US Politics: Shryke and Commodore agree (and other signs and portents)

[Mudguard]

Why?

It's called the freedom of speech. I think it's better for more information to be disseminated rather than less information. I think it's better that these people be heard rather than silenced.

I'm also not that concerned yet that large amounts of spending drowns out other voices. Are you going to believe the Koch brother whether they spending 100 million or 100 billion on ads? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

[Shryke]

It's called the freedom of speech. I think it's better for more information to be disseminated rather than less information. I think it's better that these people be heard rather than silenced.

I'm also not that concerned yet that large amounts of spending drowns out other voices. Are you going to believe the Koch brother whether they spending 100 million or 100 billion on ads? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

But yet you would agree there are limits to how they can spend that money advancing the agenda of their backers. Unless you are saying bribery is ok too, of course.

You can't frame this as an issue of essential liberty without having to swallow some truly fucked up results. At some point, basically everyone starts admitting that they are ok with restricting "freedom of speech" to achieve another outcome.

[Mudguard]

I agree that restricting money in politics is restricting speech; however, society decided long ago that it was okay with certain restrictions on speech (you can't incite violence, call for assassinations, etc.) when its in the public interest. And I think that restricting money in politics due to its corrupting influence is a worthy restriction. I don't think it should be prohibited, but as a start I think there should be an individual limit in direct donations (which currently there still is, although I imagine SCOTUS will strike it down before too long) and I think all politically involved organizations should have to disclose all their donors.

I agree that the Democratic amendment was very poorly written, but it obviously didn't have a chance in hell of passing anyway, and political theater is a cornerstone of DC. I do think that a better written amendment should be enacted though, since this a very important issue.

Yeah, corporations and nonprofits are currently prohibited from directly donating to a candidate's campaign, and I think that's the right stance on that issue.

There are restrictions on the freedom of speech, like slander, falsely crying fire, as you note. But with respect to limiting political advertising and advocacy, I'm doubtful that a workable proposal exists. It can't be based on shutting up the people you dislike or disagree with, like the Koch brothers. That goes against the very foundations of the principles of freedom of speech. If someone can propose something workable, I'd definitely consider it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[TrueMetis]

Yeah, corporations and nonprofits are currently prohibited from directly donating to a candidate's campaign, and I think that's the right stance on that issue.

There are restrictions on the freedom of speech, like slander, falsely crying fire, as you note. But with respect to limiting political advertising and advocacy, I'm doubtful that a workable proposal exists. It can't be based on shutting up the people you dislike or disagree with, like the Koch brothers. That goes against the very foundations of the principles of freedom of speech. If someone can propose something workable, I'd definitely consider it, but I'm not holding my breath.

The principles of free speech are making sure that minority and dissident voices are not crushed. The fucking Koch brothers, and indeed most lobbyists, are not that group. Indeed by pouring so much money into what they want they are doing what free speech is meant to prevent and making minorities and dissidents unheard.

That free speech is used to support those that would see free speech destroyed is painful.

[Mudguard]

But yet you would agree there are limits to how they can spend that money advancing the agenda of their backers. Unless you are saying bribery is ok too, of course.

You can't frame this as an issue of essential liberty without having to swallow some truly fucked up results. At some point, basically everyone starts admitting that they are ok with restricting "freedom of speech" to achieve another outcome.

My post was strictly concerned with money used as political speech, as I assumed was clear from the context of my post. Direct donations, bribery, that's all prohibited and rightly so.

So what do you think is the right solution? Prohibit all corporations and nonprofits from engaging in political speech? Just the ones you dislike?

[Shryke]

My post was strictly concerned with money used as political speech, as I assumed was clear from the context of my post. Direct donations, bribery, that's all prohibited and rightly so.

Yes and I'm asking why these are somehow different?

Why is me running an ad for Hillary different from me paying her campaign to run an ad for Hillary themselves?

[Fez]

Yeah, corporations and nonprofits are currently prohibited from directly donating to a candidate's campaign, and I think that's the right stance on that issue.

There are restrictions on the freedom of speech, like slander, falsely crying fire, as you note. But with respect to limiting political advertising and advocacy, I'm doubtful that a workable proposal exists. It can't be based on shutting up the people you dislike or disagree with, like the Koch brothers. That goes against the very foundations of the principles of freedom of speech. If someone can propose something workable, I'd definitely consider it, but I'm not holding my breath.

