Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Overturns Millionaire's Amendment (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Doesn't Take It Away (0+ / 0-)

    They can put their own money in the pool and get their share of it.

    Show me where people don't have enough money, as an equal share of all that's spent on the election they're in, to get their message out, and I'll believe there's a problem. There are so many venues for speaking cheaply or free, including the one you're reading right now and the ones that compete directly with it, that there is no restriction on free speech just because there are restrictions on buying overwhelming amounts of it.

    The Court's decision was correct in a very limited way. The appropriate response to unpopular free speech is indeed more free speech. But that sensibility reaches its limits, as everything does, when the answer to overwhelmingly excessive speech is "more excessive speech". So the response to a millionaire spending his way to dominating the debate isn't to allow others to become millionaires in fundraising in order to swamp back the debate into an orgy of spending. That process never improves the quality of speech, and makes it harder to find any in the overwhelming quantity. So they're right to avert the allowance for so much more speech.

    They should indeed go much further, and ensure a simple mechanism for expenditure equality, like the one I propose, that will also shrink back the fundraising to a sensible level that doesn't itself dominate the message.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site