5 ms·

This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end. All of these restrictions were put into place aft

This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end. All of these restrictions were put into place after Watergate for a reason; campaign contributions are a corrupting influence in politics.

ctdonath 13y ago
From the ruling's summary: the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. Later the Court elaborates on the reasoning behind this; I suggest you read it.
- snake_plissken 13y ago
  I have read it and I do not agree with the court. This is a cherry picked example so I will try to get some more later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco#Nixon_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco#Nixon_scandal
crazy1van 13y ago
> This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end. Should people be limited by how much time they can donate to volunteering for a candidate? How about how many words they can write in favor of a candidate? Why should someone who doesn't have the time to do those things but does have the time to write a check be prohibited from participating in the campaign process?
- buerkle 13y ago
  However, unlike money, time is limited. No one person can contribute more than 24 hours in a single day.
  - crazy1van 13y ago
    Are you implying that money is unlimited?
    - buerkle 13y ago
      In this context, money is effectively unlimited. Not sure why people are ok with allowing unlimited funding of campaigns by individuals or corporations while on the other hand accepting similar contributions for anything but a campaign is a felony (ie. bribery)

ctdonath 13y ago

From the ruling's summary: the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. Later the Court elaborates on the reasoning behind this; I suggest you read it.

snake_plissken 13y ago
I have read it and I do not agree with the court. This is a cherry picked example so I will try to get some more later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco#Nixon_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco#Nixon_scandal

crazy1van 13y ago

> This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end. Should people be limited by how much time they can donate to volunteering for a candidate? How about how many words they can write in favor of a candidate? Why should someone who doesn't have the time to do those things but does have the time to write a check be prohibited from participating in the campaign process?

buerkle 13y ago
However, unlike money, time is limited. No one person can contribute more than 24 hours in a single day.
- crazy1van 13y ago
  Are you implying that money is unlimited?
  - buerkle 13y ago
    In this context, money is effectively unlimited. Not sure why people are ok with allowing unlimited funding of campaigns by individuals or corporations while on the other hand accepting similar contributions for anything but a campaign is a felony (ie. bribery)