Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Good news: Supreme Court still in session during the shutdown. Bad news: Campaign donors who have hit the contribution caps deserve more free speech   (slate.com) divider line 99
    More: Asinine, Scrooge McDuck, Supreme Court, Koch Brothers, free speeches, Justice Antonin Scalia, blood donors, Justice Stephen Breyer, brothers  
•       •       •

1009 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2013 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-09 12:24:25 AM  
You're in favor of restricting speech, or in this case letting people spend their money on speech, subby?

Really? One law for one group, and another for a group you don't like.

Really?
 
2013-10-09 12:42:16 AM  

feckingmorons: You're in favor of restricting speech, or in this case letting people spend their money on speech, subby?

Really? One law for one group, and another for a group you don't like.

Really?


Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.

We need major campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Eliminate SuperPACs, severely limit campaign TV and radio ads, and set a low limit for total campaign expenditures for all candidates with no outside groups allowed to campaign.  Give each candidate equal opportunity in publicly funded televised debates to sell his or her vision, and let the public decide based on ideas instead of media saturation and attack ads.
 
2013-10-09 12:56:31 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons: You're in favor of restricting speech, or in this case letting people spend their money on speech, subby?

Really? One law for one group, and another for a group you don't like.

Really?

Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.

We need major campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Eliminate SuperPACs, severely limit campaign TV and radio ads, and set a low limit for total campaign expenditures for all candidates with no outside groups allowed to campaign.  Give each candidate equal opportunity in publicly funded televised debates to sell his or her vision, and let the public decide based on ideas instead of media saturation and attack ads.


As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.
 
2013-10-09 01:10:40 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons: You're in favor of restricting speech, or in this case letting people spend their money on speech, subby?

Really? One law for one group, and another for a group you don't like.

Really?

Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.

We need major campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Eliminate SuperPACs, severely limit campaign TV and radio ads, and set a low limit for total campaign expenditures for all candidates with no outside groups allowed to campaign.  Give each candidate equal opportunity in publicly funded televised debates to sell his or her vision, and let the public decide based on ideas instead of media saturation and attack ads.

As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.


Fair is fair, I don't have a problem with that.  The only exemptions I'd make would be for volunteers, and I'd set some rules to give journalists some room to report accurately without having to worry about being called out for campaigning as long as they were open to audits to make sure their reports weren't biased due to monetary contributions.
 
2013-10-09 01:24:41 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: FlyingLizardOfDoom: TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons: You're in favor of restricting speech, or in this case letting people spend their money on speech, subby?

Really? One law for one group, and another for a group you don't like.

Really?

Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.

We need major campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Eliminate SuperPACs, severely limit campaign TV and radio ads, and set a low limit for total campaign expenditures for all candidates with no outside groups allowed to campaign.  Give each candidate equal opportunity in publicly funded televised debates to sell his or her vision, and let the public decide based on ideas instead of media saturation and attack ads.

As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.

Fair is fair, I don't have a problem with that.  The only exemptions I'd make would be for volunteers, and I'd set some rules to give journalists some room to report accurately without having to worry about being called out for campaigning as long as they were open to audits to make sure their reports weren't biased due to monetary contributions.


Unbiased journalism? Have you been drinking?
 
2013-10-09 01:53:04 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.


well yes. the last thing we want are the workers having some sort of advantage over multi-billionaires.
 
2013-10-09 02:06:41 AM  

log_jammin: FlyingLizardOfDoom: As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.

well yes. the last thing we want are the workers having some sort of advantage over multi-billionaires.


The amount the Koch brothers alone dumped into the teabagger nonsense is likely at least an order of magnitude higher than all of the combined union campaign contributions.  If the unions stepping back means the likes of the Koch bros and Art Pope step back, that's a major victory.
 
2013-10-09 02:54:07 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The amount the Koch brothers alone dumped into the teabagger nonsense is likely at least an order of magnitude higher than all of the combined union campaign contributions.


hence my amusement that someone would immediately jump up and down and demand that unions should follow the same rules as the Koch brothers at the first hint of campaign finance and lobby reform.