The problem is that the non-coordination restrictions between campaigns and the "advocacy groups" that can raise unlimited, non-disclosed funding are a joke, as is the enforcement of what few restrictions there. So corporations, and others, can very easily provide as much money as they want in support of a candidate's election. That makes it very easy for quid pro quo corruption to occur, or even just the appearance of it (and SCOTUS has held that the government has a "pressing interest" in preventing the appearance of corruption because it undermines faith in democracy). There needs to be stronger restrictions on coordination, and groups should be forced to disclose all their donors, so that people know who is supporting the message being broadcast. Its freedom of speech, not freedom of anonymity.

[Mudguard]

The principles of free speech are making sure that minority and dissident voices are not crushed. The fucking Koch brothers, and indeed most lobbyists, are not that group. Indeed by pouring so much money into what they want they are doing what free speech is meant to prevent and making minorities and dissidents unheard.

That free speech is used to support those that would see free speech destroyed is painful.

The proposed amendment wouldn't do anything from stopping the Koch brothers from personally spending their wealth on political ads. They might not be able to do it through a nonprofit organization, but they could still do it personally.

What groups are being silenced by the Koch brother's paying for ads? As far as I can tell, these minority groups and dissident voices are all able to have their voices heard by buying their own ads. Ironically, the proposed amendment would give Congress and the States the right to silence Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, but not the Koch brothers themselves.

The first amendment is not about silencing the people you dislike or disagree with. It's also not about giving everyone equal airtime. That's just impossible in a country of 300 million plus people, and I don't want to listen to most people anyway.

[Mudguard]

The problem is that the non-coordination restrictions between campaigns and the "advocacy groups" that can raise unlimited, non-disclosed funding are a joke, as is the enforcement of what few restrictions there. So corporations, and others, can very easily provide as much money as they want in support of a candidate's election. That makes it very easy for quid pro quo corruption to occur, or even just the appearance of it (and SCOTUS has held that the government has a "pressing interest" in preventing the appearance of corruption because it undermines faith in democracy). There needs to be stronger restrictions on coordination, and groups should be forced to disclose all their donors, so that people know who is supporting the message being broadcast. Its freedom of speech, not freedom of anonymity.

This makes a lot of sense and I would be in favor of legislation that does this. I don't think that any of these things would be prohibited by Citizen's United either.

[Mudguard]

Yes and I'm asking why these are somehow different?

Why is me running an ad for Hillary different from me paying her campaign to run an ad for Hillary themselves?

My concern is with the protection of the freedom of speech. If you want to run an ad for Hillary, go ahead and do so. Theorectically, I wouldn't have a problem if you prepared an ad for Hillary with your own speech in it, and then handed it over to Hillary's campaign with money to have it aired, and then that's exactly what they did with your money. From a practical standpoint, doing it in that manner is unnecessary and it would make it a nightmare to determine whether money donated to a campaign was being used in a protected speech manner or not. It's just simpler all around to just run the ad yourself.

Fez does mention the problem of improper coordination, and I think that should be punished harshly. But I have little confidence that Congress would enact harsh penalties on politicians caught doing so.

[Commodore]

Care to comment on the bipartisan support for the McCain-Feingold Act, or are you just going to keep going with the hysterics about evil liberals who hate the constitution and trash our rights, without any regard for reality?

That it could be more appropriately labeled the Incumbent Protection Act explains its bipartisan support.

The law actually said it was illegal to mention a candidate's name 30 days before an election.

[Commodore]

There needs to be stronger restrictions on coordination, and groups should be forced to disclose all their donors, so that people know who is supporting the message being broadcast. Its freedom of speech, not freedom of anonymity.

Who is Publius?

[Mudguard]

Who is Publius?

That's an interesting read and they bring up some good points about intimidation and retaliation, but how would you prevent coordination if you allow anonymous donations?

[ThinkerX]

I am waiting for the moment when some billionaire sues his pet politician for not adequately representing his interests. In the billionaires mind, the politician is his 'employee,' representing him, not the public, therefor acting against the billionaires interest is a violation of contract (sort of). And sadly, it seems a number of posters in this thread would take the billionaire's side in this dispute.

My view is:

1) Maximum campaign contribution from any source of $1.00 (one) dollar. (With inflation being what it is, I suppose a case might be made for a ten dollar cap).

2) No outside campaigning - no PAC's, no specific adds from the party.

3) Debates mandatory - this is essentially a 'job interview.'

[Commodore]

I am waiting for the moment when some billionaire sues his pet politician for not adequately representing his interests. In the billionaires mind, the politician is his 'employee,' representing him, not the public, therefor acting against the billionaires interest is a violation of contract (sort of). And sadly, it seems a number of posters in this thread would take the billionaire's side in this dispute.

