3 ms·

> On another note, every state should ban election advertising from anyone outside the state How is this not a first amendment violation?

phkahler 10y ago
>> How is this not a first amendment violation? That is a key question. But how is it not outside interference in an election? OTOH, what if a candidate did some bad things in another state and someone just wanted to let you know? But the main thing is to eliminate corporate interference, and the notion of first amendment rights being applicable to corporations is long story. If we revoke the notion of corporate personhood that would help quite a bit. I agree with your concern, but I hope you can see the value in trying to find a workable solution along these lines. EDIT: changed "reasonable solution" to "workable solution" because we don't want politics involved finding "compromise".
- LordKano 10y ago
  Even if it is interference, why should that be banned? If I live in a reliably blue or red state, it doesn't much matter what I do at election time. I'll go and play my role and cast my vote but as an individual, I can't change the outcome of my state. I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. If the Senators and Representatives are going to the nation's capital and passing laws that effect everyone, in every state, we should have a way to influence results outside of our own state of residence.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. Oh. I'm not talking about presidential elections. That is a different story. But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. And that includes influence from national party organizations. Only people who live in a state should be doing that stuff (if any).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. Eh, maybe there's a decent argument for that when it comes to their state reps or governors. But the federal government is a national government, and elections for the Senate or House are no less national than those to elect members of the Electoral College.
    - LordKano 10y ago
      If I live in Ohio but the junior Senator from New York has been talking about introducing federal legislation that will have an effect on me, I have a legitimate reason for wanting to influence the decision of the people in the state of New York.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Corporate personhood is deeply entrenched in legal tradition. It's not a simple matter to reverse or extract that. See the Dictionary Act, Section 1 of the U.S. Code, which clearly defines incorporated entities as persons for legal purposes. [0] [Disclaimer: IANAL and surely do not fully understand the implications and background here] I don't think artificial restrictions on political involvement are the right way to go about a resolution. That ultimately just forces participants underground. Instead, we need an updated electoral process that allows full engagement from all interested parties and still has a desirable outcome for the everyman, small innovators and entrepreneurs. IMO the biggest problem over the last century has been the consolidation of credible information sources into a handful of media conglomerates. The internet is helping reverse that, at least partially, though it's at risk too with Facebook and Google controlling the vast majority of the traffic. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> I don't think artificial restrictions on political involvement are the right way to go about a resolution. That ultimately just forces participants underground. I don't see any justification for someone in Florida funding a campaign for a senator in Michigan or California.

phkahler 10y ago

>> How is this not a first amendment violation? That is a key question. But how is it not outside interference in an election? OTOH, what if a candidate did some bad things in another state and someone just wanted to let you know? But the main thing is to eliminate corporate interference, and the notion of first amendment rights being applicable to corporations is long story. If we revoke the notion of corporate personhood that would help quite a bit. I agree with your concern, but I hope you can see the value in trying to find a workable solution along these lines. EDIT: changed "reasonable solution" to "workable solution" because we don't want politics involved finding "compromise".

LordKano 10y ago
Even if it is interference, why should that be banned? If I live in a reliably blue or red state, it doesn't much matter what I do at election time. I'll go and play my role and cast my vote but as an individual, I can't change the outcome of my state. I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. If the Senators and Representatives are going to the nation's capital and passing laws that effect everyone, in every state, we should have a way to influence results outside of our own state of residence.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> I can pool my money with others to buy campaign advertising in a swing state that might legitimately change the outcome. Oh. I'm not talking about presidential elections. That is a different story. But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. And that includes influence from national party organizations. Only people who live in a state should be doing that stuff (if any).
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But I'd say it is wrong for you to contribute to a group buying campaign advertising in another state for their congresspersons or senators. Eh, maybe there's a decent argument for that when it comes to their state reps or governors. But the federal government is a national government, and elections for the Senate or House are no less national than those to elect members of the Electoral College.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    If I live in Ohio but the junior Senator from New York has been talking about introducing federal legislation that will have an effect on me, I have a legitimate reason for wanting to influence the decision of the people in the state of New York.
cookiecaper 10y ago
Corporate personhood is deeply entrenched in legal tradition. It's not a simple matter to reverse or extract that. See the Dictionary Act, Section 1 of the U.S. Code, which clearly defines incorporated entities as persons for legal purposes. [0] [Disclaimer: IANAL and surely do not fully understand the implications and background here] I don't think artificial restrictions on political involvement are the right way to go about a resolution. That ultimately just forces participants underground. Instead, we need an updated electoral process that allows full engagement from all interested parties and still has a desirable outcome for the everyman, small innovators and entrepreneurs. IMO the biggest problem over the last century has been the consolidation of credible information sources into a handful of media conglomerates. The internet is helping reverse that, at least partially, though it's at risk too with Facebook and Google controlling the vast majority of the traffic. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> I don't think artificial restrictions on political involvement are the right way to go about a resolution. That ultimately just forces participants underground. I don't see any justification for someone in Florida funding a campaign for a senator in Michigan or California.