It's like starting to discuss disarmament at the UN then someone in the back ground shouts "As long as we force Cape Verde to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this. "
 
2013-10-09 07:51:01 AM  
is this the discussion where farxists express surprise that when a central government takes more power for itself that there's an ever-increasing number of those who want to buy a piece of that action and will pay handsomely for it...and that the the solution to that problem is to give the central government more power?

How sweet.
 
2013-10-09 10:31:10 AM  

Gulper Eel: is this the discussion where farxists express surprise that when a central government takes more power for itself that there's an ever-increasing number of those who want to buy a piece of that action and will pay handsomely for it...and that the the solution to that problem is to give the central government more power?

How sweet.


Those people who pay handsomely for that action are, themselves, responsible for the government taking that action in the first place.
 
2013-10-09 10:33:38 AM  
I how the SCOTUS deems themselves critical govt workers after returning from a 3 month break.
 
2013-10-09 10:33:52 AM  

log_jammin: TuteTibiImperes: The amount the Koch brothers alone dumped into the teabagger nonsense is likely at least an order of magnitude higher than all of the combined union campaign contributions.

hence my amusement that someone would immediately jump up and down and demand that unions should follow the same rules as the Koch brothers at the first hint of campaign finance and lobby reform.


It's like starting to discuss disarmament at the UN then someone in the back ground shouts "As long as we force Cape Verde to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this. "


Yes, but, see, republicans have been building up unions as super-commie oppressors for decades now.  The popular image is that Cape Verde has enough nukes to destroy Jupiter, because every nuclear discussion ever, someone points out how dangerously militant Cape Verde is.

The republican party is a series of lies that have built up to justify other lies.  Eventually if you keep digging, you'll see a lie that was a justification for a real position at one point, but nowadays the lies are self-sustaining, and are the actual stated purpose of the party.
 
2013-10-09 10:38:27 AM  
There is nothing the Roberts Court can't/won't fark up.
 
2013-10-09 10:38:46 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.


While I'm with you on Citizens United, why shouldn't I, as a private individual who theoretically has a billion dollars, be allowed to voice my opinions through whatever medium I choose? I am as entitled to use the resources of our country as much as anyone else, be they airwaves or roads.

Now, if you want to limit advertising participation to issues-only and never for or against a candidate, and then very sternly enforce those laws, I'm okay with that as a compromise.
 
2013-10-09 10:39:07 AM  
That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.
 
2013-10-09 10:39:45 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.


Holy hyperbole, Batman.

Citizens United is not worse than the creation of the US Senate, where equal representation is horribly skewed.
 
2013-10-09 10:41:09 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons: You're in favor of restricting speech, or in this case letting people spend their money on speech, subby?

Really? One law for one group, and another for a group you don't like.

Really?

Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.

We need major campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Eliminate SuperPACs, severely limit campaign TV and radio ads, and set a low limit for total campaign expenditures for all candidates with no outside groups allowed to campaign.  Give each candidate equal opportunity in publicly funded televised debates to sell his or her vision, and let the public decide based on ideas instead of media saturation and attack ads.


Citizens United did not change any of that. If you were a billionaire who wanted to air your message all by yourself before CU you could. What it changed is allowing groups come together to air their message. In theory, this could be used by individuals to pool together small amounts and make a difference. In reality it is used to skirt disclosure (a loophole that could be easily fixed) and for the semi-rich to compete with the ultra rich.
 
2013-10-09 10:41:31 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TuteTibiImperes: Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

Citizens United is not worse than the creation of the US Senate, where equal representation is horribly skewed.


The creation of the Senate was a SCOTUS decision?
 
MFK
2013-10-09 10:42:25 AM  
Target Builder: That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.
 
2013-10-09 10:42:29 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TuteTibiImperes: Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

Citizens United is not worse than the creation of the US Senate, where equal representation is horribly skewed.


The skewing of representation presented by the Senate was supposed to be mitigated by the proportional representation in the House of Representatives. It was done this way on purpose.
 
