DNC spent 700 million on just 5 Consultants during Election.

[ultramanhyata]

The relevant part you're attempting to bring to bear in this discussion. Maybe your ability to discern what's relevant is thwarting your understanding?

If you can't differentiate within the bounds of the First Amendment then you're nothing more than some whiney bitch looking to get her way because of feelings. Too bad so sad if it doesn't work out that way for you. You can't possible be trying to float the notion that the First covers commercial speech but not political speech, right? If anything, it's the opposite. Don't you think? Personally I think it's both.

Based on your "arguments" in this thread I don't think you have a clue about US campaign finance law, even at its most basic level. You need to do some homework before trying to engage an educated person in this discussion.

For example, if money is "speech", de facto, and protected unequivocally by the First Amendment, why is there a $2500 limit, per individual, on hard money contributions to a presidential candidate's campaign??

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Based on your "arguments" in this thread I don't think you have a clue about US campaign finance law, even at its most basic level. You need to do some homework before trying to engage an educated person in this discussion.

For example, if money is "speech", de facto, and protected unequivocally by the First Amendment, why is there a $2500 limit, per individual, on hard money contributions to a presidential candidate's campaign??

Pardon me for wasting your time. Good to know you're at peace with the Citizens United ruling.

 

[WTF2008]

He didn't say "Hillary's campaign." The point was that the claim in the OP is false.

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=DNC&cycle=2016

Total DNC spending (including all affiliated committees) was $370M, and it wasn't on five consultants.

And I was responding with facts.
Why does that bother you?

 

[Amerikuracana]

That's fine. But corporations are run by people and they have the right to free speech. Not sure how a group of people has less rights than the individual.

Giving massive amounts of money to gain massive influence could easily not qualify as "speech."

 

[ultramanhyata]

Pardon me for wasting your time. Good to know you're at peace with the Citizens United ruling.

I could have gone to a Sanders rally and shouted "Ber-NIE!" as many times as I wanted to. But federal law prohibited me from donating more than $2500 to the Sanders campaign.

But "money is speech". Riiiiiight.

 

[panamaican]

I could have gone to a Sanders rally and shouted "Ber-NIE!" as many times as I wanted to. But federal law prohibited me from donating more than $2500 to the Sanders campaign.

But "money is speech". Riiiiiight.

I don't see the contradiction. There's no limitation on how much money you can personally spend to promote Sanders. There is a limitation on how much money you can hand to a political entity that only exists under federal tax and election law.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I don't see the contradiction.

Assuming that money is the equivalent of speech, on what grounds can the government control and limit my ability to "talk" to my preferred candidate in the form of donating money to his/her campaign?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Giving massive amounts of money to gain massive influence could easily not qualify as "speech."

You're right. It would qualify as a bribe and that's a crime. Too bad it's tough to prove. Not sure that preventing the possibility (of big money influence) justifies violating the Constitution by curtailing political speech. I'd rather we do the honorable thing and add an Amendment. I call it a matter of integrity.

 

[panamaican]

Assuming that money is the equivalent of speech, on what grounds can the government control and limit my ability to "talk" to my preferred candidate in the form of donating money to his/her campaign?

You can talk to him all you want. But campaigns and candidates are defined entities within the federal government and as such the government can place limitations on them.

So if you wanted to personally gift some guy $1 million dollars, go ahead. Pay the taxes and everyone goes their own way. But if the money is for a political candidacy then he/she becomes a candidate and federal limitations on how much can be received from individuals kick in. So you could offer him all the money you have, he's just not allowed to take it for federal purposes.

A better way to think about it that there's a limit on how much he can receive, not how much you can spend.

A nice parallel is contracts with minors. Minors can sign contracts and enforce them against an adult. But that adult can't enforce that same contract against the minor. The restriction isn't on both parties, it's only on the adult. Campaign finance restrictions are on the candidates, not the donors (a simplified way of discussing it).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You can talk to him all you want. But campaigns and candidates are defined entities within the federal government and as such the government can place limitations on them.

