Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

[IGIT]

This is like the tenth time in this thread he's gone off on some canned wingnut rant that has pretty much fuck all to do with campaign finance and instead tries to conflate virtually all forms of free speech with the right of wealthy people to shovel money at political campaigns.

I GUESS YOU MUST LOVE GENOCIDAL AUTHORATARIAN REGIMES AM I RITE GUBMINT BOOKLICKER!?!?!

hi Drowning,

the thing is, i can see how spending money is a form of free speech. someone who had a great deal of money could buy airtime to promote ideas...new approaches...to rebut charges, stuff like that. that seems like a form a free speech to me, so i get where the conservatives judges on the bench are coming from.

the problem is that those with a great deal of money can amplify their "speech" to a point where its actually curtailing the rights of others to be heard by their elected representatives, thereby infringing on the free speech of others.

to put it differently, its a little like dissolving the weight classes in the UFC and having the entire thing an open weight endeavor.
the HWs would inherently have all the power.

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hi OldGoat,



i am not talking about the press. i am not talking about the New York Times...or Fox News...or the Wall Street Journal...or the New Republic.

not. the. press.

i am talking about political contributions and the influence it has on politics here in the United States.


what are you looking for, exactly? proof that money tends to influence people? what proof, exactly, do you need of that?


i am secure enough that i generally don't worry too much about money and work because i really enjoy what i do....but i can't support an 'OldGoat. sorry my friend.

- IGIT

And what exactly are most political contributions used for? Aside from hoarding my guess it's used in political speech and press. Who is it that you want making the decision on how or what message a group or an individual may convey? Who is this pristine soul that we can trust with that power?

 

[OldGoat]

hi Drowning,

the thing is, i can see how spending money is a form of free speech. someone who had a great deal of money could buy airtime to promote ideas...new approaches...to rebut charges, stuff like that. that seems like a form a free speech to me, so i get where the conservatives judges on the bench are coming from.

the problem is that those with a great deal of money can amplify their "speech" to a point where its actually curtailing the rights of others to be heard by their elected representatives, thereby infringing on the free speech of others.

to put it differently, its a little like dissolving the weight classes in the UFC and having the entire thing an open weight endeavor.
the HWs would inherently have all the power.

- IGIT

Life ain't equal. OldGoat Times cannot compete with the NYT and that's life.

 

[IGIT]

And what exactly are most political contributions used for? Aside from hoarding my guess it's used in political speech and press. Who is it that you want making the decision on how or what message a group or an individual may convey? Who is this pristine soul that we can trust with that power?

hi OldGoat,

its more or less about how much money you want funneled directly into the DNC and the RNC by folks whose net worth worth renders someone like yourself meaningless. if your point of view is, "i don't care, this is about the first amendment", that's fine man.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hi all,

the op-ed from USA Today;

it highlights the difference between "free speech" and "bought and paid for speech".

You can go to Washington, stand on the National Mall and shout demands at the Capitol.

That's free speech, but it won't get you into a congressman's office. A maxed-out campaign contribution almost certainly will.

It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about candidates of both parties spending an inordinate amount of time grubbing for money and rewarding those who give it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nations-free-speech-democracy-column/7273303/

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is like the tenth time in this thread he's gone off on some canned wingnut rant that has pretty much fuck all to do with campaign finance and instead tries to conflate virtually all forms of free speech with the right of wealthy people to shovel money at political campaigns.

I GUESS YOU MUST LOVE GENOCIDAL AUTHORATARIAN REGIMES AM I RITE GUBMINT BOOKLICKER!?!?!

Yeah, it's tiring when people leave conversation mode and go into propaganda/soapbox mode, and OG does that more than anyone.

 

[James Keith]

you're on a roll here, i can see...but this also doesn't have anything to do (at all) with the influence of money in politics, something i would think that we would like to limit (in fact, four out of five americans feel this way).

The desires of the majority is pretty much the worst way to argue against restrictions on the powers a democratic govt.