2013-10-09 10:42:47 AM  

log_jammin: It's like starting to discuss disarmament at the UN then someone in the back ground shouts "As long as we force Cape Verde to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this. "



Hey now. Don't go knocking Cape Verde. It's the key to early colonial acquistions in the western hemisphere in Europa Universalis IV.
 
2013-10-09 10:43:31 AM  

palelizard: TuteTibiImperes: Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.  Everyone deserves to have their voice heard, but everyone's voice should be equal.  Having billions of dollars at your disposal should not give you the right to amplify your agenda at the expense of hundreds of thousands if not millions of other citizens.

While I'm with you on Citizens United, why shouldn't I, as a private individual who theoretically has a billion dollars, be allowed to voice my opinions through whatever medium I choose? I am as entitled to use the resources of our country as much as anyone else, be they airwaves or roads.

Now, if you want to limit advertising participation to issues-only and never for or against a candidate, and then very sternly enforce those laws, I'm okay with that as a compromise.


Here's the problem with your compromise (at least as law stands right now): this ad featuring Buddy Roemer is legal because it avoids using the word "vote." That means it is an issue ad rather than an ad explicitly for or against a candidate. But you and me can obviously tell the point of the ad is that you should vote for Buddy Roemer.
 
2013-10-09 10:44:12 AM  

palelizard: While I'm with you on Citizens United, why shouldn't I, as a private individual who theoretically has a billion dollars, be allowed to voice my opinions through whatever medium I choose? I am as entitled to use the resources of our country as much as anyone else, be they airwaves or roads.


Because at some point, using your billion dollars as speech becomes using a bullhorn to drown out everyone else - making it as if you're the only one using the airwaves or roads, or at least the one one with a voice in how they're governed.
 
2013-10-09 10:47:27 AM  

Gulper Eel: is this the discussion where farxists express surprise that when a central government takes more power for itself that there's an ever-increasing number of those who want to buy a piece of that action and will pay handsomely for it...and that the the solution to that problem is to give the central government more power?

How sweet.


Clearly, effectively auctioning representation in government is the the best way to address unresponsive and outsized governmental power.  This is what Republicans actually believe.

/it's so funny, in an it's so farking sad kind of way, that in policy after policy, from tax policy to monetary policy to labor law to campaign finance, the right wants to return to the system that produced the Gilded Age and its subsequent democratic and economic failures without so much as a farking clue as to how bad the failures were and how much societal upheaval they fostered.
 
2013-10-09 10:48:00 AM  

TuteTibiImperes:  Eliminate SuperPACs, severely limit campaign TV and radio ads, and set a low limit for total campaign expenditures for all candidates with no outside groups allowed to campaign.  Give each candidate equal opportunity in publicly funded televised debates to sell his or her vision, and let the public decide based on ideas instead of media saturation and attack ads.


 McCutcheon v. FEC doesn't address individual campaigns in any way, it's someone contesting the aggregate donation cap, which essentially limits how many different candidates an individual can donate to.  It has nothing to do with the balance of singular campaigns.

There actually are also individual restrictions on how much you can donate to a given campaign already, what the aggregate cap means is basically that you can donate to 9 campaigns (ish) at the cap, but if you support a 10th politician it suddenly becomes illegal, even though your contribution to that politician, if you didn't consider your other political activity, would normally be perfectly legal.

FlyingLizardOfDoom: As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.


I know this comes as a shock to some people, but Unions are private corporations that generally have to obey all the same laws and policies as any other (usually nonprofit) corporation with respect to elections and finance.

The only real dirty trick the unions used to have, giving a bunch of money to individual members to donate and thus bypassing corporate donation restrictions, is both now considered illegal (money laundering) and unnecessary since Citizens United freed up Unions to buy infinite advertising the same as every other corporation.

//Personally, I don't think any corporation should be allowed to fund any political cause without unanimous consent from members or shareholders...  all shareholders, if the board of directors / union reps do it without a full vote of the staked they're just de facto donating other people's money to things.
 
2013-10-09 10:48:18 AM  

log_jammin: FlyingLizardOfDoom: As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.

well yes. the last thing we want are the workers having some sort of advantage over multi-billionaires.


