4 ms·

Whether or not the first amendment applies to PACs is highly contentious. For instance, I don't think people have a constitutional right to form corporations, s

by uup 4y ago

Whether or not the first amendment applies to PACs is highly contentious. For instance, I don't think people have a constitutional right to form corporations, so I'm all for limiting the political speech of PACs. Just as I'm ok with limiting things people can do with their car via licensing.

TeeMassive 4y ago
Liberty of association is 1A protected.
chrismcb 4y ago
Political speech is speech. In fact it is the most important speech to protect.
- uup 4y ago
  The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance. Ultimately, we value free speech because it leads to a more fair and just society. It's not a rule that is followed by blind faith. Personally, I think allowing unlimited corporate spending on political speech amplifies the voices of a select few so that others are not heard. Essentially censorship of the masses. I fail to see how that leads to a fair and just society.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    Individuals can spend unlimited money directly. Let’s say I want to personally spent $1 million supporting a candidate I like. But I’m worried their rival will sue me for libel. So I’d like to form a LLC so that I won’t be personally liable in that case. This seems reasonable to allow.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    >>The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance. Corporations cannot donate to (federal) political campaigns, period. See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... Now, both individuals and corporations can donate to Super PACs an unlimited amount, yes. But corporations have no different limits than individuals. The whole point of so-called Super PACs is they're theoretically "Independent-expenditure-only political committees" and can't coordinate with candidates. Basically the "We have strong views about abortion" Super PAC can collect as much money as they want from anyone they want* and run as many ads as they want telling people which candidates share their view on abortion and which are monsters. You may view this as vile and bad, and that's fair, but why should a group of people spending their money together (i.e. a corporation or union or whatever) have fewer rights than an individual spending their money alone? *Foreign nationals maybe not included in this? Not sure.
    - uup 4y ago
      I didn’t say that a group of people should have different rights than individuals. I think we should view elections as a central component of our democracy. Allowing entities, either corporations or individuals, to spend exorbitant amounts of money undermines the very principle of democracy by making the votes of a wealthy few worth more than everyone else. “Vote” here being a figurative reference to electoral influence.
      - patmcc 4y ago
        Your claim was literally that corporations can spend unlimited amounts and people can't, which is simply untrue. What's an exorbitant amount? Imagine some people, passionate about their particular political issue, pooling their money together to put up billboards, run radio ads, get a few TV spots, have a spread in the newspaper, buy some instagram ads, whatever. That's speech! Of course it is! Having the government restrict is a terrible precedent. The ability to try and influence other people, to convince them that your position or your candidate is the right one, is also a principle of democracy.
        uup 4y ago
        These were my exact words: > The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance. I specifically said individual donations to political campaigns were limited. I think you’re arguing a very pedantic point that I didn’t even make rather than talking about whether or not our society would be better off limiting all forms of political spending.
    - fwip 4y ago
      Because corporations have funds disproportionate to the people, and because corporate donations are overwhelmingly controlled by the kind of people who run corporations.
      - patmcc 4y ago

by uup 4y ago

TeeMassive 4y ago

Liberty of association is 1A protected.

chrismcb 4y ago

Political speech is speech. In fact it is the most important speech to protect.

uup 4y ago
The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance. Ultimately, we value free speech because it leads to a more fair and just society. It's not a rule that is followed by blind faith. Personally, I think allowing unlimited corporate spending on political speech amplifies the voices of a select few so that others are not heard. Essentially censorship of the masses. I fail to see how that leads to a fair and just society.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Individuals can spend unlimited money directly. Let’s say I want to personally spent $1 million supporting a candidate I like. But I’m worried their rival will sue me for libel. So I’d like to form a LLC so that I won’t be personally liable in that case. This seems reasonable to allow.
- patmcc 4y ago
  >>The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance. Corporations cannot donate to (federal) political campaigns, period. See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... Now, both individuals and corporations can donate to Super PACs an unlimited amount, yes. But corporations have no different limits than individuals. The whole point of so-called Super PACs is they're theoretically "Independent-expenditure-only political committees" and can't coordinate with candidates. Basically the "We have strong views about abortion" Super PAC can collect as much money as they want from anyone they want* and run as many ads as they want telling people which candidates share their view on abortion and which are monsters. You may view this as vile and bad, and that's fair, but why should a group of people spending their money together (i.e. a corporation or union or whatever) have fewer rights than an individual spending their money alone? *Foreign nationals maybe not included in this? Not sure.
  - uup 4y ago
    I didn’t say that a group of people should have different rights than individuals. I think we should view elections as a central component of our democracy. Allowing entities, either corporations or individuals, to spend exorbitant amounts of money undermines the very principle of democracy by making the votes of a wealthy few worth more than everyone else. “Vote” here being a figurative reference to electoral influence.
    - patmcc 4y ago
      Your claim was literally that corporations can spend unlimited amounts and people can't, which is simply untrue. What's an exorbitant amount? Imagine some people, passionate about their particular political issue, pooling their money together to put up billboards, run radio ads, get a few TV spots, have a spread in the newspaper, buy some instagram ads, whatever. That's speech! Of course it is! Having the government restrict is a terrible precedent. The ability to try and influence other people, to convince them that your position or your candidate is the right one, is also a principle of democracy.
      - uup 4y ago
        These were my exact words: > The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance. I specifically said individual donations to political campaigns were limited. I think you’re arguing a very pedantic point that I didn’t even make rather than talking about whether or not our society would be better off limiting all forms of political spending.
  - fwip 4y ago
    Because corporations have funds disproportionate to the people, and because corporate donations are overwhelmingly controlled by the kind of people who run corporations.
    - patmcc 4y ago