So if you wanted to personally gift some guy $1 million dollars, go ahead. Pay the taxes and everyone goes their own way. But if the money is for a political candidacy then he/she becomes a candidate and federal limitations on how much can be received from individuals kick in. So you could offer him all the money you have, he's just not allowed to take it for federal purposes.

A better way to think about it that there's a limit on how much he can receive, not how much you can spend.

A nice parallel is contracts with minors. Minors can sign contracts and enforce them against an adult. But that adult can't enforce that same contract against the minor. The restriction isn't on both parties, it's only on the adult. Campaign finance restrictions are on the candidates, not the donors (a simplified way of discussing it).

I don't konw where the Constitution authorizes the feds to place any restrictions at all on campaign financing. What am I not remembering?

 

[panamaican]

I don't konw where the Constitution authorizes the feds to place any restrictions at all on campaign financing. What am I not remembering?

The Supreme Court looked at this and said that limitations on campaign financing by the federal government is fine. Which is a different conversation from limitations on non-candidates spending their own money in furtherance of political goals.

A political candidate can certainly spend as much of their personal money as they wish on their campaign. There's no limitation on personal spending hence Trump being able to allegedly spend millions of his own dollars and no one, rightly, saying a word about it. The limitation is on candidates taking money from 3rd parties.

 

[BassAckwards]

money well spent and a valuable lesson learned. money cant buy elections if you have a flawed candidate

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Supreme Court looked at this and said that limitations on campaign financing by the federal government is fine. Which is a different conversation from limitations on non-candidates spending their own money in furtherance of political goals.

A political candidate can certainly spend as much of their personal money as they wish on their campaign. There's no limitation on personal spending hence Trump being able to allegedly spend millions of his own dollars and no one, rightly, saying a word about it. The limitation is on candidates taking money from 3rd parties.

Yeah, I was wondering what part of the Constitution they said authorized the federal government to impose the limitations. Powers are supposed to be enumerated. I don't see how the transfer of money over a certain amount is outlawed. Taxed, sure. Outlawed, based on what?

 

[ultramanhyata]

You can talk to him all you want. But campaigns and candidates are defined entities within the federal government and as such the government can place limitations on them.

So if you wanted to personally gift some guy $1 million dollars, go ahead. Pay the taxes and everyone goes their own way. But if the money is for a political candidacy then he/she becomes a candidate and federal limitations on how much can be received from individuals kick in. So you could offer him all the money you have, he's just not allowed to take it for federal purposes.

A better way to think about it that there's a limit on how much he can receive, not how much you can spend.

A nice parallel is contracts with minors. Minors can sign contracts and enforce them against an adult. But that adult can't enforce that same contract against the minor. The restriction isn't on both parties, it's only on the adult. Campaign finance restrictions are on the candidates, not the donors (a simplified way of discussing it).

Is this your wordy way of admitting that a federal restriction on hard money campaign contributions is not an infringement of the First?

Or do you think it IS an infringement and a battle you hope to see won in a future SC decision?

Campaign finance and its relation to the First is similar in a way to gun ownership and its relation to the Second.

For example, I can purchase a gun. I can legally carry my gun. But if, for example, I need to enter my local courthouse to conduct business with the clerk I have to surrender my firearm to security. I cannot carry it inside the building.

Is that an outright, fundamental infringement on my right to bear arms? Or is it a lawful, specific, contextual limitation of my rights intended to promote the larger public good?

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, I was wondering what part of the Constitution they said authorized the federal government to impose the limitations. Powers are supposed to be enumerated. I don't see how the transfer of money over a certain amount is outlawed. Taxed, sure. Outlawed, based on what?

The Constitution gave the Congress the broad ability to write such laws as Congress felt necessary to properly manage the government.

The Constitution speaks specifically to the election of people to Congress and the Presidency. More importantly, the Constitution places limitations on who can be elected to what office and under what circumstances.

Taken altogether, the Constitution allows for restrictions on candidates for federal office and allows Congress to write laws that further what Congress considers important government needs. This would mean that Congress has the ability to write laws that also impose restrictions on candidates for federal office if Congress can illustrate that it meets a government need.