This is like the tenth time in this thread he's gone off on some canned wingnut rant that has pretty much fuck all to do with campaign finance and instead tries to conflate virtually all forms of free speech with the right of wealthy people to shovel money at political campaigns.

And arguments about principles are supposed to be about "conflating" the principle with the situation it is applied to. Pretending that you can invent some new category (e.g. campaign finance, enhanced interrogation, collateral damage) and that principles can now be ignored because they don't apply, is a very dangerous game to play.

 

[IGIT]

hi James Keith,

The desires of the majority is pretty much the worst way to argue against restrictions on the powers a democratic govt.

if the majority of Americans favor a policy shift, their sentiments are invalid because it's "the worst way to argue on the restrictions on the powers a democratic govt."?

what does that mean, exactly?

And arguments about principles are supposed to be about "conflating" the principle with the situation it is applied to. Pretending that you can invent some new category (e.g. campaign finance, enhanced interrogation, collateral damage) and that principles can now be ignored because they don't apply, is a very dangerous game to play.

huh?

so then, campaign finance is a "new catatory" of principle?

James, that is just incorrect, and only your lack of familiarity on both the topic and US history could allow you to state such a thing. perhaps you are not an american?

1757: When George Washington lost an election to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1755, he decided he needed to improve outreach. Two years later, he bought about $195 worth of punch and hard cider for friends, and managed to win.

However, the newly elected legislature quickly passed a law prohibiting candidates "or any persons on their behalf" from giving voters "money, meat, drink, entertainment or provision or … any present, gift, reward or entertainment etc. in order to be elected."

1867: Congress passed a naval appropriations bill that marked the first time the federal government tried to regulate campaign finance. The law made it illegal for government officials to solicit naval yard workers for money.

1883: The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed. This law made it illegal for government officials to solicit contributions from any civil service workers, or award these positions based on anything but merit. Previously, many people who worked in government were expected to pay up to keep their jobs.

The Civil Service Reform Act had wide public support; it was passed two years after James Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau, who was denied a political appointment by the president.

1905: The 1904 presidential campaign “crystallized popular sentiment” on the subject of money and politics.

In his message to Congress after being elected, President Theodore Roosevelt invoked the power “to protect the integrity of the elections of its own officials [as] inherent” in government, and called for “vigorous measures to eradicate” perceived political corruption, for he found “no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious.” He also suggested that "(a)ll contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law" and public financing of political candidates. His proposal did not include a ban on contributions from people who run companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...m-from-george-washington-to-shaun-mccutcheon/

the concept of protecting the integrity of an election and to safeguard against undue influence peddling via campaign finance laws is nothing "new", James.

- IGIT

 

[James Keith]

if the majority of Americans favor a policy shift, their sentiments are invalid because it's "the worst way to argue on the restrictions on the powers a democratic govt."?

what does that mean, exactly?

The point of the constitution, in this case specifically the first amendment, is to limit the powers of the govt.

The use of the powers of the govt is determined (crudely) by democracy.

Therefore the point of the rights in the constitution is to limit what the majority can do via democracy.

An argument that the majority wants to do something is indeed the worst way to argue about whether we should have certain rights the majority cannot infringe upon.

As for history, Teddy Roosevelt was progressive who also wanted to tax the rich and lots of other crap that became modern left-wing liberalism.

 

[panamaican]

The concern about money in politics is a fair one but people should find better ways to solve it than limiting how much people can spend in pursuit of their political goals.

There's nothing wrong with people with more money being "louder" than the people with less money.

There is always the inherent balance that those with money will be outnumbered by those without. And for any government official that relies on the popular vote to keep his job, money doesn't vote and he doesn't profit from the money spent on his behalf unless he gets elected.

So the balance will always be thus. Those with money will spend that money to promote their guy. But those with money will never have enough votes to elect their guy without the agreement of those without money. So those with money must always support that candidate with the greatest chance of securing the support of the larger percentage of people who lack money.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You, again, demonstrate a lack of internal consistency.

