5 ms·

If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals

If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? If I have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, isn't it fine to use my money towards the goals of freedom of speech & press? Citizens United is solid in my book. If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They're clearly biased and have an agenda, their biased reporting acts as a contribution to a campaign. But they're businesses, and what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should.

byuu 10y ago
> If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? You already can't spend it to buy grenades, chemical weapons, illegal drugs, etc. You should not be able to spend it to influence elections either. I just explained why. It's not 'fair', sure. But a lot of things aren't fair thanks to stupid people being stupid. Most recreational drugs are outlawed to protect the idiots that can't handle it. (Well, that's the narrative anyway. We'll sidestep the racial undertones, benefits to big pharma, etc.) Because otherwise, those idiots can go on to do the rest of us great harm. There are a lot of stupid people who are swayed by bullshit political attack ads (said attacks are deplorable from both sides), so we need some way to minimize that damage. Campaign contribution laws were not a perfect solution, but at least a stopgap measure. Now the floodgates are wide open. > If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They operated long before Citizens United came down. They concern me as well, as does MSNBC, RT, Al Jazeera, etc. It's probably not possible to get fully unbiased news, but we've definitely gotten way worse in recent years on partisanship in news. And regardless of which party you support, you have to agree that the divide between us is becoming increasingly toxic and dangerous. The media is in large part to blame for stirring that up for their ratings. Of course, even without news, the internet and social media are a big problem now too. Everyone simply follows like-minded people, blocks those they disagree with, and live in echo chambers to reinforce and polarize people even more. It's ... really starting to get very dangerous :/ > what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should. Agreed. Not that it'd matter anymore :(
- didgeoridoo 10y ago
  Genuine questions here: Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates? If so, how is this not spending money (paper, ink, time) to influence elections? If not, how is this not an unacceptable limitation on free speech? And, (to address a common objection to this line of reasoning), if "bona fide media organizations" get special free speech protections not available to the rest of us, who decides who is a "journalist" and who is an amateur?
  - byuu 10y ago
    Before this goes on too long, I'd like to stress that I don't have all the perfect answers in life. I don't think my views are perfect, but they are what I believe. I know that often, how things 'should' be require laws that are basically impossible to write. But I really don't think I am being that unreasonable to say there's something grossly unfair about one person being able to pour in millions of dollars into an election to sway votes his way. > Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates? That's a definite gray area. I can see arguments for and against that. At least with a newspaper, people are actively choosing to buy it (barring it being in a vending machine with the endorsement on the front page.) It's usually pretty well known and clear that NYT runs liberal, and NYP runs conservative. I don't get that choice with giant billboards as I drive around town. You can argue I can change the channel, but I don't really get that choice with TV and radio ads, either. I'm sorry, but like with complex issues (eg abortion), I don't have a perfect answer for you on this point. Any choice is going to come with consequences. But that doesn't mean I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and have a cash free-for-all in our elections.
    - civilian 10y ago
      Good answer. So, what we're really boiling down to, is that it's unfair that Peter Thiel has more influence than other people?
      - byuu 10y ago
        Correct. That was what I was getting at with one vote, one person and buying more raffle tickets than another for a drawing. Money = votes, otherwise there wouldn't be so much money in play. It's not a true democracy when the rich (whether that be the Koch brothers or George Soros) indirectly get way more voting power than the lower and middle classes get. If people weren't swayed by obvious attack ads, then I wouldn't care how much money people wanted to throw away on elections. And indeed, they wouldn't throw any away, because it would be a total waste then.
makomk 10y ago
One obvious place to draw the line - indeed, the place where used to be drawn - is the part where Citizens United tried to pay channels to air their film about Hillary. Normal media outlets are businesses, which means that they need to cover their costs somehow. They also have to gain and keep the trust of their audience through their reporting. If you're just paying off existing media outlets to show your propaganda to their audience solely for your political gain, then you're engaged in campaigning. This is why Citizens United's earlier attempts to get Fahrenheit 9/11 and its trailers banned failed; the FEC found that it was bona fide commercial activity.

