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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 815
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18213 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 01:22:17 PM  

DerAppie: d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.

I'm okay with corporations being people if we treat them.the same way that the immortals in Gulliver's Travels were treated.

You don't die because of old age? Very well, after a certain age your possessions get split up and you don't get to own anything to prevent you from owning absolutely everything by sheer virtue of age.

Either that or any company that can't pass an IQ test with a score of at least 85 has someone appointed to act with power of attorney on behalf of that corporation. That person would also be responsible the actions of the corporation. In practice (s)he'd be the CEO, but with an actual chance to be prosecuted for mismanagement/law breaking/endangerment.

/Considering that corporations are merely text on a paper none will pass the test


I would settle for the ability to hold corporate officers civilly and criminally responsible for the actions of their companies.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:30 PM  

NickelP: Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.

Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?

No, they can't donate directly to candidates.  Its pretty helpful to have a superpac say 'hey we are going to run 100 mil in adds against your opponent'.  Its really farking helpful to have some group say 'you got a pen, you vote right on this you get a 100 mil check'


Still though, this seems like a smaller increment in the erosion of our democracy than the first one. The judges compared it to opening a floodgate after the first ruling opened a door, but I think they may have got that reversed.

This is more like opening a floodgate after the damn has already broken. Not helping, but we were already under water.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:39 PM  

qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:42 PM  

Carn: Might as well repeal all the voting rights amendments and go back to the system where only the rich, land-owning white males get to tell everyone else what to do.


All in good time...

All in good time.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:49 PM  
Why don't the just legalize bribery?
 
2014-04-02 01:22:58 PM  

DamnYankees: This is an argument that kind of makes sense, but it takes us a step back to "in what world is a panel of judges, as opposed to a legislature, capable of determining where the line is"? Aren't these people against judicial activism? Isn't the whole point of a legislature to determine these things?


We accept that we can donate to a candidate and we accept a top limit per candidate as a way of mitigating bribery.... the court decided that the cap limited the amount of people you could donate to and thus chilling of speech.  The limit on cumulative does not fit as a limit on bribery.
 
2014-04-02 01:23:11 PM  

DamnYankees: I take it you don't agree with this, so I won't even try to rebut it. It's a terrible argument.


It is however the argument used to justify a lot of legal rules, such as the obscenity exception.  Seriously, w8ith conservative judges its often a good argument to show where the framers contradicted themselves and then say "see, obviously X amendment or Y provision couldn't have encapsulated the case we are discussing now"

The best analogy i can think of is if you know someone who fervently declares that they will not eat meat, but see them eating fish, you can make one of two assumptions:

1) they are hypocrites
2) they dont consider fish to be meat
 
2014-04-02 01:23:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.


Wait. You skipped an argument here. All you established was that speech is more than just your voice, and that you can use physical objects as a vehicle for carrying that speech.

How does that get us to having a right to "expenditure of resources to do so"?
 
2014-04-02 01:24:09 PM  

R.A.Danny: Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not. If you have contributed to a campaign and are butthurt because someone else contributed more I really can't help you.


You win the disingenuous award. Congratulations.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:37 PM  

vonmatrices: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?

No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."

You haven't said if you agree or disagree, you are just taking a pessimistic view of the Government, which is understandable.


I agree that it is that way.  Whether I feel it should or should not be that way doesn't matter very much.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:39 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.

So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?

That's what the court is for. I'm just saying this is how the system was designed. It's not perfect by any stretch.


So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:48 PM  

sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.

Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).

Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. They can be brought to heel.

When?  Where?

I watched a show where a couple white guys when to friggen new Guinea to live with a tribe.

The tribe consisted of a male leader, a holy man, men, and women.  In that order.

This is the very basis of society.  Heck, even primates organize themselves into power hierarchies, where the guys on top get all the best stuff.


Power manifests in many different ways, and money is the most fickle of all.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:51 PM  

chapman: qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?

It's a list of all donors since 1989. I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.


For groups that are required to disclose donations. There's a reason the superPAC money is called "dark money"
 
2014-04-02 01:25:04 PM  

pjbreeze: Why don't the just legalize bribery?


