6 ms·

Is there a meaningful way in which we can act?

by mkaziz 11y ago

ddingus 11y ago
Yes. If we can arrive at a place where a sufficient number of us want to impact this, we could get an amendment done. But, that takes a sustained civic effort, and there is the rub. Do we care enough to actually do that? I think I do. When I ask others, I get a wide range of commit potentials. I don't think enough of us care.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I assume you mean an amendment to limit free speech so you can stop people from advocating for causes you don't agree with. That's what overruling Citizens United would be.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    Money isn't speech, nor are corporations people. Sorry. It has nothing to do with causes I do, or do not agree with, and everything to do with a healthy democracy. Let's just say ones bank account is no measure of character, nor qualification to speak above others in the democracy. A similar dynamic can be seen with land owners, who also consistently seek some advantage over their peers. Acres do not vote, nor do dollars. Additionally, it has nothing to do with stopping advocacy of any kind. Those of significant means have plenty of ways to get the word out. Non issue. Bribery is another matter altogether. That is precisely what an amendment would be about. Thomas Paine derived the justification for self governance, and the basis for its authority in his books. In particular, "Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" contain most of this in easy to understand form. A core idea is we agree to governance so we may better exercise our liberty. A lack of governance actually diminishes that for large numbers of people. The government must then serve us if it's authority is just and true. Allowing for money as speech in politics renders the authority of the government corrupt, unjust and untrue. In a real sense, it only serves some of us, when the intent is for it to serve all of us. That we allow anonymous dollars is also troubling. The First Amendment does not include a shield. At the very least we should require complete and full disclosure of all funds. Some of us want to advocate for causes an awful lot of the rest of us think very poorly of. And that is fine, but allowing powerful people to speak with impunity is as corrupt as the bribery associated with said speech. What the two do is break the basic intent and trust necessary for the people to abide by and respect the government. And government is necessary, despite some who claim otherwise. Further, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful debate, which can form the basis for cause agreement or disagreement in an environment where money so obviously trumps votes as consistently as it does in the US at present. Finally, the idea that some of us deserve to call the shots, because money, for the rest of us is old world governance. You can lump that in with ideas like divine right, or nobility, etc... A claim that God says one should be king, or that winning the birth lottery means the same is as silly as the idea of a wealthy person being somehow entitled in like kind. The telling bit in all this is the strong and consistent pushback on disclosure. Any cause really worth persist does not require anonymonity. Sure, there will be naysayers, but the overall open discourse will bring merits to light, as intended. Many who do not want disclosure have also been linked to some pretty damn ugly policy advocacy too. That's a generalization, of course, but it's also indicative of why disclosure at a minimum is required to make any real sense out of the mess we have in money and politics today. Honestly, I do not believe you understand how and why the First Amendment works, nor why it exists. Full disclosure may actually prove good enough too. If we are to continue with the idea of money as speech and corporations as people, then we also need to insure the basic dynamics of those are true to the intent of the First Amendment. Vile people can hide behind their corporate proxy and act with anonymous dollars to ends that are not easily demonstrated to be worthy. At present they can avoid judgement from their fellow citizens as well as many liabilities. That is a step too far. Disclosure would bring that out, and it may be enough to be workable. I'm completely open to that. I am absolutely not open to the idea of such powerful actors able to do so with relative impunity. Meaningful checks and balances are a core idea we all live by, and that is by design and intent to form a more just governance than our founders saw in the past. Citizens United is nothing more than a call to return to the times of fiefdoms, kings, lords, nobility... and many other unAmerica ideas of just and true governance.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Given the current propensity for political witch-hunts in American politics, disclosure is clearly a trojan horse that is really intended to intimidate people over their opinions. Privacy for donors to non-profits is no different than a secret ballot, which America didn't always have. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich. The cause that he donated to was popular enough to win the election and even then, a $1000 donation was enough to undo him and force him out of his job. I don't agree with his opinions on that issue, but the precedent will clearly create a chilling effect on advocacy. Do you really think that's desirable? The freedom of advocacy is inseparable from the freedom of speech. It costs money to print pamphlets, buy air time, pay people to stand on the corner, conduct opinion polls, etc. The Citizens United case was about a non-profit organization that made a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary campaign. Their alleged violation was spending money against a politician within 30 days of a primary. Anyone who believes in free speech should have been appalled. Politicians want only politicians to be allowed to get their word out during an election. That wouldn't be a free society. The Supreme Court ruling was the only reasonable one. Say that you or I have a novel political idea that we want to advocate for. How do you propose that we do so? We'd probably form a non-profit, spend money contacting potential allies, convince them on the merits of our case and to donate to us, then spend that money on pamphlets, TV and radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work.
      - ddingus 11y ago
        Yes. Challenges to opinion are normal, expected and required of every US citizen by design. If those opinions have merit, it will be found. All of us are subject to the law that a mere opinion could impose. Not only should that be challenged, we are required to do so. Like I said, disclosure may be enough. There is no, just try it here. Real people are impacted while living real lives. Disclosure is a reasonable check on what is significant advocacy power and access to legislators. As for your comments about the left... yes! The left cates about the little guy. No one else does. Brendan lost his job due to losing the respect of those he was supposed to lead. It would not work a day for him. I'll be frank, racism, bigotry and theocracy are completely unacceptable. Politics is a contact sport. Anyone advocating we treat others like lesser people can totally expect to be judged on it. At a minimum, those other prople are going to speak out, as they should. Hiding behind money and corporations means speech without accountability for said speech, and that is also unacceptable. There is no shield in the First Amendment, by design. The lesson here for Brendan is leading people requires you have the respect of those people. Maybe it's just not wise to classify some of those people as lesser, or wrong, or bad, undeserving people, if one wants their respect. I find avoidance of these basic dynamics very deeply offensive. Truth is, if the contact is a problem, maybe the speech is too. Go ask the people who have suffered a lot worse when speaking truth to power. Free Speech is not a license to say whatever one wants with no consequences, nor is it a license to be heard, or respected. You will see things like, "everyone has a right to their opinion", which is true. But everyone else also has a right to say what they think of that opinion too. All of that plays out as democracy and it provides checks and balances as well as the ability to challenge norms and advance the society. Out gay brothers and sisters all decided to speak up and out over how they were treated in society, and that treatment has been shown to be unjust and often for untrue reasons too. Good. Their supporters heard their story, found it compelling and acted on that. I personally won't have basic discrimination of this kind. I've walked from jobs where it was te norm, and did so long before we had the state of awareness we have today too. Everything costs something. I'm fine with disclosure as its a great check on bad idea advocacy just as its an enabler of good idea advocacy. I'm not OK at all with attempt to advance speech with impunity.

