Should we just auction off political offices? Another Supreme Court 5-4 ruling

[woolfe9999]

Contrary to the left's belief, the First Amendment is not solely to protect nude dancing and flag burning. Protecting political speech is the original intent, and in this case the government (at the state level) is actively and preferentially opposing money spent as political free speech with tax money. I could make an argument either way, but I don't think that government should be favoring one candidate's political free speech rights over another candidate's political free speech rights. That might not be banning or censuring a candidate's free speech rights, but it is certainly watering them down - in fact, that's the stated goal of the law, to reduce the effectiveness of one candidate's political free speech by increasing his opponent's political free speech.

In what world does allowing the candidate without private funding greater opportunity for speech "reduce the effectiveness" of the privately funded candidate's speech? Are you saying that speech is "ineffective" because it is opposed? I thought that the concept of a political debate was at the heart of the First Amendment? Instead, what you're saying is, the billionaire or the candidate with billionare backing gets to speak more - that is what the First Amendment is truly about, and a law which does not preclude said billionaire from speaking one iota, but merely allows said billionaire's opponents to same opportunity for speech, that's unconstititional? You're totally upside down on this issue.

No, it doesn't "reduce the effectiveness of one candidates political speech." It merely gives the candidate's opponent more opportunity for speech. It does not control the content of any candidate's speech; it does not ban any candidate's speech; it does not reduce the privately funded candidate's opportunity for speech. I fail to see how this is depriving anyone of First Amendment rights. A robust political debate is, in fact, what the First Amendment is about.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

In what world does allowing the candidate without private funding greater opportunity for speech "reduce the effectiveness" of the privately funded candidate's speech? Are you saying that speech is "ineffective" because it is opposed? I thought that the concept of a political debate was at the heart of the First Amendment? Instead, what you're saying is, the billionaire or the candidate with billionare backing gets to speak more - that is what the First Amendment is truly about, and a law which does not preclude said billionaire from speaking one iota, but merely allows said billionaire's opponents to same opportunity for speech, that's unconstititional? You're totally upside down on this issue.

No, it doesn't "reduce the effectiveness of one candidates political speech." It merely gives the candidate's opponent more opportunity for speech. It does not control the content of any candidate's speech; it does not ban any candidate's speech; it does not reduce the privately funded candidate's opportunity for speech. I fail to see how this is depriving anyone of First Amendment rights. A robust political debate is, in fact, what the First Amendment is about.

- wolf

It places the government on the side of the candidate with less money. As I said, it doesn't deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights, but it does water them down to have the government colluding in opposing them.

EDIT: I also think that laws like this - that one not only has a right to free speech, but has a right to have the government fund that free speech to make it more competitive - are an extremely dangerous jaunt down the road to Obama's "positive" rights.

 

[BoomerD]

Craig, I hope you're not posting this because you're surprised by it...our government, including the USSC was been bought by the corporate interests long ago...perhaps even before my time.

"We the People" has been replaced by "We the Corporations."

THEY have all the money...THEY have all the power...WE just get to foot the bills, pay taxes, and keep our heads (and backs) bent.

 

[woolfe9999]

It places the government on the side of the candidate with less money. As I said, it doesn't deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights, but it does water them down to have the government colluding in opposing them.

EDIT: I also think that laws like this - that one not only has a right to free speech, but has a right to have the government fund that free speech to make it more competitive - are an extremely dangerous jaunt down the road to Obama's "positive" rights.

Your notion that creating a level playing field for robust debate among candidates of differing viewpoints "waters down" the speech of the richly funded candidates is pretty disturbing and I think you should re-evaluate what you're saying here.

Our jurisprudence, i.e. past precedent in this area, is as follows. I am just letting you know the broad standard that applies. Laws which do not directly ban or restrict speech, but in some way indirectly affect it, must "substantially burden speech" and have "no compelling state interest" in order to be stuck down.