Suing would be pointless.

The billionaire would (1) stop voting for that politician and (2) stop spending resources to encourage others to vote for them (or perhaps spend resources encouraging others to vote them out).

Bloomberg/Steyer/Buffet/Soros/Zuckerburg/Koch all do this. Doesn't bother me at all. If that's how they want to spend their money, by all means, it's (supposedly) a free country.

[daskool]

The claim that allowable restrictions were worked out a long time ago is absolutely bizarre, as the Udall amendment is inspired by a very recent Supreme Court decision which overturned existing law. It's almost as if you have little actual understanding of the issue being discussed, and are only interested in making obnoxious unsubstantiated claims about the evilness of liberals.

Care to comment on the bipartisan support for the McCain-Feingold Act, or are you just going to keep going with the hysterics about evil liberals who hate the constitution and trash our rights, without any regard for reality?

Governments pass unconstitutional laws all the time. When someone with standing brings a case before the courts the judges occasionally fulfill their sworn duty and strike them down.

McCain-Feingold was exclusively about preserving the status quo and continuing the practice near permanent incumbency. I'm glad it was struck down as it was both unconstitutional (as the SCOTUS has ruled this is settled) and it was a flat fucking awful piece of legislation.

Go read the 1A and explain how limting or banning the right to spend money on speech is compliant. The desire by liberals to shut down opposition voices is deeply worrying.

[Shryke]

My concern is with the protection of the freedom of speech. If you want to run an ad for Hillary, go ahead and do so. Theorectically, I wouldn't have a problem if you prepared an ad for Hillary with your own speech in it, and then handed it over to Hillary's campaign with money to have it aired, and then that's exactly what they did with your money. From a practical standpoint, doing it in that manner is unnecessary and it would make it a nightmare to determine whether money donated to a campaign was being used in a protected speech manner or not. It's just simpler all around to just run the ad yourself.

Fez does mention the problem of improper coordination, and I think that should be punished harshly. But I have little confidence that Congress would enact harsh penalties on politicians caught doing so.

No, you aren't getting it. My spending unlimited moneys to speak freely about Hillary (or any candidate) is indistinguishable from my giving unlimited moneys to Hillary's campaign to get them to speak freely about her if the only lens you use is "freedom of speech". Or a host of other possibilities. And yet this is exactly the kind of corruption people complain about all the time.

To put it another way, how is me running ads to get Hillary elected because she will pass laws favourable to my business different from me donating money to Hillary so she can run ads to get elected to pass laws favourable to my business? And how are these both not me paying a candidate so that they will pass laws favourable to my business? It's all corruption or at least the appearance there of and all, by the definition you are using, free speech.

This is part of why the SCOTUS talks about the "appearance of corruption". Because even they recognize that free speech must have limits in the political process. Though they then go stupid places with this idea these days.

The metric of free speech is irrelevant to the political process because other factors are what actual determine what people think is proper or not. Unless, as I said at the beginning, you are prepared to just make bribes legal or quasi-legal.

[Shryke]

Governments pass unconstitutional laws all the time. When someone with standing brings a case before the courts the judges occasionally fulfill their sworn duty and strike them down.

McCain-Feingold was exclusively about preserving the status quo and continuing the practice near permanent incumbency. I'm glad it was struck down as it was both unconstitutional (as the SCOTUS has ruled this is settled) and it was a flat fucking awful piece of legislation.

Go read the 1A and explain how limting or banning the right to spend money on speech is compliant. The desire by liberals to shut down opposition voices is deeply worrying.

:rofl:

You really don't know anything about the american government and/or history, do you?

[Ramsay Gimp]

The principles of free speech are making sure that minority and dissident voices are not crushed. The fucking Koch brothers, and indeed most lobbyists, are not that group. Indeed by pouring so much money into what they want they are doing what free speech is meant to prevent and making minorities and dissidents unheard.

That free speech is used to support those that would see free speech destroyed is painful.

The Kochs, who have donated to the ACLU, also wish to "destroy free speech" now?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Governments pass unconstitutional laws all the time.

Example?

The notion of freedom of speech exists because of the Enlightenment concept of the marketplace of ideas, i.e. that if we all have our say, ideas will compete against each other - the bad ideas will be weeded out, leaving only good ones behind.

Allowing a small handful of people to swamp everyone else's speech doesn't fit with the marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech is about letting you argue based on the merits of your argument, not how much money you have. Political donations aren't speech: you can't rebut, challenge, or take issue with millions and billions of dollars being poured into certain causes.