2 ms·

I reject the notion that money is protected speech. Individuals can spend unlimited amounts of time and words on a campaign.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Unlimited time and unlimited words seem to have little utility if you can't get them in front of others. You can write a book or pamphlet, but it is little use if you cant pay to publish it.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  I'm not saying that the limit should be $0. The Canadian limit of $2000 per voter seems reasonable to me. You can print a lot of pamphlets for $2000.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Do you think two people should be able to split a $4000 printing cost? Citizens United was a ruling about pooling resources, opposed to a ruling against financial limits. There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      > There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions. With loopholes big enough to drive a bus through.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        sure, but that has nothing to do with CU, which is my point.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It has everything to do with CU. They haven't fixed the loopholes because of CU. The association thing is a red herring. Pretty much every other country in the world has a reasonable solution to the problem. If the limit is $2000 you can spend $2000 on your own or an organization can spend $2000 on behalf of you, or some mix.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure, and citizens united doesn't prevent that. It says that your ability to send $2,000 doesn't go away when you are part of an organization. If a corporation has a million shareholders that can each spend $2000, that is a hell of a lot of political donation.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        > If a corporation has a million shareholders that can each spend $2000, that is a hell of a lot of political donation. That corporation is not going to get permission from all million shareholders to completely use up their entire contribution limit.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Unlimited time and unlimited words seem to have little utility if you can't get them in front of others. You can write a book or pamphlet, but it is little use if you cant pay to publish it.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
I'm not saying that the limit should be $0. The Canadian limit of $2000 per voter seems reasonable to me. You can print a lot of pamphlets for $2000.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Do you think two people should be able to split a $4000 printing cost? Citizens United was a ruling about pooling resources, opposed to a ruling against financial limits. There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    > There are several constitutionally upheld limitations on campaign contributions. With loopholes big enough to drive a bus through.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      sure, but that has nothing to do with CU, which is my point.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        It has everything to do with CU. They haven't fixed the loopholes because of CU. The association thing is a red herring. Pretty much every other country in the world has a reasonable solution to the problem. If the limit is $2000 you can spend $2000 on your own or an organization can spend $2000 on behalf of you, or some mix.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure, and citizens united doesn't prevent that. It says that your ability to send $2,000 doesn't go away when you are part of an organization. If a corporation has a million shareholders that can each spend $2000, that is a hell of a lot of political donation.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        > If a corporation has a million shareholders that can each spend $2000, that is a hell of a lot of political donation. That corporation is not going to get permission from all million shareholders to completely use up their entire contribution limit.