I think it's pretty clear that neither of those elements is met here. Allowing your opponent a greater opportunity for speech does not "substantially" burden your speech. This law in no way restricts your speech OR your ability to raise funds for your speech. Indeed, it even allows you to outspend your opponent, because the subsidy is limited to a maximum of 3 x the base amount, which itself is so low that no one in their right mind would accept it if they couldn't get more. So the Meg Whitmans of the world are *still* going to be able to outspend their opponents by substantial margins.

As for a compelling interest, how about us not wanting our elected officials to be beholden to the interests of their donors instead of the broad public interest? This seems as fundamental to an functioning democracy as anything. In fact, I can hardly think of *anything* more compelling than this. And if you agree that candidates shouldn't be bought by special interests, but you don't like this solution, then what is your solution?

- wolf

 

[Throckmorton]

The United States is not a democracy

Did you just learn the word "republic" in 5th grade? Yes, it is a Democracy.

 

[drebo]

My feeling is that corporate and private donations should be banned entirely. Perks offered by lobbyists, whether paid now or payed in the future (the offer of a job at AT&T for approving AT&T's purchase of T-Mobile, for instance), should be considered a bribe.

While I don't like the idea of personally funded campaigns OR of government funded campaigns, I REALLY don't like the idea of $1B+ being spent during a campaign cycle.

I also don't like how the next 18 months of Obama's reign is going to be spent on the campaign trail on the tax-payer dollar. Of course, the previous 18 months have been, so why should I expect change now?

 

[PokerGuy]

Wont happen since it makes too much common sense.

Or rather, it's an idiotic and undemocratic idea, goes against freedom of speech, the 1st amendment, general principles of a free society and so forth. If I want to give money to some candidate because I support what he stands for, that should be up to me.

 

[PokerGuy]

Really folks, this is not rocket surgery. The government should not be in the business of trying to fund one candidate or another just because that candidate sucks at raising funds. That's what it comes down to. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

[ElFenix]

Craig, I hope you're not posting this because you're surprised by it...our government, including the USSC was been bought by the corporate interests long ago...perhaps even before my time.

"We the People" has been replaced by "We the Corporations."

THEY have all the money...THEY have all the power...WE just get to foot the bills, pay taxes, and keep our heads (and backs) bent.

government has always been by rich people for rich people and the sooner you come to terms with that fact of life the more enjoyment you'll have :sneaky:

 

[spidey07]

So witness the mind of a liberal in action, this is how they think, it's who they are. Freedom of speech only applies if you agree with them.

1) Don't like freedom of speech when used in talk radio, so fairness doctrine to "force" them to show opposing views
2) Don't like a private company releasing a film (freedom of speech) before an election? 'force" them by rule of law to not show it
3) Don't like that a candidate is out raising somebody, then "force" tax payer money to be used to prop up the other guy.

See how wrong their line of thinking is? It goes completely against the 1st amendment. Not to mention how wrong it is that MY MONEY would be used to support a candidate I otherwise wouldn't want to succeed because if I did, I would donate. That 4 judges actually agreed with it are what should really be so scary.

All in the name of "fair", and by fair, the liberal means "my way".

 

[RabidMongoose]

Craig234 logic: Some countries don't even have elections. Insert rambling on about some random dictatorship.

 

[werepossum]

Your notion that creating a level playing field for robust debate among candidates of differing viewpoints "waters down" the speech of the richly funded candidates is pretty disturbing and I think you should re-evaluate what you're saying here.

Our jurisprudence, i.e. past precedent in this area, is as follows. I am just letting you know the broad standard that applies. Laws which do not directly ban or restrict speech, but in some way indirectly affect it, must "substantially burden speech" and have "no compelling state interest" in order to be stuck down.

I think it's pretty clear that neither of those elements is met here. Allowing your opponent a greater opportunity for speech does not "substantially" burden your speech. This law in no way restricts your speech OR your ability to raise funds for your speech. Indeed, it even allows you to outspend your opponent, because the subsidy is limited to a maximum of 3 x the base amount, which itself is so low that no one in their right mind would accept it if they couldn't get more. So the Meg Whitmans of the world are *still* going to be able to outspend their opponents by substantial margins.

