4 ms·

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.

by inglesp 12y ago

rdl 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
nickff 12y ago
Money is not equivalent to speech, but money is necessary to enable speech. Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech. The "money is speech" phrase is a straw-man put forward by opponents of the expansion of 1st Amendment rights to non-media organizations. If you want an example of how this might affect groups you support, consider that many courts have ruled blogs to be non-media activities, thus they could be banned from engaging in any politically related speech by the Federal Electoral Commission, if you accept Solicitor General Verrilli's arguments. The government could also ban groups and individuals from sending letters to newspaper editors by preventing the purchase of stamps to send the offending messages, or it could simply declare that uncompensated services (such as letter-writing, or petitioning) by groups like unions or other advocacy groups should be evaluated as a contribution, and limited or banned.
- dbenamy 12y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you mean nickff, and I'd like to. Is this a slippery slope argument, where if we start restricting spending, we might empower the government to restrict other things (like stamps) which can influence elections? Or is it that you think that restricting spending by any person or corporation in any way would result in a more distorted process than what we have now? Or something else? If it does seem likely that restrictions on spending _could_ restrict free speech, do you think that they _will necessarily_ restrict free speech? Maybe it just means we need to be careful in our implementation so we restrict the bad parts of unlimited spending while allowing the good stuff. I hope so, although I'd love to hear good evidence pointing either way. And just to bring this back to the context of Lessig's plan, they don't want to restrict spending at all (https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections-are-funded https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...), at least not until they try more important stuff first. They just want to make it more desirable to raise money from the many instead of the few.
  - nickff 12y ago
    My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats". In other words, had the FEC been given the power to regulate all campaign spending, they may or may not restrict one or another sort of spending, but I am not willing to take the chance that they might silence important voices. With respect to these "matching" systems, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to support (through taxes,) campaigns they do not support. For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate, and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).
    - jellicle 12y ago
      > My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. Does that follow? At all?
      - nickff 12y ago
        Do you expect me to answer 'no'? Of course it does follow. If you look at how the FEC regulates campaigns, they do so by creating intricate and/or vague rules, which they can subsequently enforce against any speakers or type of speech within their purview. When any government agency is allowed to regulate something, they are given a great deal of deference by the courts and the legislature, this administrative discretion "necessarily allow[s] the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike".
        jellicle 12y ago
        > Do you expect me to answer 'no'? Only if you know anything about the history of campaign finance regulation and First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., which I guess you do not.
jellicle 12y ago
It's because you're not American. In the U.S., there's a long-standing propaganda campaign to get people to believe that limiting the ability of billionaires to buy elections is equivalent to coming to your house and cutting your tongue out at the roots. Pretty much exactly the same thing. No difference. I agree that it's pretty baffling to the rest of the world. Has anyone here written a seven figure check to influence a particular political campaign? If not, this movement is a net positive for you. If so, then this movement is a net negative for you. But very many Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.

by inglesp 12y ago

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.

rdl 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

nickff 12y ago

Money is not equivalent to speech, but money is necessary to enable speech. Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech. The "money is speech" phrase is a straw-man put forward by opponents of the expansion of 1st Amendment rights to non-media organizations. If you want an example of how this might affect groups you support, consider that many courts have ruled blogs to be non-media activities, thus they could be banned from engaging in any politically related speech by the Federal Electoral Commission, if you accept Solicitor General Verrilli's arguments. The government could also ban groups and individuals from sending letters to newspaper editors by preventing the purchase of stamps to send the offending messages, or it could simply declare that uncompensated services (such as letter-writing, or petitioning) by groups like unions or other advocacy groups should be evaluated as a contribution, and limited or banned.

dbenamy 12y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean nickff, and I'd like to. Is this a slippery slope argument, where if we start restricting spending, we might empower the government to restrict other things (like stamps) which can influence elections? Or is it that you think that restricting spending by any person or corporation in any way would result in a more distorted process than what we have now? Or something else? If it does seem likely that restrictions on spending _could_ restrict free speech, do you think that they _will necessarily_ restrict free speech? Maybe it just means we need to be careful in our implementation so we restrict the bad parts of unlimited spending while allowing the good stuff. I hope so, although I'd love to hear good evidence pointing either way. And just to bring this back to the context of Lessig's plan, they don't want to restrict spending at all (https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections-are-funded https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...), at least not until they try more important stuff first. They just want to make it more desirable to raise money from the many instead of the few.
- nickff 12y ago
  My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats". In other words, had the FEC been given the power to regulate all campaign spending, they may or may not restrict one or another sort of spending, but I am not willing to take the chance that they might silence important voices. With respect to these "matching" systems, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to support (through taxes,) campaigns they do not support. For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate, and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).
  - jellicle 12y ago
    > My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. Does that follow? At all?
    - nickff 12y ago
      Do you expect me to answer 'no'? Of course it does follow. If you look at how the FEC regulates campaigns, they do so by creating intricate and/or vague rules, which they can subsequently enforce against any speakers or type of speech within their purview. When any government agency is allowed to regulate something, they are given a great deal of deference by the courts and the legislature, this administrative discretion "necessarily allow[s] the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike".
      - jellicle 12y ago
        > Do you expect me to answer 'no'? Only if you know anything about the history of campaign finance regulation and First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., which I guess you do not.

jellicle 12y ago

It's because you're not American. In the U.S., there's a long-standing propaganda campaign to get people to believe that limiting the ability of billionaires to buy elections is equivalent to coming to your house and cutting your tongue out at the roots. Pretty much exactly the same thing. No difference. I agree that it's pretty baffling to the rest of the world. Has anyone here written a seven figure check to influence a particular political campaign? If not, this movement is a net positive for you. If so, then this movement is a net negative for you. But very many Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.