3 ms·

The Supreme Court has effectively ruled all forms of political bribery to be legal (and engages in it themselves), so good luck with that one.

kmeisthax 3y ago
Not just legal, but constitutionally protected free speech. Effectively "repeal the first amendment or accept legal bribery".
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  Paying someone is free speech? I didn't realize I was exercising my free speech rights every time I went to the grocery store. What does speech even mean in that context?
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Ok, please don't take this comment as a defense of Citizens United and McCutchinson v. FEC, but there is logic to SCOTUS's idea. Imagine for a moment you were, say, a certain Florida governor with Presidential ambitions and an R next to your name. A multibillion dollar mouse cartoon company that runs a local theme park in your state is complaining about a law you passed, and you want them to shut up and fall in line with the party diktat. However, it's unconstitutional to just ban political speech you don't like. So instead you decide to write a bill[0] prohibiting any out-of-state corporation with a certain asset size from spending money in the form of campaign contributions to opposing gubernatorial candidates. Did Florida Man just violate the constitution? If you think so, well, then you believe that money is speech. Or at the very least, that money used to effect political speech (e.g. by lobbying, donating to candidates you want to see elected) should be as protected as speech is. This was actually fairly long-standing SCOTUS precedent, which is probably why they were so willing to tear up campaign finance law. Where SCOTUS goes off the rails in the two cases above is that they then argue that even content-neutral restrictions on moneyspeech are unconstitutional. It's actually fairly well-established doctrine that protests can be regulated - i.e. we're allowed to shift protests at government events (say, the G7) to "free speech zones" that are carefully selected to be as far away from media attention as possible. We're also allowed to have noise laws, even though people use loud megaphones in protests. But we're, apparently, not allowed to have campaign finance laws which are the equivalent of noise laws for talking to your Congressperson. Evidently shouting so loud you speak over everyone else in the room is legal so long as you're speaking with dollars instead of words. [0] This example takes place in an alternate universe where Trump 2000 actually got the man in office, so the culture war brain rot happened earlier than the SCOTUS cases that protected bribery with the 1st Amendment

kmeisthax 3y ago

Not just legal, but constitutionally protected free speech. Effectively "repeal the first amendment or accept legal bribery".

soraminazuki 3y ago
Paying someone is free speech? I didn't realize I was exercising my free speech rights every time I went to the grocery store. What does speech even mean in that context?
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Ok, please don't take this comment as a defense of Citizens United and McCutchinson v. FEC, but there is logic to SCOTUS's idea. Imagine for a moment you were, say, a certain Florida governor with Presidential ambitions and an R next to your name. A multibillion dollar mouse cartoon company that runs a local theme park in your state is complaining about a law you passed, and you want them to shut up and fall in line with the party diktat. However, it's unconstitutional to just ban political speech you don't like. So instead you decide to write a bill[0] prohibiting any out-of-state corporation with a certain asset size from spending money in the form of campaign contributions to opposing gubernatorial candidates. Did Florida Man just violate the constitution? If you think so, well, then you believe that money is speech. Or at the very least, that money used to effect political speech (e.g. by lobbying, donating to candidates you want to see elected) should be as protected as speech is. This was actually fairly long-standing SCOTUS precedent, which is probably why they were so willing to tear up campaign finance law. Where SCOTUS goes off the rails in the two cases above is that they then argue that even content-neutral restrictions on moneyspeech are unconstitutional. It's actually fairly well-established doctrine that protests can be regulated - i.e. we're allowed to shift protests at government events (say, the G7) to "free speech zones" that are carefully selected to be as far away from media attention as possible. We're also allowed to have noise laws, even though people use loud megaphones in protests. But we're, apparently, not allowed to have campaign finance laws which are the equivalent of noise laws for talking to your Congressperson. Evidently shouting so loud you speak over everyone else in the room is legal so long as you're speaking with dollars instead of words. [0] This example takes place in an alternate universe where Trump 2000 actually got the man in office, so the culture war brain rot happened earlier than the SCOTUS cases that protected bribery with the 1st Amendment