As for a compelling interest, how about us not wanting our elected officials to be beholden to the interests of their donors instead of the broad public interest? This seems as fundamental to an functioning democracy as anything. In fact, I can hardly think of *anything* more compelling than this. And if you agree that candidates shouldn't be bought by special interests, but you don't like this solution, then what is your solution?

- wolf

We disagree on the definition of "level playing field". I think it means that all candidates are equally unencumbered by government or industry to raise money to get out their messages. You apparently think that government should be in the business of funding a candidate that the people refuse to fund - to wit, that a "level playing field" should be measured by results rather than by opportunity.

When a candidate favoring Obamacare gets free coverage and a candidate opposing Obamacare is not allowed to even buy adverts, obviously there is not a level playing field. If however the candidate opposing Obamacare is unable to raise money to pay for adverts detailing why it is bad, that does not by itself indicate lack of a level playing field. It may only indicate that his message is not resonating with the people, or at least, not sufficiently to make them give up something to support that candidate.

Put another way, is a candidate advocating Marxism with forced relocation of most people to government farms really entitled to funding equity (or even a substantial shadow of funding equity) with a candidate advocating low taxes and personal freedom? If we measure a "level playing field" by how much money each raises, then the answer must be yes.

 

[woolfe9999]

We disagree on the definition of "level playing field". I think it means that all candidates are equally unencumbered by government or industry to raise money to get out their messages. You apparently think that government should be in the business of funding a candidate that the people refuse to fund - to wit, that a "level playing field" should be measured by results rather than by opportunity.

When a candidate favoring Obamacare gets free coverage and a candidate opposing Obamacare is not allowed to even buy adverts, obviously there is not a level playing field. If however the candidate opposing Obamacare is unable to raise money to pay for adverts detailing why it is bad, that does not by itself indicate lack of a level playing field. It may only indicate that his message is not resonating with the people, or at least, not sufficiently to make them give up something to support that candidate.
.

Or it may well indicate that his position does not benefit wealthy special interests, so he is limited to individual donations and hence cannot complete. This is your fallacy. You are arguing that a candidate unable to raise enough money is being rejected by "the public." You are conflating the public with narrow interests.

Put another way, is a candidate advocating Marxism with forced relocation of most people to government farms really entitled to funding equity (or even a substantial shadow of funding equity) with a candidate advocating low taxes and personal freedom? If we measure a "level playing field" by how much money each raises, then the answer must be yes.

If the Marxist's ideas are shite, then people will hear them and realize they are shite. There is nothing to fear from open debate. There is everything to fear when only candidates whose ideas benefit monied interests can be heard.

I asked a question at the end of my previous post which I think you are ducking. In fact, you're ducking the core issue here with the assumptions you are making. In our political system, it is a fact that candidates are bought by special interests - be they corporations, wealthy individuals, unions, or professional associations. It is also a fact that a special interest, by definition, is one narrower than, and sometimes at odds with, the broad public interest. Ours is a government of, by and for the people, not of, by and for Goldman Sachs, the UAW, or Koch Enterprises. Agreed or not? If you disagree then the discussion ends here because we have different values and different definitions of democracy.

However, if you agree, but disagree with this sort of law as a solution to this problem, then what solution do you propose in the alternative? This is a serious question because I think if we are going to throw these kinds of laws out then we need alternatives.

- wolf

 

[rockyct]

This 1000 times.

No other way to prevent someone from 'buying' an election.

Personally, I would be happy with a "a business is not a person" rulling. The problem is that businesses themselves are considered to have as much 1st ammendment rights as people, which now means they can basically spend as much as they want on campaign ads, or "issue" ads or whatever excuse they have now.

Either way, something is going to eventually give. Corporations are being greedy whores that will not stop to protect their interests and profit increases.

