U.S. Politics: Register to vote, the election is nigh

[aceluby]

Ace,

You do realize that a big difference exists between regulating commercial speech (cigarette and beer ads) and political speech? The first amendment was enacted as a protection for political speech. Therefore, a different standard applies toward reviewing government action to regulate political speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Hmmm.... no reference to the difference between political and commercial speech from a constitutional standpoint. Which part of the constitution are you referring to exactly when you make this claim?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ace,

Two hundred years of Supreme Court litigation. If you want to get pedantic about the actual words used then the first amendment wouldn't apply to any group but Congress, See, your own quote. The scope of the 1st amendment was expanded by Supreme Court interpretation those same rulings have held that restrictions of political speech are given a stricter review than commercial speech.

[aceluby]

I guess I'll have to take your word on it.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

Didn't the Democratic Party argue in favor of "packing" to create districts where minorties could depend upon electing minority representatives to congess? I have seen the problem for years. It dilutes minority votes in non-minority majority districts. Is the Democratic Party ending its support for "packing"?

I don't know; I'm not an authorized representative of the Democratic Party.

That being said, I think those districts were a bad idea motivated by an intent to do good. They've probably hurt black people as much as they've helped.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

I think you are correct.

ace,

Here's a 1997 UCLA law review article discussing strict scrutiny as applied to freedom of speech:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm

[Athias]

#1: Because I believe that, as TP said, when one individual can donate as much to a campaign as a million others, that creates pressures and incentives that are harmful to democracy.

I can see how, given that democracy is based on majoritarian legitimization. I don't see how the pressures and incentives from individually large donations are any more subject to scrutiny than pressures and incentives created by many small donations, but one individual being able to 'speak louder,' in a manner of terms, than 'the majority' would hamper the scheme.

#2: That's an extremely tendentious way to frame my position, don't you think? I'll frame my own position: I don't support entirely eliminating the ability of individuals to contribute to campaigns. I support reasonable limits on the amounts these individuals can donate.

And who gets to set these "reasonable" limits? The people that wanted them in the first place? Isn't that tendentious?

[TrackerNeil]

And who gets to set these "reasonable" limits? The people that wanted them in the first place? Isn't that tendentious?

We, the voters, through our elected officials, set those limits, just as we do with any other piece of legislation. Is there some other way you had in mind?

[Athias]

We, the voters, through our elected officials, set those limits, just as we do with any other piece of legislation. Is there some other way you had in mind?

So... the people who wanted them in first place. There's no "reason" there. It's as I said, it's a means to standardize inclusion and enforce parity.

[TerraPrime]

TP,

Didn't the Roman Catholic Church hide its money to prevent Plaintiffs in Sexual Abuse cases from getting big awards? Wasn't the money used to help hide abusive priests. Shouldn't the Government have the power to take those funds using the "it's really important" rational you are offering for campaign finance?

Don't ask me about what the government should do to the RCC. There are no measures extreme enough to elicit my objection. But, sure, yes to that question, and more. Forced labor of Catholic priests to produce money to pay for the victims? Yes, please. Take their land and sell it? Yes, go ahead. Extradict the Pope for money laundering and tax evasion? Where do I sign up?

[TrackerNeil]

So... the people who wanted them in first place. There's no "reason" there. It's as I said, it's a means to standardize inclusion and enforce parity.

Evidently you don't know how the legislative process works. A congressperson proposes a bill that must make it through several committees before it reaches the House floor (if it ever does). All along the way the bill is subject to revision and amendment. Assuming that this now-revised bill passes the House, it goes to the Senate, where it is once more passed through this and that committee, revised, amended, and put to a vote. If the bill passes the Senate, it must then be reconciled with the House bill in a process known as a conference committee, which is charged with ironing out the differences (if any) between the House and Senate versions. The bill is revised and amended at this stage as well. Assuming the bill then passes both houses of Congress, it goes to the president for his signature. The president, of course, can threaten a veto unless his demands are met.

Now, unless the pro-campaign-finance-regulation folks hold a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, as well as the White House that bill has been amended and revised six ways to Sunday. Therefore, the people who wanted the regulations have almost certainly had to make various compromises along the way, which means that they did not get exactly what they wanted. At no point do those people get to dictate regulations by fiat, as you seem to fear.

