12 ms·

Lobbying the government is fine; lobbying is just asking the government to consider your point of view. This is what Lessig says in his essay; he never asks for

by lambda 17y ago

Lobbying the government is fine; lobbying is just asking the government to consider your point of view. This is what Lessig says in his essay; he never asks for restriction of speech. Lessig isn't talking about speech, but money. Money paid directly to campaigns. Money paid to congressmen and their staff as soon as they leave congress, providing an incentive to support those interests that are most likely to hire them afterwards. This is not an issue of free speech; this is an issue of buying laws. Whether you believe in a large or a small government, if established interests can buy laws, they can control congress, and those laws that they buy aren't going to do do anything about making the government that they've paid for smaller and less effective. How are you going to reduce the size of the government without getting rid of the influence of those who benefit directly from government largesse, or from government regulations increasing the cost of mounting effective competition?

hack_edu 17y ago
This is a good platform to pose this question as well. Can someone lay down some information about just how money equates speech. Its used so often by now that its meaning is lost, merely a talking point.
- dantheman 17y ago
  It allows you to pay for pamphlets or tv advertisements so that others can here your message. It actually favors the unknown, those whose opinion won't be covered in the newspaper.
  - natep 17y ago
    I don't see a problem with individuals or corporations sending out pamphlets or putting out ads (because trying to draw the line would be too hard), as long as the source is clearly indicated as not from the candidate. The problem is when a corporation or individual gives so much money to one candidate that he or she is disproportionately responsible for that candidate's victory. This is the reason why we have 1 vote/person. As it is, the wealthy are able to vote with their money, while the poor can only vote at the polls (with limited choices and high risk of disenfranchisement).
    - dantheman 17y ago
      There is a limit on how much people can donate to campaigns, all of the recent hubub has been about corporations acting on their own without coordinate with a campaign. How do the wealthy vote with their money? They are not buying votes, they are merely trying to influence other voters -- hence it's a free speech issue.
- ptconroy 17y ago
  Money isn't speech. The issue is to what extent your right to free speech is infringed by laws regulating how (or with whom) you use your money. Perhaps an analogy will help. You have a right to travel freely. Imagine Congress passes a law banning the use of money to travel between the states. Money is not travel; yet, the law banning the use of money to travel certainly makes it difficult for you to exercise your travel rights. Now substitute travel with abortion (for abortion rights supporters). Are abortion rights curtailed by this hypothetical law? Substitute travel with the purchase of firearms (for the NRA members out there). Is the right to bear arms infringed? My examples are admittedly simplistic; yet, the point is that there can be a logical connection between the use of money and the exercise of a right -- including the right to free speech. The extent to which a restriction on the use of money infringes a right, and whether such an infringement is (a) allowed by the Constitution (b) wise as a matter of policy, is open to debate between reasonable people. However, simply stating that "Money IS speech" or "Money ISN'T speech" doesn't advance the conversation much, as your question rightly suggests.
dantheman 17y ago
Money is speach though. Should an unemployed person have more influence on the government than an employed person? They have more time go and talk up their candidate, can an employed person pay to have people hired to spread their message? Should a celebrity have more influence over our electoral process because their statements get covered in the press than a successful businessman who isn't well known but works hard to earn money? This is a band aid solution and does not address they systemic problems. 1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government has significantly overreached in its authority.
- lambda 17y ago
  Money is not speech. That's ridiculous. Some people will always have an easier time of being heard than others. This is just about making sure that people can't directly buy their way to an easier time of being heard, buy buying off people in the government directly. They will instead have to be heard in a public forum, where public debate can occur. 1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government has significantly overreached in its authority. So what's your solution? When was the last time a president or congress made the government smaller? Is it possible for this to happen when monied interests can buy the ear of a congressman and get a great return on their investment because the government is so large and powerful?
  - dantheman 17y ago
    So your argument is that it's ridiculous? Why can't people buy their way to be being hear, if I own a newspaper can I write editorials about the candidates and issues? If so, why do we only allow the extremely wealthy to do that? You're disenfranchising people who have some money, but not enough to own media from being able to be heard. How is buying advertising not a public forum? Do you have problems with PACs? If we can't trust our politicians to make small changes to reduce their power, how the hell can you trust them to make fundamental changes to the system?
    - lambda 17y ago
      Your argument was simply that money is speech, as if it's a tautology. I didn't feel like going through a long, detailed refutation if that's the level of effort you were going to put in. The whole thing about money being speech is not because money actually is speech. The issue is that putting restrictions on how people spend their money can unconstitutionally limit their freedom of speech, or of the press. For instance, if you say that they can speak all they want, but can't spend more than $10 on printing costs, then you've limited their freedom of the press. So, the court can strike down laws about spending money in elections if it unduly restricts people's freedom of speech and of the press. That doesn't mean that all money is speech. Money is trade, commerce; and the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce (which the court has since broadened to pretty much all commerce or economic activity, even within a single state, as it can affect interstate prices, which I think is somewhat dubious, but that's the precedent we've got). So, it's the tension between these two issues is where we have the debate. Money isn't speech, but because money can be used to buy almost anything, including a forum for your speech, it's hard to block money without also blocking speech. I think that we can do considerably better than what we are doing, however. Paying money directly to a candidate or campaign goes beyond simple speech; that could be construed as bribery. With appropriate limits on campaign contributions, you can reduce the disparity, and make it so that everyone (or almost everyone) can afford the same impact on the campaign, though I still find it a little bit dubious. But beyond campaign contributions, it's hard to determine where to draw the line. It's very easy to write laws which do unjustly forbid certain kinds of political speech. It's also very easy to turn from a democracy into a plutocracy by simply allowing money to buy everything that actually matters in government. I don't know what the right solution is, but I suspect that reducing the financial incentives for congressional staffers and congressmen to act in the interests of those with money will help to get changes in the government that the public actually wants.