It already is, isn't it?  A wealthy donor can at the very least get an audience with a congresscritter, but I can't.
 
2014-04-02 01:25:06 PM  

Saiga410: We accept that we can donate to a candidate and we accept a top limit per candidate as a way of mitigating bribery.... the court decided that the cap limited the amount of people you could donate to and thus chilling of speech.  The limit on cumulative does not fit as a limit on bribery.


I didn't say it was. It has a different purposes, which issue a separate issue.
 
2014-04-02 01:25:13 PM  

pjbreeze: Why don't the just legalize bribery?


Lobbying is legal in the US.

It is bribery in other places.
 
2014-04-02 01:25:51 PM  

DamnYankees: This is an argument that kind of makes sense, but it takes us a step back to "in what world is a panel of judges, as opposed to a legislature, capable of determining where the line is"? Aren't these people against judicial activism? Isn't the whole point of a legislature to determine these things?


Also this is an argument for NOT allowing campaign contribution caps.  The judicial minimalist argument is "it is too hard for judges to figure out the intricacies of what is too corrupting and what isn't, so we will rely on the constitutional prohibition and ban all limitations, except the ones that are clear bright lines.  The Judicial maximalists would argue "oh for the love of Pete, its not that hard" and then make up a 15 factor balancing test.

/note i am usually on the side of the maximalists, but i know what we (they) are doing is making a lot of common law.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:02 PM  
Enjoy it while you can, Republicans. When you die out, none of the youth will vote for you no matter how much money you throw at advertising. Your brand will be AOL, Netscape, Windows 95, and Geocites. No matter how much campaign spending you spend, no one born in the 2000s will vote for you. Except those who believe to the very end that abortion, homosexuality, and being born black is a sinful sin.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:30 PM  

sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?


I don't think its shock,  We know that's the case but we want a system where money and power have nothing to do with each other.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:44 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Power manifests in many different ways, and money is the most fickle of all.


Perhaps that is the salvation.

Once money has no value, it has no power.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:51 PM  

FlashHarry: republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. one man, one vote doesn't work if you're the one percent.


Yes, only the top 1% vote republican and George Soros, Hollywood Liberals and the unions don't spend any money on progressive campaigns and causes.

Whatever will poor progressives do in upcoming elections.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid= N0 0000019
 
2014-04-02 01:27:05 PM  

sendtodave: vonmatrices: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?

No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."

You haven't said if you agree or disagree, you are just taking a pessimistic view of the Government, which is understandable.

I agree that it is that way.  Whether I feel it should or should not be that way doesn't matter very much.


So, if things are simply the way they are and never will change, how do we progress?  Someone somewhere feels that something should be different and things do change in our world, for better or for worse.  Why not you or I or anyone else on this forum?
 
2014-04-02 01:27:12 PM  

Teiritzamna: Also this is an argument for NOT allowing campaign contribution caps.  The judicial minimalist argument is "it is too hard for judges to figure out the intricacies of what is too corrupting and what isn't, so we will rely on the constitutional prohibition and ban all limitations, except the ones that are clear bright lines.  The Judicial maximalists would argue "oh for the love of Pete, its not that hard" and then make up a 15 factor balancing test.


This is a fair point.
 
2014-04-02 01:27:16 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.


Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?
 
2014-04-02 01:27:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.


Agreed.

/I'm a Moderate Republican.
 
2014-04-02 01:27:37 PM  

Warlordtrooper: sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think its shock,  We know that's the case but we want a system where money and power have nothing to do with each other.


I want a unicorn.

It'd be so cool!  Too bad they don't exist.
 
2014-04-02 01:27:39 PM  
The FECKLESS crowd has massive butthurt in this thread. As a public service reminder, FECKLESS is an acronym:

Fark
Echo
Chamber of
Kooky
Liberals
Espousing
Stupid
Shiat.

/welcome
 
2014-04-02 01:27:56 PM  

RevMark: Is this the thread where all the Republican Farkers jerk each other off because their Party was behind a major judicial ruling, but because they are Republican they are too ignorant to realize that it was actually a bad thing?

