could run Satan and win.

ETA: I misspoke earlier when I said Petri was my parents Rep. He had been for years but they were cut out of this district in 2011.