[Fez]

Limiting a freedom is not the same as taking it away entirely, correct? Limiting the amount of contribution and the ways in which to spend it is not "silencing" the rich people with large disposable incomes, no more than making all public drinking fountains available to all citizens is taking away the rights of white people to have exclusive drinking fountains. Rich people can still donate, and by and large, their influence will still be larger than that of poor people. But at least with the reforms I propose, the differential would be smaller, such that it will not take pooling resources from a million voters just to counter the action of 1 individual. Maybe now it will take only 50 thousand, to counter the action of 1. That's an improvement.

Tihs is tautological. The premise on my side is that there are structural problems inherent in the electoral system and the reforms are meant to mitigate the ill effects of these flaws. Do you disagree that there are stuctural issues that make the system more responsive to single source donors with large donations?

I'm not asking for equal share of political power. I am asking for a fighting chance for the interests of the lower SEC to be heard and considered, at all, by way of having politicians who actually will champion those issues becoming electable.

Your argument on the equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity also falls flat when we look at other examples of competition, like boxing. Your argument will say that if I go up against Mayweather, that'd be a fair fight because it's only fair that him being bigger gets to capitalize on that advantage. But for most people, we actually think that boxers of the same weight class should fight each other, out of fairness and out of consideration for the longevity of the sports. We see similar levels of sectioning off competitions in numerous other areas in order to preserve fairness in the competition.

Yes, careful considerations are needed, but I don't think we even agree yet on the fundamentals. For instance, do you see the effects that Koch, Adelson, and the super PACs, have on politics as a problem, or not? If so, what's the root of this problem? I am not sure that we agree on that basic premise yet.

1) That's true. But specifically are you proposing?

2) I agree that its part of the structure, I don't agree that its a problem.

3) I think less funded interest do have that fighting chance. Also, you fighting Mayweather the way you both are now, that's not equality of opportunity; just like saying that just because laws don't bar employers from paying women equal to men that there is equality of opportunity between the genders isn't true either. But if you got to the right weight class, then sure it is; he's still going to easily beat you though thanks to his years of training.

4) I think the Kochs et al. have had a really bad effect on our democracy, and I've said over and over that I support restrictions. I support requiring all "issue groups" to disclose their donor lists; I support much tougher restrictions on coordination between issue groups and political campaigns; I support maintaining the individual limit on campaign donations; I go back and forth on whether I support reinstating the aggregate limit on campaign donations. I DON'T support limiting donations to issue groups, if the disclosure and coordinations rules go into place; if they aren't, then I may consider supporting some sort of limitation to those donations as well.

I have never come out and said that I think all money all the time in politics is a good thing, or is even a thing that should happen. What I have said is that I think money is free speech, and therefore I'm leery of overzealous regulation.

[aceluby]

Tracker,

I think you are correct.

ace,

Here's a 1997 UCLA law review article discussing strict scrutiny as applied to freedom of speech:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm

Seems that this scrutiny is far from settled. In fact, one reading could easily be that by asserting that 'money = speech' that the door has been opened to restrict that speech even further since it creates privilege of one subclass over another.

[Commodore]

Seems that this scrutiny is far from settled. In fact, one reading could easily be that by asserting that 'money = speech' that the door has been opened to restrict that speech even further since it creates privilege of one subclass over another.

except for that whole 1st Amendment thing, sure

[Athias]

Evidently you don't know how the legislative process works. A congressperson proposes a bill that must make it through several committees before it reaches the House floor (if it ever does). All along the way the bill is subject to revision and amendment. Assuming that this now-revised bill passes the House, it goes to the Senate, where it is once more passed through this and that committee, revised, amended, and put to a vote. If the bill passes the Senate, it must then be reconciled with the House bill in a process known as a conference committee, which is charged with ironing out the differences (if any) between the House and Senate versions. The bill is revised and amended at this stage as well. Assuming the bill then passes both houses of Congress, it goes to the president for his signature. The president, of course, can threaten a veto unless his demands are met.