The RNC: God, guns, wars against brown people and big ass pickup trucks... because we're greedy kochsuckers!


Leave the pickup trucks out of your ranting...what the hell did THEY do to you????.....
/must drive a Prius...
//Think I'll hit the mud bogs now...
 
2014-04-02 01:28:08 PM  

Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.

Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?

No, they can't donate directly to candidates.  Its pretty helpful to have a superpac say 'hey we are going to run 100 mil in adds against your opponent'.  Its really farking helpful to have some group say 'you got a pen, you vote right on this you get a 100 mil check'

Still though, this seems like a smaller increment in the erosion of our democracy than the first one. The judges compared it to opening a floodgate after the first ruling opened a door, but I think they may have got that reversed.

This is more like opening a floodgate after the damn has already broken. Not helping, but we were already under water.


maybe.  I really don't know.  Honestly this probably needs a few years of people like Rove who run campaigns and political parties for a living to figure out how best to exploit it to figure out what it really means.  I don't really see it as being a step in the right direction though.  It also seemed to lay the ground work for removing the individual cap.
 
2014-04-02 01:28:14 PM  

DamnYankees: Wait. You skipped an argument here. All you established was that speech is more than just your voice, and that you can use physical objects as a vehicle for carrying that speech.

How does that get us to having a right to "expenditure of resources to do so"?


Physical objects cost money.  Either you make them yourself from raw materials you grew yourself, which is still the expenditure of value (i.e. you could have sold that raw squid ink and paper pulp, and lets not discuss the labor value).  Or you buy them.
 
2014-04-02 01:28:31 PM  
Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.
 
2014-04-02 01:28:35 PM  
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ― Thomas Jefferson
 
2014-04-02 01:29:51 PM  
Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:04 PM  

FTDA: TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.

Agreed.

/I'm a Moderate Republican.


i60.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-02 01:30:38 PM  
Let's see, Hillary's Democratic successor takes office in 2025... I'll be 40. I think I'll be sending some money to the most progressive or possibly liberal candidate at that time, someone who can see that the chaos of the next 11 years will be deteriorating the country from the top down and will see to it to fix this shiat. At least, here's hoping.

/signed the Movetoamend.org petition
//Hillary will be on the side that could help for eight years and, although she'll be a good enough president, she probably won't do enough to stop all this
 
MFK
2014-04-02 01:30:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: What is relevant is that Court has long held that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that expressive conduct.

This is what's lost on everyone.


It's not lost on everyone. Everyone is just profoundly offended by the notion.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:55 PM  

qorkfiend: You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

In rhetoric?  No, there are certainly differences.  In practice?  Yes, they might as well be the same party.

qorkfiend: Upon what do you base this belief?


Gut feeling/consulted the coconuts, whichever one holds more credence with you.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:57 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.

Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".


The platforms of the two major parties may differ, but again--look at each individual's voting record.  Don't assume that just because the candidate you like is of a certain party, that they will vote in agreement with that party's platform.

Look at their actions, never mind their words.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:59 PM  

Friction8r: The FECKLESS crowd has massive butthurt in this thread. As a public service reminder, FECKLESS is an acronym:

Fark
Echo
Chamber of
Kooky
Liberals
Espousing
Stupid
Shiat.

/welcome


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 01:31:46 PM  

qorkfiend: You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?


People who have extremely oddball economic beliefs, especially about monetary policy, tend to think the GOP and the Dems are the same, since both parties generally subscribe to somewhat mainstream economics.
 
2014-04-02 01:31:52 PM  

Warlordtrooper: sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think its shock,  We know that's the case but we want a system where money and power have nothing to do with each other.


Addendum:  who is "we?"

Who wants a system where money doesn't equal power?

Those with no money or power.  Obviously.

How will people with no money or power change the world?  Other than following someone with money and power, I mean?
 
2014-04-02 01:32:31 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.

Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?


