3 ms·

The problem with Citizens United isn't the showing of the film, it's the disproportionate voice that it gives to those with money. If you believe that having m

The problem with Citizens United isn't the showing of the film, it's the disproportionate voice that it gives to those with money. If you believe that having more money should give you a larger voice in the political process, then all is well in your world. I do not happen to believe that.

tptacek 13y ago
So then you disagree with the ACLU, which says "the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech." I think I do too, but I'm not sure.
- strlen 13y ago
  The Citizens United decision was fairly narrow in scope: many kinds of campaign finance regulations are allowed to stand, except for restrictions on political speech by corporations and unions. However, I just find it silly that many HNers claim to be unequivocally for political speech, when they're clearly willing to restrict certain kinds of political speech. The latter is an understandable position: I have plenty of concerns about money in politics leading to electioneering, I just personally think the cure has potential to be worse the decease. I'm all in favor of campaign finance regulations that do not restrict free speech, but I'll acknowledge that they may be less effective comparatively[1]. In general, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are trade-offs between liberty, safety, and equality and state which trade-offs one is willing to make. Equivocation or wishful thinking just makes one look dishonest ("will you buy my 100,000 node commodity-hardware distributed database that has 0.00001 ms latency, read-committed transaction isolation, and 100% uptime?") [1] That said I doubt restrictions on speech will fix the problem of rent-seeking by moneyed interests -- it will continue through other channels; however, now these moneyed interests will have another tool at their disposal: politicians' ability to restrict political speech, e.g., MPAA lobbying congress to restrict the ability of ACLU/EFF to oppose parts of the DMCA.

tptacek 13y ago

So then you disagree with the ACLU, which says "the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech." I think I do too, but I'm not sure.

strlen 13y ago
The Citizens United decision was fairly narrow in scope: many kinds of campaign finance regulations are allowed to stand, except for restrictions on political speech by corporations and unions. However, I just find it silly that many HNers claim to be unequivocally for political speech, when they're clearly willing to restrict certain kinds of political speech. The latter is an understandable position: I have plenty of concerns about money in politics leading to electioneering, I just personally think the cure has potential to be worse the decease. I'm all in favor of campaign finance regulations that do not restrict free speech, but I'll acknowledge that they may be less effective comparatively[1]. In general, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are trade-offs between liberty, safety, and equality and state which trade-offs one is willing to make. Equivocation or wishful thinking just makes one look dishonest ("will you buy my 100,000 node commodity-hardware distributed database that has 0.00001 ms latency, read-committed transaction isolation, and 100% uptime?") [1] That said I doubt restrictions on speech will fix the problem of rent-seeking by moneyed interests -- it will continue through other channels; however, now these moneyed interests will have another tool at their disposal: politicians' ability to restrict political speech, e.g., MPAA lobbying congress to restrict the ability of ACLU/EFF to oppose parts of the DMCA.