8 ms·

This isn't strictly illegal in the U.S. due to the Citizens United decision. Because of free speech blah blah blah I can spend an unlimited amount of money for

This isn't strictly illegal in the U.S. due to the Citizens United decision. Because of free speech blah blah blah I can spend an unlimited amount of money for a cause or canidate as long as I don't coordinate with that campaign.

wpietri 8y ago
And apparently the definition of "coordinate" is quite flexible. E.g.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways-super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work-together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-... In practice, I'm not sure sufficiently rich people face any practical limits in influencing elections.
- dyren 8y ago
  It has been repeatedly shown that the Sufficiently Rich face virtually no limits, restrictions, penalties, etc.
- rhino369 8y ago
  They don’t because of the first amendment. A person is allowed to influence the election as much as they can. There is no difference between HBO broadcasting Bill Maher into millions of home and Bill Maher paying for YouTube ads. You can’t even differentiate between people and corporations. Because otherwise the government could tell the New York Times to stop writing articles against trump. After all they are a for profit corporation. It’s a tough spot.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.
    - slededit 8y ago
      They aren't contributing to the compaign - Citizens United was about spending money on your own advertising. You are allowed to buy whatever airtime you want to say whatever you want. If you happen to want to say something nice about one candidate or mean about another in the airtime you bought it's hard to argue that's not covered by free speech rights. You can argue that this has perverse effects - but the courts have consistently held that free speech has wide latitude even when it has negative effects. Exceptions are extremely limited and the harm has to be immediate and direct.
      - mobilefriendly 8y ago
        Citizens United made and sold a documentary. There's no difference between that and HBO, spending limits are ultimately an attack on independent media and new media.
        ethbro 8y ago
        If you equate money spent on political advertising with votes (which I believe has strong empirical support), then failure to regulate inevitably devolves democracy into plutocracy. Assuming that's not desired, the question then becomes how best to balance free speech with equalizing commercial political speech.
        bmelton 8y ago
        And according to the Supreme Court, many times over, the very purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech, and the most important form of speech to protect is political speech. Yes, there are downsides to unfettered speech, but freedom means having to let other people do things I don't like, and in exchange, I can do things they don't like. If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose.
        8y ago
  - wpietri 8y ago
    This is a very specific and recent interpretation of the first amendment. Your theory that no nuance is possible does not match how the constitution is applied in general, or even how that amendment is dealt with specifically, both historically and currently. For example, defamation is still illegal, even if you do it to influence an election. Campaign finance limits have been weakened, but still exist and are enforced. It also doesn't wipe out other speech crimes, like fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice, even if they're part of a campaign. It's not a particularly tough spot except from the perspective of very strong textual literalism.
craftyguy 8y ago
> Citizens United decision Ah yes, our era's Dred Scott decision.
- jack9 8y ago
  Indeed, a terrible and obviously immoral decision by the supreme court to appease. How this has been downvoted so heavily, causes me concern.
smsm42 8y ago
Wait, so any citizen of the US can speak about political matters without any limits? And collude in it with other US citizens, potentially forming political organizations, NGOs, parties, and so on, and there's no limit on what they can speak about and how much money they can spend on convincing others to join them? That's a real nightmare!

wpietri 8y ago

And apparently the definition of "coordinate" is quite flexible. E.g.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-ways-super-pacs-and-campaigns-can-work-together/2015/07/06/bda78210-1539-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/here-are-the-secret-... In practice, I'm not sure sufficiently rich people face any practical limits in influencing elections.

dyren 8y ago
It has been repeatedly shown that the Sufficiently Rich face virtually no limits, restrictions, penalties, etc.
rhino369 8y ago
They don’t because of the first amendment. A person is allowed to influence the election as much as they can. There is no difference between HBO broadcasting Bill Maher into millions of home and Bill Maher paying for YouTube ads. You can’t even differentiate between people and corporations. Because otherwise the government could tell the New York Times to stop writing articles against trump. After all they are a for profit corporation. It’s a tough spot.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.
  - slededit 8y ago
    They aren't contributing to the compaign - Citizens United was about spending money on your own advertising. You are allowed to buy whatever airtime you want to say whatever you want. If you happen to want to say something nice about one candidate or mean about another in the airtime you bought it's hard to argue that's not covered by free speech rights. You can argue that this has perverse effects - but the courts have consistently held that free speech has wide latitude even when it has negative effects. Exceptions are extremely limited and the harm has to be immediate and direct.
    - mobilefriendly 8y ago
      Citizens United made and sold a documentary. There's no difference between that and HBO, spending limits are ultimately an attack on independent media and new media.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        If you equate money spent on political advertising with votes (which I believe has strong empirical support), then failure to regulate inevitably devolves democracy into plutocracy. Assuming that's not desired, the question then becomes how best to balance free speech with equalizing commercial political speech.
        bmelton 8y ago
        And according to the Supreme Court, many times over, the very purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech, and the most important form of speech to protect is political speech. Yes, there are downsides to unfettered speech, but freedom means having to let other people do things I don't like, and in exchange, I can do things they don't like. If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose.
        8y ago
- wpietri 8y ago
  This is a very specific and recent interpretation of the first amendment. Your theory that no nuance is possible does not match how the constitution is applied in general, or even how that amendment is dealt with specifically, both historically and currently. For example, defamation is still illegal, even if you do it to influence an election. Campaign finance limits have been weakened, but still exist and are enforced. It also doesn't wipe out other speech crimes, like fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice, even if they're part of a campaign. It's not a particularly tough spot except from the perspective of very strong textual literalism.

craftyguy 8y ago

> Citizens United decision Ah yes, our era's Dred Scott decision.

jack9 8y ago
Indeed, a terrible and obviously immoral decision by the supreme court to appease. How this has been downvoted so heavily, causes me concern.

smsm42 8y ago

Wait, so any citizen of the US can speak about political matters without any limits? And collude in it with other US citizens, potentially forming political organizations, NGOs, parties, and so on, and there's no limit on what they can speak about and how much money they can spend on convincing others to join them? That's a real nightmare!