No offense, but you don't have to lecture me on how bills are passed. I've seen School House Rock's "I'm Just a Bill." :)

Now, unless the pro-campaign-finance-regulation folks hold a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, as well as the White House that bill has been amended and revised six ways to Sunday. Therefore, the people who wanted the regulations have almost certainly had to make various compromises along the way, which means that they did not get exactly what they wanted. At no point do those people get to dictate regulations by fiat, as you seem to fear.

What "seems" to cause me fear is irrelevant. You stipulated to the "reasonability" of these limitations. Just because those in favor of these limitations have to make certain concessions neither informs objectivity nor reasonability. It's like going to your father and asking to have your sister's allowance reduced. Are you telling me that your agenda is legitimized and "reasonable" as long as your father doesn't give you "exactly what you want?" What justifies the referendum on an individual's capacity to finance?

[Commodore]

I support requiring all "issue groups" to disclose their donor lists

You want the government to track individuals' political activity?

[Fez]

You want the government to track individuals' political activity?

That's the price of playing in a public arena. The first amendment gives you a right to free speech, it doesn't give you a right to anonymously say it.

[TrackerNeil]

No offense, but you don't have to lecture me on how bills are passed. I've seen School House Rock's "I'm Just a Bill." :)

What "seems" to cause me fear is irrelevant. You stipulated to the "reasonability" of these limitations. Just because those in favor of these limitations have to make certain concessions neither informs objectivity nor reasonability. It's like going to your father and asking to have your sister's allowance reduced. Are you telling me that your agenda is legitimized and "reasonable" as long as your father doesn't give you "exactly what you want?" What justifies the referendum on an individual's capacity to finance?

Clearly, you do require a lecture, because you seem to lack any understanding of the various compromises that accompany any legislation. And let's not compare the US system of government to the parent-child relationship, please, because there's no real comparison. Results in a democracy are legitimized if they are enacted in accordance with the legal process, if that addresses your point.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Athias doesn't think elections or democracy should exist, but if they absolutely must the least we can do is allow the wealthy spend vast sums of money to influence elections. Any amount of democracy is bad enough as it is, we certainly don't want to get carried away with ourselves and actually give the poor the same say as the wealthy, that would be terribly unreasonable.

Commodore thinks securing the right to vote should be made onerous and that every voter should be required to present a government issued voter ID when they cast their ballot, but it is an assault on freedom for wealthy donors to have to disclose which political advocacy groups they back. Apparently the ability of the wealthy to freely spend vast sums of money to influence elections is more a cornerstone of democracy than the principle that every citizen should have the franchise.

Right wingers, ladies and gentlemen, every bit as charming as one could hope.

[James Arryn]

There used to be a lot of value in some right-wing (to use an outdated expression) positions, but at least in America, the trend has kept pushing to the right so much so that the american center, which was always well to the right of center on the global scale anyways, is now so far over there that it's where the right used to be, and the right itself is fucking ridiculous.

A lot of this is down to a 2 party system, where on any issue the assumption is 2 reasonable opposing positions establish the norm between them. But, like, slavery. Civil rights. Guns. There are lots of issues which do not at all benefit from an assumption that opposing sides are contributing equally to the middle position.

[Athias]

Athias doesn't think elections or democracy should exist, but if they absolutely must the least we can do is allow the wealthy spend vast sums of money to influence elections. Any amount of democracy is bad enough as it is, we certainly don't want to get carried away with ourselves and actually give the poor the same say as the wealthy, that would be terribly unreasonable.

Right wingers, ladies and gentlemen, every bit as charming as one could hope.

It's a bit of a moot point to argue money's influence, even by those who are wealthy, since the whole purpose of political [monetary] donations is to influence elections. I don't see a qualitative difference between someone donating a large sum and another donating a small sum. If candidates and/or others are easily coaxed into holding "false" positions because someone spends more, then the referendum shouldn't be placed on the amount of money being used to finance, but those who are holding these "false" positions. (Blame the gun, won't you?)

I'm not right wing, Onion. I am my priniciples. Whether I'm charming is irrelevant. It also doesn't mask the insufficiency of the argument you presented. Don't make this personal. If you have a point, then make it.