5 ms·

Money is not free speech, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

by Afforess 12y ago

smsm42 12y ago
Yes, it is. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8213792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8213792
- specialist 12y ago
  Self cite. Nice. Very authoritative. >> If one party spends $100M on their message, and the >> other just says it loudly at city council meetings > > In fact, nothing like this happens. That is precisely what happens. You should lobby. Or at least watch your local equivalent to C-SPAN. See how the game is played before you comment.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    It was not supposed to make it "authoritative". It was supposed to keep the discussion in one branch. Of course, it failed, because following links is too hard. >>> That is precisely what happens. Supported by what data? Here's mine: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49550998/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/49550998/ Care to show yours? >>> You should lobby No thanks, I prefer to make my living in different ways. >>> Or at least watch your local equivalent to C-SPAN Which would show me the financial patterns how exactly? >>> See how the game is played before you comment Thank you for your concern about my education, however offbase it is. I am well aware how the game is played. That's exactly why I see the variety of vulnerabilities ripe for exploitation and dangers that destroying privacy in political speech would produce.
    - specialist 12y ago
      Data? Non-sequiturs are not data. Sorry, but I can't even figure out what point you're arguing. Have a nice day.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        Usually when people say "this is precisely what happens", they have an idea what they say "precisely happens". I outlined my point right there on the link, about the balance on the money investment on opposing sides, and brought the data (if it's not enough, I can bring more, the data is readily available on most campaigns). You claimed something happens but were unable to support it with any numbers. Maybe it's connected to your inability to understand my point. Anyway, nice day to you too, sir.
slapshot 12y ago
Money is not speech. But spending money is part of the process of speaking. If it is legal to anonymously distribute a pamphlet then it must be legal to anonymously pay to have that pamphlet printed. Otherwise Congress need not ban books, but simply ban publishers.

Money is not free speech, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

smsm42 12y ago

Yes, it is. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8213792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8213792

specialist 12y ago
Self cite. Nice. Very authoritative. >> If one party spends $100M on their message, and the >> other just says it loudly at city council meetings > > In fact, nothing like this happens. That is precisely what happens. You should lobby. Or at least watch your local equivalent to C-SPAN. See how the game is played before you comment.
- smsm42 12y ago
  It was not supposed to make it "authoritative". It was supposed to keep the discussion in one branch. Of course, it failed, because following links is too hard. >>> That is precisely what happens. Supported by what data? Here's mine: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49550998/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/49550998/ Care to show yours? >>> You should lobby No thanks, I prefer to make my living in different ways. >>> Or at least watch your local equivalent to C-SPAN Which would show me the financial patterns how exactly? >>> See how the game is played before you comment Thank you for your concern about my education, however offbase it is. I am well aware how the game is played. That's exactly why I see the variety of vulnerabilities ripe for exploitation and dangers that destroying privacy in political speech would produce.
  - specialist 12y ago
    Data? Non-sequiturs are not data. Sorry, but I can't even figure out what point you're arguing. Have a nice day.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      Usually when people say "this is precisely what happens", they have an idea what they say "precisely happens". I outlined my point right there on the link, about the balance on the money investment on opposing sides, and brought the data (if it's not enough, I can bring more, the data is readily available on most campaigns). You claimed something happens but were unable to support it with any numbers. Maybe it's connected to your inability to understand my point. Anyway, nice day to you too, sir.

slapshot 12y ago

Money is not speech. But spending money is part of the process of speaking. If it is legal to anonymously distribute a pamphlet then it must be legal to anonymously pay to have that pamphlet printed. Otherwise Congress need not ban books, but simply ban publishers.