Good lord, the guy was making a joke. I don't agree with this IDL guy on much, but your nit-picking of everything the guy says seems more like a personal vendetta.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Good lord, the guy was making a joke. I don't agree with this IDL guy on much, but your nit-picking of everything the guy says seems more like a personal vendetta.

You must not read many of his posts.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

The concern about money in politics is a fair one but people should find better ways to solve it than limiting how much people can spend in pursuit of their political goals.

There's nothing wrong with people with more money being "louder" than the people with less money.

There is always the inherent balance that those with money will be outnumbered by those without. And for any government official that relies on the popular vote to keep his job, money doesn't vote and he doesn't profit from the money spent on his behalf unless he gets elected.

So the balance will always be thus. Those with money will spend that money to promote their guy. But those with money will never have enough votes to elect their guy without the agreement of those without money. So those with money must always support that candidate with the greatest chance of securing the support of the larger percentage of people who lack money.

The answer is transparency...oh, wait.

Big Money more than neutralized the advantage of populous voting power.
The game is rigged and with the Supremes help, it is close to unfixable.

Teaching hospitals recognized the conflict of interest between money and health care. The money is even bigger in politics and politicians are only human.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mediaII/Enews/articles/drugreps.html

http://www.amsascorecard.org/

 

[BKMMAFAN]

The answer is transparency...oh, wait.

Big Money more than neutralized the advantage of populous voting power.
The game is rigged and with the Supremes help, it is close to unfixable.

Teaching hospitals recognized the conflict of interest between money and health care. The money is even bigger in politics and politicians are only human.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mediaII/Enews/articles/drugreps.html

http://www.amsascorecard.org/

The Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. How exactly are their votes bought again?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

The Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. How exactly are their votes bought again?

I don't know what you're talking about? Do you?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I don't know what you're talking about? Do you?

Sounded like that's what you were inferring with them helping to 'rig the game'.

 

[TheBox]

There's nothing wrong with people with more money being "louder" than the people with less money.

Even if that loudness gives those people sway over politicians?

Sheldon Adelson is the big example right now. A bunch of politicians just traveled across the country to court him. Chris Christie just gave him a personal apology because he used a term that Adelson doesn't like. Lindsay Graham is drafting legislation for Adelson's benefit.

Come on. This shit is disgusting. His money isn't just giving him a voice - it's giving him a level of control.

So the balance will always be thus. Those with money will spend that money to promote their guy. But those with money will never have enough votes to elect their guy without the agreement of those without money.

But the money in question is a huge factor in winning those people's agreement. Exposure and hype and attacks are hugely effective tools for winning elections.

So those with money must always support that candidate with the greatest chance of securing the support of the larger percentage of people who lack money.

They just have to support a candidate who has *a* chance of winning, taking into account the increased odds they have of winning after the money boost.

 

[OldGoat]

Even if that loudness gives those people sway over politicians?

Sheldon Adelson is the big example right now. A bunch of politicians just traveled across the country to court him. Chris Christie just gave him a personal apology because he used a term that Adelson doesn't like. Lindsay Graham is drafting legislation for Adelson's benefit.

Come on. This shit is disgusting. His money isn't just giving him a voice - it's giving him a level of control.



But the money in question is a huge factor in winning those people's agreement. Exposure and hype and attacks are hugely effective tools for winning elections.



They just have to support a candidate who has *a* chance of winning, taking into account the increased odds they have of winning after the money boost.

No worse than playing the sax on the tonight show. Celebrities should be banned from mentioning candidates. What was the dollar value of Kanye West's "Bush hates da black people" comment? He needs to be put in jail for disproportionate speech impact on elections. It's not fair.

 

[TheBox]

No worse than playing the sax on the tonight show. Celebrities should be banned from mentioning candidates. What was the dollar value of Kanye West's "Bush hates da black people" comment?

Did Kanye West or Arsenio Hall receive some kind of obvious benefit from Obama and Clinton after those events?

 

[OldGoat]

Did Kanye West or Arsenio Hall receive some kind of obvious benefit from Obama and Clinton after those events?

Bribery is still illegal.