4 ms·

Citizens United is the example that shows it's more complicated than that. Once limits are removed, then the same power structures that make and keep powerful

Citizens United is the example that shows it's more complicated than that. Once limits are removed, then the same power structures that make and keep powerful entities powerful can continue to be reenforced if checks are not put into place to limit the power money can have in being a vector or amplifier for free speech. What paying for expression has come to is that you can dominate discourse simply by paying more. So if you have money, you can buy influence even more directly than by paying for bribes and courting legal ramifications. The reality is marketing works, and that is to say, people's opinions can be changed quite malleably by just inundating them more-and-more with the idea you want them to adopt, whether it's seeing a movie, listening to an album, or adopting an opinion. Freedom for all cannot exist where power can buy influence in this fashion, and that's where freedom to pay for expression is more complicated than, say, printing my own newspaper and sharing it with others. It lets you also gain the system and buy-up all options of expression (e.g., all ads in a newspaper or website) and in the more insiduous ways, buy "grassroots" influencers through sockpuppet accounts. I don't have a solution, but it doesn't mean there's not a fundamental problem when we make freedom to pay for expression free of roadblocks to dominating behaviors.

humanrebar 7y ago
Arguably the problem is that the limits on contributions to candidates and parties puts them at a specific disadvantage. PACs and advocacy-as-journalism partly exists because political parties are restricted while relatively unaccountable organizations are not.
drak0n1c 7y ago
Ads sometimes help the underdog much more than they help the already-known incumbent - ads can put them both on equal footing if the volume is reasonable. I've discovered new small family restaurants I never would have noticed if I didn't get their postcard ads. Similarly, thanks to ads I've heard of new political candidates challenging long-time incumbent politicians - they may be spending much less than the incumbent but they could afford to write me a postcard. Maybe instead of a digital ban, there could be rationing on a per-user basis of how often they are repeatedly shown a political ad from the same faction. That way challengers can get their word in.
- buboard 7y ago
  Thats basically what feeds Google. There are no apple ads when you search for Apple

humanrebar 7y ago

Arguably the problem is that the limits on contributions to candidates and parties puts them at a specific disadvantage. PACs and advocacy-as-journalism partly exists because political parties are restricted while relatively unaccountable organizations are not.

drak0n1c 7y ago

Ads sometimes help the underdog much more than they help the already-known incumbent - ads can put them both on equal footing if the volume is reasonable. I've discovered new small family restaurants I never would have noticed if I didn't get their postcard ads. Similarly, thanks to ads I've heard of new political candidates challenging long-time incumbent politicians - they may be spending much less than the incumbent but they could afford to write me a postcard. Maybe instead of a digital ban, there could be rationing on a per-user basis of how often they are repeatedly shown a political ad from the same faction. That way challengers can get their word in.

buboard 7y ago
Thats basically what feeds Google. There are no apple ads when you search for Apple