Is there a meaningful way in which we can act?

by mkaziz 11y ago

Is there a meaningful way in which we can act?

Yes. If we can arrive at a place where a sufficient number of us want to impact this, we could get an amendment done. But, that takes a sustained civic effort, and there is the rub. Do we care enough to actually do that? I think I do. When I ask others, I get a wide range of commit potentials. I don't think enough of us care.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I assume you mean an amendment to limit free speech so you can stop people from advocating for causes you don't agree with. That's what overruling Citizens United would be.
- ddingus 11y ago
  Money isn't speech, nor are corporations people. Sorry. It has nothing to do with causes I do, or do not agree with, and everything to do with a healthy democracy. Let's just say ones bank account is no measure of character, nor qualification to speak above others in the democracy. A similar dynamic can be seen with land owners, who also consistently seek some advantage over their peers. Acres do not vote, nor do dollars. Additionally, it has nothing to do with stopping advocacy of any kind. Those of significant means have plenty of ways to get the word out. Non issue. Bribery is another matter altogether. That is precisely what an amendment would be about. Thomas Paine derived the justification for self governance, and the basis for its authority in his books. In particular, "Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" contain most of this in easy to understand form. A core idea is we agree to governance so we may better exercise our liberty. A lack of governance actually diminishes that for large numbers of people. The government must then serve us if it's authority is just and true. Allowing for money as speech in politics renders the authority of the government corrupt, unjust and untrue. In a real sense, it only serves some of us, when the intent is for it to serve all of us. That we allow anonymous dollars is also troubling. The First Amendment does not include a shield. At the very least we should require complete and full disclosure of all funds. Some of us want to advocate for causes an awful lot of the rest of us think very poorly of. And that is fine, but allowing powerful people to speak with impunity is as corrupt as the bribery associated with said speech. What the two do is break the basic intent and trust necessary for the people to abide by and respect the government. And government is necessary, despite some who claim otherwise. Further, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful debate, which can form the basis for cause agreement or disagreement in an environment where money so obviously trumps votes as consistently as it does in the US at present. Finally, the idea that some of us deserve to call the shots, because money, for the rest of us is old world governance. You can lump that in with ideas like divine right, or nobility, etc... A claim that God says one should be king, or that winning the birth lottery means the same is as silly as the idea of a wealthy person being somehow entitled in like kind. The telling bit in all this is the strong and consistent pushback on disclosure. Any cause really worth persist does not require anonymonity. Sure, there will be naysayers, but the overall open discourse will bring merits to light, as intended. Many who do not want disclosure have also been linked to some pretty damn ugly policy advocacy too. That's a generalization, of course, but it's also indicative of why disclosure at a minimum is required to make any real sense out of the mess we have in money and politics today. Honestly, I do not believe you understand how and why the First Amendment works, nor why it exists. Full disclosure may actually prove good enough too. If we are to continue with the idea of money as speech and corporations as people, then we also need to insure the basic dynamics of those are true to the intent of the First Amendment. Vile people can hide behind their corporate proxy and act with anonymous dollars to ends that are not easily demonstrated to be worthy. At present they can avoid judgement from their fellow citizens as well as many liabilities. That is a step too far. Disclosure would bring that out, and it may be enough to be workable. I'm completely open to that. I am absolutely not open to the idea of such powerful actors able to do so with relative impunity. Meaningful checks and balances are a core idea we all live by, and that is by design and intent to form a more just governance than our founders saw in the past. Citizens United is nothing more than a call to return to the times of fiefdoms, kings, lords, nobility... and many other unAmerica ideas of just and true governance.