5 ms·

So how does it come about that you interpret support for restrictions on political campaigning as an attack on democracy? If you believe that the additional po

So how does it come about that you interpret support for restrictions on political campaigning as an attack on democracy? If you believe that the additional political speech that greater donations would allow, would break the democratic process, then you have little faith in the ability of voters to weigh the facts and cast a rational vote. If you don't think that voters can do this, then it seems to me that you don't believe that democracy can really work. I'm not saying that the people who want to limit political contributions are opposed to democracy. I'm saying that it reveals that they have little confidence that democracy can work. Your implicit argument seems to be this: If you can't point to an obviously correct place to draw the line, then no line should be drawn anywhere. No. I'm saying that for such restrictions to be implementable, there must be a line defined somewhere. If you want to make a rule, you've got to add something to it that still allows me, or me and my buddies, or whatever, to still make political contributions. Secondarily, I'm hoping that expressing that distinction might reveal more about what these people are trying to accomplish (or not accomplish, as the case might be). Sort of a black box test. Individuals and corporations can both invest money in political speech, but the amount any individual or any individual corporation is allowed to put in is limited to (some credible estimate of) the largest amount a not-entirely-crazy person So you're prohibiting me from pooling money with friends in order to send a message of our own. Is that your intent?

gjm11 15y ago
> If you believe [...] (Please note that there are several different people in this discussion. My opinion is not necessarily the same as wpietri's or wonderzombie's.) I think that how well democracy works depends on all kinds of things. How well informed voters are is certainly one of them. Voters, being human beings, are demonstrably vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, it is possible that taking measures to reduce misinformation may make democracy work better. And I am entirely at a loss to see how anyone can seriously regard this sort of position as not believing that democracy can "really work", whatever the hell that's meant to mean. > for such restrictions to be implementable, there must be a line defined somewhere. For sure. But how do you get from there to suggesting that anyone who thinks there should be some limits is somehow obliged to have a specific place where they think the line needs to go, still less obliged to tell you where that place is? > might reveal more about what these people are trying to accomplish (or not accomplish, as the case might be). Jiminy. > you're prohibiting me from pooling money with friends in order to send a message of our own. I'm not prohibiting anything, and the proposal I made would obviously not have the effect you describe -- and this sort of rhetoric is one reason why I don't in the least blame anyone who declines to answer your tell-me-where-the-line-goes demands. However: my suggestion is that you and your friends are welcome to send your money wherever you want, but that any single legal entity acting as a single entity only gets to play with as much money as a typical person could afford to use for influencing the political process. The sort of corporate activity that some people worry about is not remotely like you and your friends pooling some money.
mindslight 15y ago
> I'm not saying that the people who want to limit political contributions are opposed to democracy. I'm saying that it reveals that they have little confidence that democracy can work. Nicely put! Just going to point out that a corporation isn't just a "large group" - it is a government-created entity that enjoys vastly reduced liability for individual members of that group.

gjm11 15y ago

> If you believe [...] (Please note that there are several different people in this discussion. My opinion is not necessarily the same as wpietri's or wonderzombie's.) I think that how well democracy works depends on all kinds of things. How well informed voters are is certainly one of them. Voters, being human beings, are demonstrably vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, it is possible that taking measures to reduce misinformation may make democracy work better. And I am entirely at a loss to see how anyone can seriously regard this sort of position as not believing that democracy can "really work", whatever the hell that's meant to mean. > for such restrictions to be implementable, there must be a line defined somewhere. For sure. But how do you get from there to suggesting that anyone who thinks there should be some limits is somehow obliged to have a specific place where they think the line needs to go, still less obliged to tell you where that place is? > might reveal more about what these people are trying to accomplish (or not accomplish, as the case might be). Jiminy. > you're prohibiting me from pooling money with friends in order to send a message of our own. I'm not prohibiting anything, and the proposal I made would obviously not have the effect you describe -- and this sort of rhetoric is one reason why I don't in the least blame anyone who declines to answer your tell-me-where-the-line-goes demands. However: my suggestion is that you and your friends are welcome to send your money wherever you want, but that any single legal entity acting as a single entity only gets to play with as much money as a typical person could afford to use for influencing the political process. The sort of corporate activity that some people worry about is not remotely like you and your friends pooling some money.

mindslight 15y ago

> I'm not saying that the people who want to limit political contributions are opposed to democracy. I'm saying that it reveals that they have little confidence that democracy can work. Nicely put! Just going to point out that a corporation isn't just a "large group" - it is a government-created entity that enjoys vastly reduced liability for individual members of that group.