4 ms·

> 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

• 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.
          • SilasX 11y ago
            You do -- if people really are rationally processing ideas, then, so long as someone is exposed to good, not-socially-destructive ideas, they will propagate more successfully than those that aren't. Again, that assumption has a lot of far reaching implications that aren't appreciated. In fairness, there's some wiggle room between ideal rational agent and moron, but not that allows money to turn bad ideas into ones accepted by people whom we consider qualified to vote. Or do we really consider them qualified?
            • dragonwriter 11y ago
              > You do -- if people really are rationally processing ideas, then, so long as someone is exposed to good, not-socially-destructive ideas, they will propagate more successfully than those that aren't. Actually, expending effort to propagate even subjectively good political ideas (that is, ideas that would benefit the person involved if they were widely held) is usually irrational for most people, because the expected marginal utility is low compared to the cost to spread them. Its useful to the individual if other people spread the ideas, but its often a classic tragedy of the common situation. Now, for wealthy people (or people with otherwise disproportionate media reach and impact), the utility cost of propagating useful ideas to those who might be receptive is lower compared to the benefit, so its more likely to be rational to do it. Further, with unconstrained spending, the spending of the rich bids up the market cost of reach for ideas, making it less rational for the less rich to expend resources propagating the ideas they favor. You are invoking rationality, but doing so with an argument that ignores market conditions, opportunity costs, and relative payoffs. (Also, rational agents -- by the definition of rationality -- don't act on the social consequences of options, but on their personal costs and benefits.)