The only difference is which liberties each party is willing to take from us in order to stay in power. Some want to take our gun rights, our right to practice and teach our religion to our children, etc. Some want to tell us which plants we can grow, or who you can designate as your legal partner. They both want to devalue our money. They both want to keep us dependent on handouts, either corporate or personal. If you really believe one side or the other is really fighting the good fight, you need to pay more attention.
 
2014-04-02 01:32:36 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.


I notice that you provide neither a direct quote nor a link.  Care to amend?

John Roberts did not say that.  He did say that not all spending (on opinion ads) is corruption. Thus all people's spending because some might be corrupt is an abridgement. I see that you are total fark; thus you spent money on -- well, this!  You are giving opinions and the means to your ends involve spending.  Roberts is protecting YOU.
 
2014-04-02 01:32:45 PM  

taurusowner: Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.


Exactly!  I often say politics is like pro wrestling!
 
2014-04-02 01:33:04 PM  

Teiritzamna: DamnYankees: Wait. You skipped an argument here. All you established was that speech is more than just your voice, and that you can use physical objects as a vehicle for carrying that speech.

How does that get us to having a right to "expenditure of resources to do so"?

Physical objects cost money.  Either you make them yourself from raw materials you grew yourself, which is still the expenditure of value (i.e. you could have sold that raw squid ink and paper pulp, and lets not discuss the labor value).  Or you buy them.


Ok. I'm still confused how this gets us to having the right to give money to candidates.

There's a fundamental difference between "express your view, and use whatever resources you have access to to do it" and "bankroll someone's election campaign". I don't see them as being in the same category of thing.
 
2014-04-02 01:33:14 PM  

taurusowner: Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.


Exactly right.  And how many times has the WWE run an anti-authority bring down the current WWE power structure story line?  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more than one.
 
2014-04-02 01:33:19 PM  

Road Rash: Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.


most people are tremendously influenced by advertising.  You may be right about Soro's, but that is because 2 billion is going to come from the other side too.  If one candidate spent 2 billion and the other spent 0 that would be a pretty notable difference in the end result.
 
2014-04-02 01:33:41 PM  
Well, it used to be that "speech" meant just that, actual spoken speech. That is, until the liberals got a hold of it and changed it to mean "any action that can be construed as having a political overtone".

So I find it amusingly ironic that liberals are complaining that the action of donating money to political candidates should be restricted.

I also find it amusing that people still believe that the candidate with the most campaign money to spend always wins, in spite of evidence that it has very little effect overall (linky).
 
2014-04-02 01:33:48 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Well this is the problem with texualism.  But lets try it anyway.

The First Amendment states in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

Hrm.  Well that's rather, short, isn't it?  So now we need to ask some further questions.  Primary of them is "What the heck is 'the freedom of speech'?" Does that mean only the freedom to make noises from your throat?  Well while it is possible, it is unlikely.  Given the war that the revolutionaries fought and the arguments made in the federalist papers, a better way to read "the freedom of speech" is "the freedom to express yourself to others."

"Ok.  Well i still dont see 'money' there!" you may decry.  And you would be right, as far as text goes.  However, the ability to express yourself doesn't really mean too much if it is limited only to the ability to do so with only your body.  Surely it must encompass writing, and distributing those writings, right?  Well if that is the case, you had to use physical objects from the real world to facilitate your expression.  It wouldn't be much of a protective right if the government could stop you from talking, but could easily stop you from printing things, or distributing those writings.

So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.  And there you go.  For the first amendment to mean anything, it must include not only speaking out loud with your voice but also expending money to get your message out there.

the problem is when we then shorten that very complicated understanding to a phrase like "money is speech" which is so divorced of the above nuance that it seems a gross contradiction.


Except this is not about printing. It is not about broadcasting. It is about giving politicians unlimited amounts of money. So, not at all the same. And there is a compelling interest to prevent just such a thing for the preservation of a representative democracy and republic.
 
2014-04-02 01:34:18 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ― Thomas Jefferson


That's a fake quote. Jefferson never said that. And even if he had, Jefferson had truly terrible ideas about the intersection of economics and government.
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | 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