4 ms·

Thousands and thousands of small donors to counterbalance 1 billionaire. That doesn't seem like a one-man-one-vote style democracy. Also, money is not speech,

by guelo 11y ago

Thousands and thousands of small donors to counterbalance 1 billionaire. That doesn't seem like a one-man-one-vote style democracy. Also, money is not speech, that's like some kind of 1984 doublespeak. Money is access to popular mass communication channels. Access to popular mass communication channels is not speech and is not addressed in the constitution. Scalia's "originalism" was such a scam.

md224 11y ago
> Money is access to popular mass communication channels. But doesn't that basically equate to speech? Money = your power to reach people? I'm curious because my beef with search engine advertising revolves around its ability to translate money into salience (which I consider to be a kind of "speech"), so I find your distinction interesting. I wish money didn't equate to speech, but it feels like that's the world we live in.
- kyleblarson 11y ago
  Money == the power to influence people who are ignorant enough to choose their presidential candidate based on a TV commercial, spam email a robocall, etc., which sadly is a large slice of American voters.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Joking or not, it does seem like a lot of criticism of Citizens United/money-in-politics really does boil down to "voters are morons who will be swayed by easily-purchased propaganda". But once you're ready to accept that, you have to recognize the uphill battle there and the need for far more fundamental reform, like sortition (randomly select people who can seriously focus on the election and take time to think about it).
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      > voters are morons who will be swayed by easily purchased propaganda. I don't think that's the sentiment Citizens United opposition boils down to. Instead, I think a more accurate sentiment is that easily purchased propaganda sets the tone and content of available political discourse, severely limiting what narratives and ideas reach the eyes, ears, and minds of the citizenry to only those which are best-funded. That people are then swayed to certain positions, especially when they are in opposition to people's own best interests but couched in manipulative terms that hide this fact, is not a product of people being morons, but of there being no viable alternatives in political discourse as a product of being silenced by lack of money to pose them before citizens. By allowing unlimited spending, the playing field for the hearts and minds of citizens is inherently unbalanced in the favor of moneyed interests.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        Obviously, no one says voters are morons, they just don't recognize the implications of the assumptions that justify campaign finance law. Doesn't matter whether someone says it explicitly, or couches it in the language of being duped by "the general tone of the discussion". You're still saying that most people aren't qualified to rationally process ideas because of the biases that propaganda exploits. And you'd be correct! But wealthy donors aren't the only ones who can propagandize. To truly guide policy from the implications of the above, you need far reaching reform, like sortition or (heaven forbid) a strongly restricted franchise.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You're still saying that most people aren't qualified to rationally process ideas because of the biases that propaganda exploits. No, actually, I think the one of the major points made by proponents of campaign finance laws is that wild imbalances in spending prevents less well-funded ideas from being heard at all, and that, while people may be perfectly well equipped to process ideas that they are exposed to, they can't process ideas that are completely drowned out of discussion. You don't need to assume that voters are morons to justify campaign spending limits.
rayiner 11y ago
"Money is speech" is doublespeak for sure, but it's doublespeak used by people opposed to Citizens United to make it seem like money is at issue rather than speech. Those people want you to believe that a political movie about a Presidential candidate stops being speech and becomes money just because of where the money to make and air it came from.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- guelo 11y ago
  The ruling in Citizen United was that they had the right to buy ads and pay to have the movie televised. The law that the Supreme Court struck down banned corporations and unions from paying for candidate ads during the last 30 days of a campaign. The ruling found that 1) paying for TV time is equivalent to free speech and 2) a corporation is equivalent to a person for the purpose of the constitution's "We the People".
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Right. Opponents of Citizens United would have us believe that banning the act of people (acting through a corporation or otherwise) paying to have a political movie aired is not suppression of speech. That's doublespeak--saying that speech is actually money even though the expenditure of money is wholly incidental to the act of political expression. By that reasoning the government can ban spending money to publish a book, or buying a bus ticket to attend a protest.
55555 11y ago
> Thousands and thousands of small donors to counterbalance 1 billionaire. Exactly. Speech is definitely speech, and a billionaire can't really shout any louder than anyone else. But with money, their voice can be thousands of times louder. So is money speech?
sbuttgereit 11y ago
Don't forget that the billionaire may support a minority view that wouldn't be heard with campaign limits. Democrats and Republicans are far more likely to be able to deal successfully with campaign contribution limits than small independents or third parties; both the major parties can make it up on volume, but a smaller voice... not a chance on those terms. Campaign limits is actually one way that the legal system entrenches monied interests in the political system rather than disconnecting them. This is why there is such a convergence in the governing outcomes of the two major political parties in the U.S. The larger issue with money in politics isn't that people can spend money on speech: it's that often times that the access money buys is worth the price. Too much control by a government and there will be those that want to have their voices heard and can afford to do so.
mistermann 11y ago
Access to popular mass communication channels does not necessarily require money, provided the candidate does the bidding of those who own those channels, much of the coverage and positive message / "reporting" comes for free.

