7 ms·

"Our democracy is drowning in money" can also be branded, "Our democracy is drowning in speech."

wmeredith 9y ago
The money is speech legal argument never made sense to me. The thing about speech is that no one has more of it than anyone else.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Then let's shut down CNN and all the newspapers.
  - zanny 9y ago
    While it is true pretty much every major TV network and newspaper exists solely based on state bias and special privilege to get them where they are now, you aren't mandated to consume any of them. At least with the Internet speech is as restricted as you want to let it be - at least until Ajit Pai gets his way. The millions who like being misled by mainstream big money media are doing it wilfully at least. They believe what they want to believe. The only problem I see is how many of them have never been presented with an objective choice between being rational and skeptical versus blind trust of major brands that were pressed upon them from youth.
- whiddershins 9y ago
  Think about making a movie. Is it speech? I would say so. Does it tend to happen at a quality level for free? Empirically no. Once I've made my movie, would trying to tell people about it be considered speech? I would say yes. Does that typically happen for free? I would say empirically no. This is a simple example of the argument, and in fact the one that went before the supreme court.
mrow84 9y ago
I think you'd be unlikely to do that if you cling tightly to the idea of "one person one vote", and, by extension, have a negative reaction to "one dollar one vote".
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  "One dollar one vote" is not how reality works.
  - mrow84 9y ago
    I suppose I must not have been sufficiently clear - I wasn't offering the phrase "one dollar one vote" as a description of reality, but as a point of provocation. Those who find nothing objectionable in the idea of "one dollar one vote" are also unlikely to object to your "rebranding" of money as speech. Those who think otherwise are, I suggest, less likely to agree. I was not attempting to change your mind, but to point out that your equivalence was mere opinion, dressed up as fact.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      Oh. Well, I'm not making an equivalence between money and speech. The dollars spent in the election were in fact spent on speech, and are one measurement of how much speech happened.
      - mrow84 9y ago
        Is one person offering their opinion a hundred times the same as a hundred people offering their opinions once each? The two scenarios have the same "quantity" of speech, but we might differ on the degree to which we believe that simple quantity is the most important measure, in the context of democratic legitimacy.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    My daughter is writing a novel where that is exactly where we have wound up. Basically, votes on bills in the legislature are openly acknowledged auctions. And the rich have more privileges/civil rights than the poor. If present trends continue, it's not so far fetched...
mtgx 9y ago
Okay, if you want to be that guy, then I'll also be that other guy and say the Democracy is "drowning in the free speech of a handful of wealthy people." Is that much better though? And is that the system we should be content with? Or should be strive for an improved, more equal democracy? At the end of the day the "money vote" greatly skews the "one person, one vote" principle, which is supposed to give everyone (or those who choose to take it) equal opportunity to influence government decisions. Clearly wealthy people have much more influence than a "single vote" in the U.S. plutocracy or than some random person in the U.S.
- vzcx 9y ago
  How much longer does its head have to be held under before it's dead? Do you actually believe that all people have an equal stake in the future of the country? To me it is blatantly obvious that a party animal of an adolescent, say, does not have the same stake in the future a country than a land-owning parent of three children. I would much, much prefer a system wherein those that have sacrificed real, tangible resources in order to secure voting rights have a voice in the governance of the institutions of state, and those that have not do not. Thankfully, examples of institutions that function this way abound: It's simply how all modern corporations are structured.

The money is speech legal argument never made sense to me. The thing about speech is that no one has more of it than anyone else.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
Then let's shut down CNN and all the newspapers.
- zanny 9y ago
  While it is true pretty much every major TV network and newspaper exists solely based on state bias and special privilege to get them where they are now, you aren't mandated to consume any of them. At least with the Internet speech is as restricted as you want to let it be - at least until Ajit Pai gets his way. The millions who like being misled by mainstream big money media are doing it wilfully at least. They believe what they want to believe. The only problem I see is how many of them have never been presented with an objective choice between being rational and skeptical versus blind trust of major brands that were pressed upon them from youth.
whiddershins 9y ago
Think about making a movie. Is it speech? I would say so. Does it tend to happen at a quality level for free? Empirically no. Once I've made my movie, would trying to tell people about it be considered speech? I would say yes. Does that typically happen for free? I would say empirically no. This is a simple example of the argument, and in fact the one that went before the supreme court.

mrow84 9y ago

I think you'd be unlikely to do that if you cling tightly to the idea of "one person one vote", and, by extension, have a negative reaction to "one dollar one vote".

SamReidHughes 9y ago
"One dollar one vote" is not how reality works.
- mrow84 9y ago
  I suppose I must not have been sufficiently clear - I wasn't offering the phrase "one dollar one vote" as a description of reality, but as a point of provocation. Those who find nothing objectionable in the idea of "one dollar one vote" are also unlikely to object to your "rebranding" of money as speech. Those who think otherwise are, I suggest, less likely to agree. I was not attempting to change your mind, but to point out that your equivalence was mere opinion, dressed up as fact.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    Oh. Well, I'm not making an equivalence between money and speech. The dollars spent in the election were in fact spent on speech, and are one measurement of how much speech happened.
    - mrow84 9y ago
      Is one person offering their opinion a hundred times the same as a hundred people offering their opinions once each? The two scenarios have the same "quantity" of speech, but we might differ on the degree to which we believe that simple quantity is the most important measure, in the context of democratic legitimacy.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  My daughter is writing a novel where that is exactly where we have wound up. Basically, votes on bills in the legislature are openly acknowledged auctions. And the rich have more privileges/civil rights than the poor. If present trends continue, it's not so far fetched...

mtgx 9y ago

Okay, if you want to be that guy, then I'll also be that other guy and say the Democracy is "drowning in the free speech of a handful of wealthy people." Is that much better though? And is that the system we should be content with? Or should be strive for an improved, more equal democracy? At the end of the day the "money vote" greatly skews the "one person, one vote" principle, which is supposed to give everyone (or those who choose to take it) equal opportunity to influence government decisions. Clearly wealthy people have much more influence than a "single vote" in the U.S. plutocracy or than some random person in the U.S.

vzcx 9y ago
How much longer does its head have to be held under before it's dead? Do you actually believe that all people have an equal stake in the future of the country? To me it is blatantly obvious that a party animal of an adolescent, say, does not have the same stake in the future a country than a land-owning parent of three children. I would much, much prefer a system wherein those that have sacrificed real, tangible resources in order to secure voting rights have a voice in the governance of the institutions of state, and those that have not do not. Thankfully, examples of institutions that function this way abound: It's simply how all modern corporations are structured.