Such a restriction might be on how much money candidates can receive from a single donor.

 

[panamaican]

Is this your wordy way of admitting that a federal restriction on hard money campaign contributions is not an infringement of the First?

Or do you think it IS an infringement and a battle you hope to see won in a future SC decision?

Campaign finance and its relation to the First is similar in a way to gun ownership and its relation to the Second.

For example, I can purchase a gun. I can legally carry my gun. But if, for example, I need to enter my local courthouse to conduct business with the clerk I have to surrender my firearm to security. I cannot carry it inside the building.

Is that an outright, fundamental infringement on my right to bear arms? Or is it a lawful, specific, contextual limitation of my rights intended to promote the larger public good?

Your 2nd Amendment comparison is a little bit all over the place.

Limiting how much money a political candidate can receive has nothing to do with your political speech. The restriction in on the candidate. He is restricted from taking it, you're not restricted from offering it and you're not restricted from spending it on his behalf. He is imposing restrictions on himself by choosing to run for federal office.

I'm saying this conversation has nothing to do with the First.

 

[Amerikuracana]

"Speech" does not have to be words.. It' an expression of ideas. The founders wanted the United States to be a "marketplace of ideas" and therefore the laws regarding free speech were initially applied liberally. A dance can be an expression, nudity can be an expression, and the more political in nature, the mpre deference the speech is supposed to recieve. That's why the bribes that allow our government to work for subversive interests have carries on.. It relates to politics, and expressions that proclaim political alliance have historically been highly protected. In light of changes and realities over the last 100 years, huge donations need to fall.outside this umbrella of protection. They do not pass the most even the most favorable balancing tests.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Constitution gave the Congress the broad ability to write such laws as Congress felt necessary to properly manage the government.

The Constitution speaks specifically to the election of people to Congress and the Presidency. More importantly, the Constitution places limitations on who can be elected to what office and under what circumstances.

Taken altogether, the Constitution allows for restrictions on candidates for federal office and allows Congress to write laws that further what Congress considers important government needs. This would mean that Congress has the ability to write laws that also impose restrictions on candidates for federal office if Congress can illustrate that it meets a government need.

Such a restriction might be on how much money candidates can receive from a single donor.

So the court just made up the federal authority based on "necessary and proper"? Federal funding limits are hardly "necessary". By that low standard there's nothing the feds can't do. Certainly not how the Constitution was written. Sounds like pretty clear federal overreach. <shrug>

 

[panamaican]

So the court just made up the federal authority based on "necessary and proper"? Federal funding limits are hardly "necessary". By that low standard there's nothing the feds can't do. Certainly not how the Constitution was written. Sounds like pretty clear federal overreach. <shrug>

Sounds like you should just read the numerous cases that went before the Supreme Court on this before labeling it "overreach". I won't sit her and suggest that I've all of them but I've read enough to understand that managing the election process is something that Congress certainly can do.

I gave you a very simple outline of the steps via the Constitution but if you want to argue the legal details, there have been several cases since the 1970's that are a good place to start.

At the end of the day, Congress can write laws on almost anything that doesn't infringe on the Constitution. If you think a Congressional law is an infringement on the Constitution, you should be clear what that infringement it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sounds like you should just read the numerous cases that went before the Supreme Court on this before labeling it "overreach". I won't sit her and suggest that I've all of them but I've read enough to understand that managing the election process is something that Congress certainly can do.

I gave you a very simple outline of the steps via the Constitution but if you want to argue the legal details, there have been several cases since the 1970's that are a good place to start.

At the end of the day, Congress can write laws on almost anything that doesn't infringe on the Constitution. If you think a Congressional law is an infringement on the Constitution, you should be clear what that infringement it.

If that explanation is the best you got then it's clear the ruling was a rationalization. If it's free speech to spend the money it's free speech to receive the money and put it to work. Can't interfere with the message reaching the ultimate recipient and still claim free speech is at work.