by guelo 11y ago

md224 11y ago

> Money is access to popular mass communication channels. But doesn't that basically equate to speech? Money = your power to reach people? I'm curious because my beef with search engine advertising revolves around its ability to translate money into salience (which I consider to be a kind of "speech"), so I find your distinction interesting. I wish money didn't equate to speech, but it feels like that's the world we live in.

kyleblarson 11y ago
Money == the power to influence people who are ignorant enough to choose their presidential candidate based on a TV commercial, spam email a robocall, etc., which sadly is a large slice of American voters.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Joking or not, it does seem like a lot of criticism of Citizens United/money-in-politics really does boil down to "voters are morons who will be swayed by easily-purchased propaganda". But once you're ready to accept that, you have to recognize the uphill battle there and the need for far more fundamental reform, like sortition (randomly select people who can seriously focus on the election and take time to think about it).
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    > voters are morons who will be swayed by easily purchased propaganda. I don't think that's the sentiment Citizens United opposition boils down to. Instead, I think a more accurate sentiment is that easily purchased propaganda sets the tone and content of available political discourse, severely limiting what narratives and ideas reach the eyes, ears, and minds of the citizenry to only those which are best-funded. That people are then swayed to certain positions, especially when they are in opposition to people's own best interests but couched in manipulative terms that hide this fact, is not a product of people being morons, but of there being no viable alternatives in political discourse as a product of being silenced by lack of money to pose them before citizens. By allowing unlimited spending, the playing field for the hearts and minds of citizens is inherently unbalanced in the favor of moneyed interests.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      Obviously, no one says voters are morons, they just don't recognize the implications of the assumptions that justify campaign finance law. Doesn't matter whether someone says it explicitly, or couches it in the language of being duped by "the general tone of the discussion". You're still saying that most people aren't qualified to rationally process ideas because of the biases that propaganda exploits. And you'd be correct! But wealthy donors aren't the only ones who can propagandize. To truly guide policy from the implications of the above, you need far reaching reform, like sortition or (heaven forbid) a strongly restricted franchise.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You're still saying that most people aren't qualified to rationally process ideas because of the biases that propaganda exploits. No, actually, I think the one of the major points made by proponents of campaign finance laws is that wild imbalances in spending prevents less well-funded ideas from being heard at all, and that, while people may be perfectly well equipped to process ideas that they are exposed to, they can't process ideas that are completely drowned out of discussion. You don't need to assume that voters are morons to justify campaign spending limits.

rayiner 11y ago

"Money is speech" is doublespeak for sure, but it's doublespeak used by people opposed to Citizens United to make it seem like money is at issue rather than speech. Those people want you to believe that a political movie about a Presidential candidate stops being speech and becomes money just because of where the money to make and air it came from.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
guelo 11y ago
The ruling in Citizen United was that they had the right to buy ads and pay to have the movie televised. The law that the Supreme Court struck down banned corporations and unions from paying for candidate ads during the last 30 days of a campaign. The ruling found that 1) paying for TV time is equivalent to free speech and 2) a corporation is equivalent to a person for the purpose of the constitution's "We the People".
- rayiner 11y ago
  Right. Opponents of Citizens United would have us believe that banning the act of people (acting through a corporation or otherwise) paying to have a political movie aired is not suppression of speech. That's doublespeak--saying that speech is actually money even though the expenditure of money is wholly incidental to the act of political expression. By that reasoning the government can ban spending money to publish a book, or buying a bus ticket to attend a protest.

55555 11y ago

> Thousands and thousands of small donors to counterbalance 1 billionaire. Exactly. Speech is definitely speech, and a billionaire can't really shout any louder than anyone else. But with money, their voice can be thousands of times louder. So is money speech?

sbuttgereit 11y ago

Don't forget that the billionaire may support a minority view that wouldn't be heard with campaign limits. Democrats and Republicans are far more likely to be able to deal successfully with campaign contribution limits than small independents or third parties; both the major parties can make it up on volume, but a smaller voice... not a chance on those terms. Campaign limits is actually one way that the legal system entrenches monied interests in the political system rather than disconnecting them. This is why there is such a convergence in the governing outcomes of the two major political parties in the U.S. The larger issue with money in politics isn't that people can spend money on speech: it's that often times that the access money buys is worth the price. Too much control by a government and there will be those that want to have their voices heard and can afford to do so.

mistermann 11y ago

Access to popular mass communication channels does not necessarily require money, provided the candidate does the bidding of those who own those channels, much of the coverage and positive message / "reporting" comes for free.