I can only say that, when I look around at This, Our Modern America, what immediately strikes me is the ever-growing menace of the nation's shrinking unions.  They're all around us, in declining numbers.  Look at all of the legislation they haven't forced through over the past ten years.  You can hardly find a "right-to-work" state, or a state that effectively removes all of the power of public unions, except in the numerous states where you can find exactly those things.  You'd be hard-pressed to find giant corporations employing hundreds of thousands of people at minimum-wage jobs, apart from WalMart, McDonalds, and dozens of other corporations in the service industry that have replaced the old manufacturing industries.  Think of all the stories you've read in the past six months about how the employees of MegaLoMart came *this close* to finally getting a union.  Think of all the stories about states coming *this close* to losing their coveted "right to work" status.  Not to mention all of those frightening urban McDonald's employees making violent demonstrations in demand of radical wage increases that might increase the price of a Big Mac by seventeen cents.

Seventeen cents!

Think about how the average wage earner has seen his income soar to unprecedented lows, while the patriotic job creator has barely been able to keep his business afloat, by which I mean buying a third yacht.  Terrifying!

Yes, unions:  The sword of Damocles hanging over all of our heads.  They are on the march.  Wake up sheeple!
 
2013-10-09 10:50:17 AM  
This could all be solved if we just let the billionaires run the country.
 
2013-10-09 10:50:51 AM  
Clarification to my previous post: Unions do not file articles of incorporation, so they're not  literally called corporations under the law, but they function as a nonprofit corporation under a 'certification' instead of a 'charter' and are restricted in essentially the same way as other legal collective entities.
 
2013-10-09 10:51:16 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: As long as we force unions to operate under the same restrictions, I'm ok with this.


Yeah, and as long as we ban Sharia law! Sharia law and unions are the two biggest problems in this country!
 
2013-10-09 10:52:23 AM  
"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."

You need to stop thinking of "the press" as a bunch of journalists and start thinking of "the press" as what it was when the document was adopted.  Anyone who could afford one (and no, they were not cheap) printed whatever they saw fit.
 
2013-10-09 10:54:38 AM  
Given their reasoning in Citizens United, it's hard to see how this Court can do anything but eliminate donation limits.
 
2013-10-09 10:55:40 AM  
So, in a lot of countries it's either explicitly illegal to criticize the rulers or the people in power can abuse their powers to punish political rivals and their supporters. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there were similar laws or practices in the British colonies regarding criticism of the Crown and that venting your frustrations about the King in public would probably result in some Red-shirts popping in for a visit. Obviously such laws and practices are not good for a functioning democracy.

I strongly suspect the intent of the Freedom of Speech clause was to prevent the government from intimidating / locking people up for supporting rivals or criticizing the government, as opposed to meaning wealthy people should be able to bribe politicians on the twisted logic that money is speech and that giving a politician a wad of cash is the same as giving a politician a piece of your mind.
 
2013-10-09 10:58:15 AM  

MFK: Target Builder: That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.


Justice Kagan:  "I suppose that if this court is having second thoughts about its rulings that independent expenditures are  not corrupting, we could change that part of the law."  The concept that the only way money corrupts the political process is through quid-pro-quopay-for-play is absurd, but until it is abandoned, no campaign finance limitation will survive a First Amendment challenge.
 
2013-10-09 10:59:05 AM  
Just tell me who to vote for that will eliminate all campaign contributions and make all campaigns publicly funded.  farking lol.
 
2013-10-09 11:00:46 AM  

Gulper Eel: is this the discussion where farxists express surprise that when a central government takes more power for itself that there's an ever-increasing number of those who want to buy a piece of that action and will pay handsomely for it...and that the the solution to that problem is to give the central government more power?

How sweet.


Yeah but we're talking about giving the government the good kind of power.  Cause it always works out that way.
 
2013-10-09 11:02:57 AM  

Serious Black: Here's the problem with your compromise (at least as law stands right now): this ad featuring Buddy Roemer is legal because it avoids using the word "vote." That means it is an issue ad rather than an ad explicitly for or against a candidate. But you and me can obviously tell the point of the ad is that you should vote for Buddy Roemer.