 

[ElFenix]

Personally, I would be happy with a "a business is not a person" rulling. The problem is that businesses themselves are considered to have as much 1st ammendment rights as people, which now means they can basically spend as much as they want on campaign ads, or "issue" ads or whatever excuse they have now.

Either way, something is going to eventually give. Corporations are being greedy whores that will not stop to protect their interests and profit increases.

...as if corporations aren't just a bunch of people

 

[soulcougher73]

...as if corporations aren't just a bunch of people

Yes im sure the high ups in the company are 100% in line with each and every single employees political leanings. Please. Dont be this dumb.

All the people there already get 1 vote a piece and can donate as they see fit. No need for the company itself to donate money against what im sure 90% of the employees would give donations to.

 

[rockyct]

...as if corporations aren't just a bunch of people

They are, and those people can still give money to political campaigns. The problem is when a corporation itself can pay for political ads. Those ads aren't really for promoting issues, they are an investment toward a potential payout.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes im sure the high ups in the company are 100% in line with each and every single employees political leanings. Please. Dont be this dumb.

All the people there already get 1 vote a piece and can donate as they see fit. No need for the company itself to donate money against what im sure 90% of the employees would give donations to.

it's not the employees...

 

[Doppel]

Craig, do you realize what a huge percentage of your threads actually begin with you having an opening sentence and then *in the second sentence* starting your attack on the right?

The left are money guzzling whores as well, or did you forget about Goldman's contributions to the Obama campaign?

Lobbying IS buying political office. It's out-in-the-open corruption.

 

[werepossum]

Or it may well indicate that his position does not benefit wealthy special interests, so he is limited to individual donations and hence cannot complete. This is your fallacy. You are arguing that a candidate unable to raise enough money is being rejected by "the public." You are conflating the public with narrow interests.



If the Marxist's ideas are shite, then people will hear them and realize they are shite. There is nothing to fear from open debate. There is everything to fear when only candidates whose ideas benefit monied interests can be heard.

I asked a question at the end of my previous post which I think you are ducking. In fact, you're ducking the core issue here with the assumptions you are making. In our political system, it is a fact that candidates are bought by special interests - be they corporations, wealthy individuals, unions, or professional associations. It is also a fact that a special interest, by definition, is one narrower than, and sometimes at odds with, the broad public interest. Ours is a government of, by and for the people, not of, by and for Goldman Sachs, the UAW, or Koch Enterprises. Agreed or not? If you disagree then the discussion ends here because we have different values and different definitions of democracy.

However, if you agree, but disagree with this sort of law as a solution to this problem, then what solution do you propose in the alternative? This is a serious question because I think if we are going to throw these kinds of laws out then we need alternatives.

- wolf

My solution would be to outlaw bundling, period. Each donation would come in straight from the entity and immediately be logged; if it's available to the candidate, its amount and donator (including CEO/BOD members where applicable) would be available on the Internet. Corporations and individuals and unions and PACs alike would have the exact same donation limits - preferably none, although a limit for matching funds wouldn't hurt my feelings. If any corporation or individual or union or PAC wishes to spend more than is allowed for matching funds, it could independently air issue adverts, without any specific mention of candidates nor collusion with campaigns (to the point that no individual could be associated with the candidate's campaign and any other advert campaign, under penalty of law.) Union contributions would come in from individual union members, not from the union leadership. Corporations would be required to have a stockholders' vote on each specific campaign donation, with the results publicly published on the Internet.

I agree that we largely have government controlled by special interests, but that's because of the size and power of government. No wealthy individual or corporation dares not lobby the government, not after what happened to Microsoft. We can't easily reduce the size and power of government, so this is not going to change. We can however remove the veil of secrecy. And we can at least mitigate the power that some individuals get from bundling others' contributions.

