Skip to main content

View Diary: Billionaire says one-vote per dollar (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The concept of money equals speech (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrahaPartizan

    was established in Buckley v Valeo in 1976 and has been enshrined ever since. None of the current members of the SCOTUS were on the Court at that time.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:53:41 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'd rather a constitutional amendment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon, RUNDOWN

      to overturn that than going down the "corporate personhood" rabbithole.  If you're going to amend the constitution, why leave in place all the pre-Citizens United problems with campaign fin?  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:13:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I too think it would take a Constitutional (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ichibon, nextstep, PrahaPartizan

        amendment to take big money out of politics. The First Amendment makes legislating campaign financing legislation problematic.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:17:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, as interpreted by SCOTUS . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          I have a hard time seeing curtailing lobbying or issue advocacy, but treating donations to candidates or even independent expenditures on candidates' behalf as protected seems a stretch.  It's not content neutral but is viewpoint neutral, and the interest in clean elections seems a legitimate and important state interest, to put mildly.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 09:24:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The first amendment link to money is that (0+ / 0-)

            exercising the right to speech and press requires money if one is to go beyond shouting on a street corner.  Money is required to broadly spread the content of speech and press.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:03:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  we'll they're not unrelated, (0+ / 0-)

              but that doesn't mean spending "IS" itself expressive advocacy, especially if the net effect is to reduce on side to the equivalent of shouting on a street corner through the deluge of unregulated spending.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 11:41:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Spending is essential to meaningful freedom of (0+ / 0-)

                speech and press.  

                In regards to some voices being overwhelming and therefore some voices must be restrained, in that measure we should also consider major media such as Wall Street Journal, NY Times, major TV and Cable news networks, as competing voices.  

                Are my first amendment rights diminished because editorials from the Wall Street Journal and NY Times get distributed far more widely than mine?

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 12:29:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  the question is whether (0+ / 0-)

                  regulation of campaign donations or independent expenditures on a candidate's behalf should be regarded as on the same level as regulations of the advocacy, itself.  

                  I said issue advocacy is much more broadly protected, so I do not understand the analogy.  You could argue the first amendment requires a federal minimum wage, or that government builds churches for whoever wants one.  I really don't know where you are going with any of this.  

                  I will say I think the ability of a major media corporation to marshal all of its resources on behalf of a candidate raises the appearance and possibility of corruption, which pre citizens united was seen as valid reason not to allow it.  Regular Pacs were bad enough.  

                  We already have regulations on how much one can donate directly to campaigns, and those are not effective if the spending-as-speech paradigm can extend to the world of superpacs. The regulations in Buckley v Valeo the Court struck down would have limited expenditures by campaigns, not by ordinary citizens.  The regulations didn't prohibit them, and the argument that campaigns need money to do protect speech wasn't the holding of the case.  

                  I guarantee you I know these issues better than you, so don't dumbspain me.

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 01:30:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site