The humor value aside, that kind of ad would be very much against the spirit of the compromise. We'd have to make sure the legal-ese was very broadly worded on that, rather than specify conditions that do or do not meet the letter of the law--we have judges because they're theoretically educated and respected to make wise decisions.  They don't (well, shouldn't) need a bulletpointed list of what's breaking the law.

Karac: Because at some point, using your billion dollars as speech becomes using a bullhorn to drown out everyone else - making it as if you're the only one using the airwaves or roads, or at least the one one with a voice in how they're governed.


You've got a valid point, but where we should draw the line on what constitutes 'drowning out' or overuse of the resource is going to be hard to determine, especially if we want to find something everyone feels is equitable (or at least is equally inequitable, if that makes sense). I really do feel in general that a person with money is entitled to spend it as they wish.
 
2013-10-09 11:03:30 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Given their reasoning in Citizens United, it's hard to see how this Court can do anything but eliminate donation limits.


This.  I see no other outcome.
 
2013-10-09 11:03:36 AM  

paygun: Just tell me who to vote for that will eliminate all campaign contributions and make all campaigns publicly funded.  farking lol.


Cannot do that without seriously abridging free speech rights.
 
2013-10-09 11:03:51 AM  

Wheyfaring Stranger: MFK: Target Builder: That amount of money isn't "Speech" - it's "Influence", and it's influence over an elected representative far beyond that which a regular voter should have.

Justice Kagan:  "I suppose that if this court is having second thoughts about its rulings that independent expenditures are  not corrupting, we could change that part of the law."   The concept that the only way money corrupts the political process is through quid-pro-quo pay-for-play is absurd, but until it is abandoned, no campaign finance limitation will survive a First Amendment challenge.


Maybe we should all travel to a parallel universe where SCOTUS is a little more flexible on definitions of corruption like the Framers of the Constitution were.
 
2013-10-09 11:05:23 AM  

kidgenius: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TuteTibiImperes: Citizens United was the most destructive decision in terms of equal representation in the history of our nation.

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

Citizens United is not worse than the creation of the US Senate, where equal representation is horribly skewed.

The skewing of representation presented by the Senate was supposed to be mitigated by the proportional representation in the House of Representatives. It was done this way on purpose.


Yes its a very deliberately antidemocratic idea.
 
2013-10-09 11:09:15 AM  

Saiga410: This. I see no other outcome.


Theoretically, it could be held that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the corrupting effects of unlimited donations and that the caps are narrowly tailored to this end. 

Honestly, its not the first prong that i could see being problematic, but the second.  I could see a majority of the modern court (at least a strong plurality) finding that stronger quid-pro-quo laws would be more narrowly tailored to prevent the type of corruption that is seen to be compelling enough to defeat the First Amendment.  But at this point, given the light gloss the court gave on the issue of donations = corruption in CU, i figure its the best argument those looking to limit donations have.
 
2013-10-09 11:09:28 AM  

Cataholic: "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."

You need to stop thinking of "the press" as a bunch of journalists and start thinking of "the press" as what it was when the document was adopted.  Anyone who could afford one (and no, they were not cheap) printed whatever they saw fit.


Great.  First we said corporations have free speech rights in regards to political campaigns.
And now you want to extend them to inanimate appliances.
 
2013-10-09 11:10:27 AM  

monoski: I how the SCOTUS deems themselves critical govt workers after returning from a 3 month break.


Hate to break the news to you - they haven't been sitting on their hands.  They've been sifting through the mound of crap people have submitted.  It takes work to decide to not take things up.  So no, they haven't been on a 3 month break.  They've been making some very critical decisions, and seem to have done a pretty good job in my not so humble opinion.

/I just can't do humble - I'm an arrogant ass, but at least I'm not killing us all.
 
2013-10-09 11:11:51 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Given their reasoning in Citizens United, it's hard to see how this Court can do anything but eliminate donation limits.