 

[woolfe9999]

My solution would be to outlaw bundling, period. Each donation would come in straight from the entity and immediately be logged; if it's available to the candidate, its amount and donator (including CEO/BOD members where applicable) would be available on the Internet. Corporations and individuals and unions and PACs alike would have the exact same donation limits - preferably none, although a limit for matching funds wouldn't hurt my feelings. If any corporation or individual or union or PAC wishes to spend more than is allowed for matching funds, it could independently air issue adverts, without any specific mention of candidates nor collusion with campaigns (to the point that no individual could be associated with the candidate's campaign and any other advert campaign, under penalty of law.) Union contributions would come in from individual union members, not from the union leadership. Corporations would be required to have a stockholders' vote on each specific campaign donation, with the results publicly published on the Internet.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Corporations and individuals can contribute, each with no limit. Unions cannot contribute. Their "members" can contribute but that is no different than individual contributions, so in effect union contributions are outlawed and there is no limit on corporate contributions, other than that they require a shareholder vote. The shareholder vote of course requires a majority of shareholders, but the union can't contribute if a majority of its members vote to do so. Only the individual members can contribute just like anyone else. So collective political use of aggregated funds based on a majority vote is OK for corporations but not for unions? If I'm misdesribing what you're saying, then correct me.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Craig, do you realize what a huge percentage of your threads actually begin with you having an opening sentence and then *in the second sentence* starting your attack on the right?

The left are money guzzling whores as well, or did you forget about Goldman's contributions to the Obama campaign?

Lobbying IS buying political office. It's out-in-the-open corruption.

I love your logic, when the other side is money guzzling whores it is alright your side is the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes dead on. His argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nor does the majority ruling here, in spite of the fact that it nominally purports to be about it. This is an activist ruling to support an ideological agenda, where the SCOTUS is legislating from the bench, and state law no less. It shouldn't matter if one supports or opposes this particular law, because it quite clearly is not unconstitutional. There is no banning or censorship of speech involved. The court is departing immensely from any concept of "strict constructionism" here and going way out on a limb, employing tortured reasoning to support a pre-determined result.

I suggest that anyone wanting to defend this ruling should at least attempt to do so on Constitutional grounds, since that is the only basis upon which the SCOTUS has the authority to throw this law out. Arguments about why someone does or does not like this law are not relevant.

- wolf

Indeed. It's important to remember, however, that Righties have no principles when it comes to winning- they seem to think that their side will always have more money, so anything that supports the influence of big money is good, right?

And that's where the narrow majority in the SCOTUS is going, obviously.

Somewhere in all this, I think Kennedy has slipped a cog, too...

 

[spidey07]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Corporations and individuals can contribute, each with no limit. Unions cannot contribute. Their "members" can contribute but that is no different than individual contributions, so in effect union contributions are outlawed and there is no limit on corporate contributions, other than that they require a shareholder vote. The shareholder vote of course requires a majority of shareholders, but the union can't contribute if a majority of its members vote to do so. Only the individual members can contribute just like anyone else. So collective political use of aggregated funds based on a majority vote is OK for corporations but not for unions? If I'm misdesribing what you're saying, then correct me.

He applied the same rules to unions, since union members dues would be used the members would vote on the contributions just like share holders. Let me add a stipulation to the unions since they are supposed to "represent their labor" - split the donations from a set amount based on a percentage of the vote. If the union really represented the worker they would have no problem with this, but they don't and they would fight that idea tooth and nail.

And most everybody at my work place contributes to our PAC, voluntarily.

 

[woolfe9999]

He applied the same rules to unions, since union members dues would be used the members would vote on the contributions just like share holders.

And most everybody at my work place contributes to our PAC, voluntarily.

If that's what he said, fair enough. It's why I asked for clarification. Because the way it reads to me, a corporation can contribute money belonging to all the shareholders by a majority vote, but union members cannot do that. The way I read it, the analogy to unions would be to ban corporate contributions and tell the shareholders that they can contribute as individuals. Admittedly, however, I perceive some ambiguity in what he wrote.