5 ms·

A win for freedom of speech, and of the press. Running a press costs money, as does speaking to more than a few people; if a group of people with common interes

A win for freedom of speech, and of the press. Running a press costs money, as does speaking to more than a few people; if a group of people with common interests choose to fund & pool their money to promote a message, they have the right to do so. Ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf Crux of argument: First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” ... Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. That and related points go on in detail for 57 pages.

protomyth 13y ago
"A win for freedom of speech, and of the press." I'll agree on the speech part since it allows for groupings and patrons of movements to be more effective, but I think the press just lost some of its influence. Given the partisanship in the press, this isn't such a bad thing. They've been pushing their influence for years and can basically spend unlimited money on politics so its fine for "non-press" to be given the same ability.
MisterBastahrd 13y ago
Freedom of speech? It essentially turns individual voters without deep pockets into the citizen equivalents of flyover states. All the Supreme Court did was eliminate any pretense that the US isn't quickly turning into an oligarchy.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  If individual voters are contributing nothing to the speech/press promoting the candidate/cause of their choice, they have nothing to complain about. Just because some don't exercise their rights doesn't mean they can suppress the rights of those who do.
- ewillbefull 13y ago
  This is very much a speech issue. Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits. After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate. Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.
  - dailyrorschach 13y ago
    It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform. I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation. If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort. Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-costs/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.

protomyth 13y ago

"A win for freedom of speech, and of the press." I'll agree on the speech part since it allows for groupings and patrons of movements to be more effective, but I think the press just lost some of its influence. Given the partisanship in the press, this isn't such a bad thing. They've been pushing their influence for years and can basically spend unlimited money on politics so its fine for "non-press" to be given the same ability.

MisterBastahrd 13y ago

Freedom of speech? It essentially turns individual voters without deep pockets into the citizen equivalents of flyover states. All the Supreme Court did was eliminate any pretense that the US isn't quickly turning into an oligarchy.

ctdonath 13y ago
If individual voters are contributing nothing to the speech/press promoting the candidate/cause of their choice, they have nothing to complain about. Just because some don't exercise their rights doesn't mean they can suppress the rights of those who do.
ewillbefull 13y ago
This is very much a speech issue. Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits. After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate. Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.
- dailyrorschach 13y ago
  It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform. I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation. If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort. Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-costs/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.