They can practically cut and paste the CU opinion to this one, just change the appellants.  They've already shown the propensity to overrule a century's worth of legislative and judicial considerations to make their ideology the law.  This one is a no brainer.

Direct campaign contribution limits will be next. And after that it's disclosure.
 
2013-10-09 11:12:05 AM  

palelizard: You've got a valid point, but where we should draw the line on what constitutes 'drowning out' or overuse of the resource is going to be hard to determine, especially if we want to find something everyone feels is equitable (or at least is equally inequitable, if that makes sense). I really do feel in general that a person with money is entitled to spend it as they wish.


Basically, the "publicly funded campaigns only" folks are making a lot of structural sense, but the idea they are espousing is completely antithetical to the framework established under the bill of rights.  Now I am not one to equate constitutionality with goodness (nor the opposite) - but I will say that any plan that requires an amendment to the constitution that would basically remove all political speech rights under the first is not likley to happen any time soon.
 
2013-10-09 11:15:49 AM  

Teiritzamna: remove all political speech rights under the first is not likley to happen any time soon.


No one can take you seriously with this level of hyperbole. All rights have limits, as they should. Yelling "fire" in a theater, citizens with RPG's, etc.
 
2013-10-09 11:16:12 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: They can practically cut and paste the CU opinion to this one, just change the appellants. They've already shown the propensity to overrule a century's worth of legislative and judicial considerations to make their ideology the law. This one is a no brainer.


CU is really not that big a departure.  Its a major talking point of my side of the aisle that the court "overturned a century old legislation" but the basic fact is that if something was unconstitutional, its rather hard to argue that it should now be constitutional mainly because we just failed to check for a couple decades.  The opinion does not overrule any previous supreme court precedent, and the lower case law on point is sparse indeed.

The honest fact is CU is what results from the combination of an extremely robust right to political expression and an extremely pervasive modern  media environment.
 
2013-10-09 11:18:44 AM  

Teiritzamna: I will say that any plan that requires an amendment to the constitution that would basically remove all political speech rights under the first is not likley to happen any time soon.


Not necessarily.  The financing of the dissemination of speech just needs to be segregated from actual speech, just as we had been doing for the century leading up to Citizen's United through a cobble of state law, federal law and judicial precedent.  That constitutional language can be narrowly drawn. Ratification is the problem.
 
2013-10-09 11:19:49 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Ricardo Klement: Given their reasoning in Citizens United, it's hard to see how this Court can do anything but eliminate donation limits.

They can practically cut and paste the CU opinion to this one, just change the appellants.  They've already shown the propensity to overrule a century's worth of legislative and judicial considerations to make their ideology the law.  This one is a no brainer.

Direct campaign contribution limits will be next. And after that it's disclosure.


Actually, they included a bit about disclosure in Citizens United. Only Thomas said that disclosure laws should be illegal.
 
2013-10-09 11:22:28 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: No one can take you seriously with this level of hyperbole. All rights have limits, as they should. Yelling "fire" in a theater, citizens with RPG's, etc.


Its really not tho.  You can set up publically funded campaings two ways:

1) the candidates get public funding, and there are no donations.  However there is no limit to non-aligned campaigning.  Thus we would have something much like the present system, but even more skewed to PACs.  The candidate would have a few simple ads with policy platforms and the airwaves would be swamped by tons of ads by "citizens concerned about rutebegas" or some such claiming that the democratic candidate fellates weasels or the republican secretly is in favor of women controlling their own vaginas.  Nothing would really change from the shiatshow we have now. 

or

2) the candidates get public funding, and there are no donations.  It is prohibited to have side campaigning.  No PAC ads about "issues" no sly attacks burried as information pieces.  The problem here is that any such prohibition would be completely content based prior restraint on speech.  And it would be focused on politics.  In case you dont knowm under the first amendment this is about as nuclear as it gets.  So to allow such a law you would need another amendment basically saying "nevermind, the government can totally gag you if you feel like making a political ad, commercial, flyer or the like."  If you dont call this "remov[ing] all political speech rights under the first" then I dont know what you think would qualify.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report