3 ms·

> Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves t

by koolba 6y ago

> Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better? The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message. > That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything. It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. > I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech. If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.

slg 6y ago
>The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. That outcome is one alternative, it is not the only alternative. We can put laws in place to regulate how the media talks about political issues. We used to have the fairness doctrine for example. I wouldn't necessarily want that reintroduced exactly how it existed, but something along those lines would help the US political system. >More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message. So what? These organizations are free to advise their people how to voice their opinion and they can even facilitate doing so through internal programs such as voter registration drives or petition drives. We don't have to allow them to pool money to voice their opinion to the general public. >It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. >If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses. You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?
- koolba 6y ago
  > "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. It is equality of opportunity. What you seem to want is equality of outcome. Nothing stops you or your politically minded allies from pooling your own resources. > You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it? Why should the unemployed or those on the dole, with all the time in the world, have an advantage over the employed?

by koolba 6y ago

slg 6y ago

>The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear. That outcome is one alternative, it is not the only alternative. We can put laws in place to regulate how the media talks about political issues. We used to have the fairness doctrine for example. I wouldn't necessarily want that reintroduced exactly how it existed, but something along those lines would help the US political system. >More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message. So what? These organizations are free to advise their people how to voice their opinion and they can even facilitate doing so through internal programs such as voter registration drives or petition drives. We don't have to allow them to pool money to voice their opinion to the general public. >It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own. "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. >If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses. You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?

koolba 6y ago
> "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced. It is equality of opportunity. What you seem to want is equality of outcome. Nothing stops you or your politically minded allies from pooling your own resources. > You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it? Why should the unemployed or those on the dole, with all the time in the world, have an advantage over the employed?