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Given the current propensity for political witch-hunts in American politics, disclosure is clearly a trojan horse that is really intended to intimidate people over their opinions. Privacy for donors to non-profits is no different than a secret ballot, which America didn't always have. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich. The cause that he donated to was popular enough to win the election and even then, a $1000 donation was enough to undo him and force him out of his job. I don't agree with his opinions on that issue, but the precedent will clearly create a chilling effect on advocacy. Do you really think that's desirable? The freedom of advocacy is inseparable from the freedom of speech. It costs money to print pamphlets, buy air time, pay people to stand on the corner, conduct opinion polls, etc. The Citizens United case was about a non-profit organization that made a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary campaign. Their alleged violation was spending money against a politician within 30 days of a primary. Anyone who believes in free speech should have been appalled. Politicians want only politicians to be allowed to get their word out during an election. That wouldn't be a free society. The Supreme Court ruling was the only reasonable one. Say that you or I have a novel political idea that we want to advocate for. How do you propose that we do so? We'd probably form a non-profit, spend money contacting potential allies, convince them on the merits of our case and to donate to us, then spend that money on pamphlets, TV and radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work.
    - ddingus 11y ago
      Yes. Challenges to opinion are normal, expected and required of every US citizen by design. If those opinions have merit, it will be found. All of us are subject to the law that a mere opinion could impose. Not only should that be challenged, we are required to do so. Like I said, disclosure may be enough. There is no, just try it here. Real people are impacted while living real lives. Disclosure is a reasonable check on what is significant advocacy power and access to legislators. As for your comments about the left... yes! The left cates about the little guy. No one else does. Brendan lost his job due to losing the respect of those he was supposed to lead. It would not work a day for him. I'll be frank, racism, bigotry and theocracy are completely unacceptable. Politics is a contact sport. Anyone advocating we treat others like lesser people can totally expect to be judged on it. At a minimum, those other prople are going to speak out, as they should. Hiding behind money and corporations means speech without accountability for said speech, and that is also unacceptable. There is no shield in the First Amendment, by design. The lesson here for Brendan is leading people requires you have the respect of those people. Maybe it's just not wise to classify some of those people as lesser, or wrong, or bad, undeserving people, if one wants their respect. I find avoidance of these basic dynamics very deeply offensive. Truth is, if the contact is a problem, maybe the speech is too. Go ask the people who have suffered a lot worse when speaking truth to power. Free Speech is not a license to say whatever one wants with no consequences, nor is it a license to be heard, or respected. You will see things like, "everyone has a right to their opinion", which is true. But everyone else also has a right to say what they think of that opinion too. All of that plays out as democracy and it provides checks and balances as well as the ability to challenge norms and advance the society. Out gay brothers and sisters all decided to speak up and out over how they were treated in society, and that treatment has been shown to be unjust and often for untrue reasons too. Good. Their supporters heard their story, found it compelling and acted on that. I personally won't have basic discrimination of this kind. I've walked from jobs where it was te norm, and did so long before we had the state of awareness we have today too. Everything costs something. I'm fine with disclosure as its a great check on bad idea advocacy just as its an enabler of good idea advocacy. I'm not OK at all with attempt to advance speech with impunity.