by lambda 17y ago

hack_edu 17y ago

This is a good platform to pose this question as well. Can someone lay down some information about just how money equates speech. Its used so often by now that its meaning is lost, merely a talking point.

dantheman 17y ago
It allows you to pay for pamphlets or tv advertisements so that others can here your message. It actually favors the unknown, those whose opinion won't be covered in the newspaper.
- natep 17y ago
  I don't see a problem with individuals or corporations sending out pamphlets or putting out ads (because trying to draw the line would be too hard), as long as the source is clearly indicated as not from the candidate. The problem is when a corporation or individual gives so much money to one candidate that he or she is disproportionately responsible for that candidate's victory. This is the reason why we have 1 vote/person. As it is, the wealthy are able to vote with their money, while the poor can only vote at the polls (with limited choices and high risk of disenfranchisement).
  - dantheman 17y ago
    There is a limit on how much people can donate to campaigns, all of the recent hubub has been about corporations acting on their own without coordinate with a campaign. How do the wealthy vote with their money? They are not buying votes, they are merely trying to influence other voters -- hence it's a free speech issue.
ptconroy 17y ago
Money isn't speech. The issue is to what extent your right to free speech is infringed by laws regulating how (or with whom) you use your money. Perhaps an analogy will help. You have a right to travel freely. Imagine Congress passes a law banning the use of money to travel between the states. Money is not travel; yet, the law banning the use of money to travel certainly makes it difficult for you to exercise your travel rights. Now substitute travel with abortion (for abortion rights supporters). Are abortion rights curtailed by this hypothetical law? Substitute travel with the purchase of firearms (for the NRA members out there). Is the right to bear arms infringed? My examples are admittedly simplistic; yet, the point is that there can be a logical connection between the use of money and the exercise of a right -- including the right to free speech. The extent to which a restriction on the use of money infringes a right, and whether such an infringement is (a) allowed by the Constitution (b) wise as a matter of policy, is open to debate between reasonable people. However, simply stating that "Money IS speech" or "Money ISN'T speech" doesn't advance the conversation much, as your question rightly suggests.

dantheman 17y ago

Money is speach though. Should an unemployed person have more influence on the government than an employed person? They have more time go and talk up their candidate, can an employed person pay to have people hired to spread their message? Should a celebrity have more influence over our electoral process because their statements get covered in the press than a successful businessman who isn't well known but works hard to earn money? This is a band aid solution and does not address they systemic problems. 1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government has significantly overreached in its authority.

lambda 17y ago
Money is not speech. That's ridiculous. Some people will always have an easier time of being heard than others. This is just about making sure that people can't directly buy their way to an easier time of being heard, buy buying off people in the government directly. They will instead have to be heard in a public forum, where public debate can occur. 1. Too much is controlled at the federal level. 2. The government has significantly overreached in its authority. So what's your solution? When was the last time a president or congress made the government smaller? Is it possible for this to happen when monied interests can buy the ear of a congressman and get a great return on their investment because the government is so large and powerful?
- dantheman 17y ago
  So your argument is that it's ridiculous? Why can't people buy their way to be being hear, if I own a newspaper can I write editorials about the candidates and issues? If so, why do we only allow the extremely wealthy to do that? You're disenfranchising people who have some money, but not enough to own media from being able to be heard. How is buying advertising not a public forum? Do you have problems with PACs? If we can't trust our politicians to make small changes to reduce their power, how the hell can you trust them to make fundamental changes to the system?
  - lambda 17y ago
    Your argument was simply that money is speech, as if it's a tautology. I didn't feel like going through a long, detailed refutation if that's the level of effort you were going to put in. The whole thing about money being speech is not because money actually is speech. The issue is that putting restrictions on how people spend their money can unconstitutionally limit their freedom of speech, or of the press. For instance, if you say that they can speak all they want, but can't spend more than $10 on printing costs, then you've limited their freedom of the press. So, the court can strike down laws about spending money in elections if it unduly restricts people's freedom of speech and of the press. That doesn't mean that all money is speech. Money is trade, commerce; and the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce (which the court has since broadened to pretty much all commerce or economic activity, even within a single state, as it can affect interstate prices, which I think is somewhat dubious, but that's the precedent we've got). So, it's the tension between these two issues is where we have the debate. Money isn't speech, but because money can be used to buy almost anything, including a forum for your speech, it's hard to block money without also blocking speech. I think that we can do considerably better than what we are doing, however. Paying money directly to a candidate or campaign goes beyond simple speech; that could be construed as bribery. With appropriate limits on campaign contributions, you can reduce the disparity, and make it so that everyone (or almost everyone) can afford the same impact on the campaign, though I still find it a little bit dubious. But beyond campaign contributions, it's hard to determine where to draw the line. It's very easy to write laws which do unjustly forbid certain kinds of political speech. It's also very easy to turn from a democracy into a plutocracy by simply allowing money to buy everything that actually matters in government. I don't know what the right solution is, but I suspect that reducing the financial incentives for congressional staffers and congressmen to act in the interests of those with money will help to get changes in the government that the public actually wants.