Does this amendment to remove corporate bribery from government stand a chance?

This notion that the state can ration speech so the citizenry are only exposed to some utopian ratio of information is insanity.

The left dresses this up with talk of equality and fairness, but the end goal is to limit the production of political speech they don't like.

 

I can't speak for the left, but the end goal is to limit the amount of bribery that can take place.

 

I don't like the Citizens United decision and how this particular election is shaping up with the Super PACs and whatnot. I don't like the appearance of impropriety that our elections currently have. But, these proposals (1) have no chance and (2) actually make me glad they have no chance.

You cannot say we have freedom of speech and then limit political speech in such a draconian way. I'd take the current corrupted system over that.

For my part, I would be satisfied with a move to simply unwind the fallacy of the Citizens United decision -- state that corporations are not people and do not have 1st amendment rights. We could then make laws to govern corporate money in electioneering without putting a burden on the free speech of real people. You'd still have billionaire's personal money in play, but it's better than this.

 

Money doesn't equal speech.

If your argument is compelling enough, you shouldn't have to pay your Congressman to advocate it.

 

Restricting money results in less speech.

The reason you want to restrict funding is to limit the speech it produces.

 

Speech is not money. Nobody says you can't speak, you just wouldn't be able to attach money to it.

Again, if your message is compelling, why do you need to put any money behind it?

Put all ideas on the same level platform, and may the best idea win; and not the most moneyed one.

 

It isn't speech except for some ideologues on the S.Ct. who want to advantage the wealthy.

 

color me impressed. didn't know this.

If one wants America to be more than an oligarchy they should be supporting this.

Virtually all other political issues pale in comparison to this.

I can't think of an issue that is more important. For example war and peace. Even that issue is hard to debate rationally when you have th possibility of unlimited corporate money that can make a profit on the war buying politican and media figures.

 

I love this. News organizations are people, but all other companies are not. Sure, makes sense.

 

No, they just try to keep Democrats from voting by using voter ID laws and restricting early voting in Democratic districts.

 

Do you realize just what a fundamentally ridiculous statement that is?

Newspapers use money to get word out. Television stations do. Radios, large blogs, and so on and so on. They all use money. Heck, as I've pointed out in this thread, going to Kinko's and printing out 500 copies of my political pamphlet uses money.

Furthermore, just think about what sort of precedent that creates for the other rights if money is defined to be a separate issue from those rights? The Catholic Church can worship as they like, they just aren't allowed to spend money to make buildings or whatever. Every man has a right to a gun or an attorney, you're just not allowed to spend money to get them.

Say you can speak, but you just can't attach money to it would effectively shut down any form of speech aside from ordinary word of mouth. And as John Roberts noted, that is not the only form of speech that is protected.

 

Wrong again. You might as well be a tin foil hatted drooler warning us about black helicopters and world government when you conjure up a nightmare scenario of newspapers being shutdown and then following it up with a ham fisted appeal to the authority of John Roberts.

These consequences don't follow from either McCain Feingold or either of the amendments, particularly Lessig's. Do you even know who Professor Lessig is? Not exacty a populist pitchfork wielder.

In his words:

In order to prevent of course the nightmare scenario of Farenheit 451 overreach which will undoubtedly be your go-to response, we'd have to trust the government and the judiciary to balance and protect 1st amendment rights from overreach or abuse ....just like we've done for 300 years. OOOOOoooh scary!!!!

 

Why is it illegal to give money to a cop that pulls you over? I mean, shouldn't that be protected as free speech as well?

You can't give money in exchange for something and call that free speech. Sheldon Anderson and Koch brothers are definitely giving money in exchange for something.

By the SC"s definition, paying a woman for sex is free speech.

 

I will observe, Sweet Lou, that while I do not know who Lessig is( though I do sincerely apologize for not knowing the name of every American academic, which I guess you do), his amendment is significantly better than the amendments which others have posted here and it is different from the blanket "money is not speech" statements which numerous people seem to be arguing here. It's one thing to say "money is speech, but it should be regulated to some degree" and another to say "money is not speech."

However, the key problem with Lessig is that "campaign expenditures" is from my perspective, pretty vague. What exactly does that mean?

 

pretty vague?

In terms of constitutional verbiage, it's crystal clear, considering that we interpret terms like "equal protection of the laws" and "due process of law" to mean all sorts of derivative actions.

Anyway, I'd argue it counts as expenditures in support or opposition to a campaign. Will there be fuzziness at the margins? Of course. THere is with every single law before or since.....and further they already currently exist under the existing regime anyway. Read teh FEC Act - it's littered with terms like this that are current law.

Basically you're poking holes in any proposed campaign finance reform by using stock criticisms that can be lobbed against any law or system of laws or court decision interpreting laws or constitution. Not an impressive argument.

 

Look, honestly, my problem isn't with Super Pacs. I think they are dangerous, but you know what, they aren't the major issue that is ruining our political system. And, I can see them as free speech. Why shouldn't a bunch of people be able to band together and produce a tv ad voicing their support for a candidate? That's free speech for sure.


My problem is when the candidate directly gets money for his campaign. And is beholden to give back a favor. This goes for lobbying too. I think all of this stuff needs to be controlled to an amount that someone would not be beholden to set policy. Anything over say the federal minimum wage times $100 should be the limit.

 

Calm your horses. The post before that enumerated my position vis a vis this being an issue of contributing money to politicians. General campaign messages are bent on their own knee (yay Citizens United) but on the issue of paying politicians for influence, I don't see how adding this much money into the equation helps any matter. If your Congressman needs mad cash money to run his "my opponent is a scumbag" ads, he should seek it from individuals in small, reasonable amounts, rather than moneyed interests.

And yes, in this case, the platform should be more even. I think the average Congressman would still be more inclined to listen to the Fortune 500, but one can only hope the pocketfuls of cash given now would in the future cease to have an operational effect.