byuu 10y ago

> If I earn money, should I be able to spend it how I like? You already can't spend it to buy grenades, chemical weapons, illegal drugs, etc. You should not be able to spend it to influence elections either. I just explained why. It's not 'fair', sure. But a lot of things aren't fair thanks to stupid people being stupid. Most recreational drugs are outlawed to protect the idiots that can't handle it. (Well, that's the narrative anyway. We'll sidestep the racial undertones, benefits to big pharma, etc.) Because otherwise, those idiots can go on to do the rest of us great harm. There are a lot of stupid people who are swayed by bullshit political attack ads (said attacks are deplorable from both sides), so we need some way to minimize that damage. Campaign contribution laws were not a perfect solution, but at least a stopgap measure. Now the floodgates are wide open. > If we were to take down Citizens United, how would you deal with media outlets like Fox or WaPo? They operated long before Citizens United came down. They concern me as well, as does MSNBC, RT, Al Jazeera, etc. It's probably not possible to get fully unbiased news, but we've definitely gotten way worse in recent years on partisanship in news. And regardless of which party you support, you have to agree that the divide between us is becoming increasingly toxic and dangerous. The media is in large part to blame for stirring that up for their ratings. Of course, even without news, the internet and social media are a big problem now too. Everyone simply follows like-minded people, blocks those they disagree with, and live in echo chambers to reinforce and polarize people even more. It's ... really starting to get very dangerous :/ > what they do isn't classified as campaign support, even though it should. Agreed. Not that it'd matter anymore :(

didgeoridoo 10y ago
Genuine questions here: Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates? If so, how is this not spending money (paper, ink, time) to influence elections? If not, how is this not an unacceptable limitation on free speech? And, (to address a common objection to this line of reasoning), if "bona fide media organizations" get special free speech protections not available to the rest of us, who decides who is a "journalist" and who is an amateur?
- byuu 10y ago
  Before this goes on too long, I'd like to stress that I don't have all the perfect answers in life. I don't think my views are perfect, but they are what I believe. I know that often, how things 'should' be require laws that are basically impossible to write. But I really don't think I am being that unreasonable to say there's something grossly unfair about one person being able to pour in millions of dollars into an election to sway votes his way. > Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates? That's a definite gray area. I can see arguments for and against that. At least with a newspaper, people are actively choosing to buy it (barring it being in a vending machine with the endorsement on the front page.) It's usually pretty well known and clear that NYT runs liberal, and NYP runs conservative. I don't get that choice with giant billboards as I drive around town. You can argue I can change the channel, but I don't really get that choice with TV and radio ads, either. I'm sorry, but like with complex issues (eg abortion), I don't have a perfect answer for you on this point. Any choice is going to come with consequences. But that doesn't mean I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and have a cash free-for-all in our elections.
  - civilian 10y ago
    Good answer. So, what we're really boiling down to, is that it's unfair that Peter Thiel has more influence than other people?
    - byuu 10y ago
      Correct. That was what I was getting at with one vote, one person and buying more raffle tickets than another for a drawing. Money = votes, otherwise there wouldn't be so much money in play. It's not a true democracy when the rich (whether that be the Koch brothers or George Soros) indirectly get way more voting power than the lower and middle classes get. If people weren't swayed by obvious attack ads, then I wouldn't care how much money people wanted to throw away on elections. And indeed, they wouldn't throw any away, because it would be a total waste then.

makomk 10y ago

One obvious place to draw the line - indeed, the place where used to be drawn - is the part where Citizens United tried to pay channels to air their film about Hillary. Normal media outlets are businesses, which means that they need to cover their costs somehow. They also have to gain and keep the trust of their audience through their reporting. If you're just paying off existing media outlets to show your propaganda to their audience solely for your political gain, then you're engaged in campaigning. This is why Citizens United's earlier attempts to get Fahrenheit 9/11 and its trailers banned failed; the FEC found that it was bona fide commercial activity.