4 ms·
The question is whether or not to ban lobbying is not a reasonable one, if only because lobbying would not be able to be banned just on a principle of free spee
by oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
The question is whether or not to ban lobbying is not a reasonable one, if only because lobbying would not be able to be banned just on a principle of free speech alone. People have a voice—good, bad, whatever—and lobbying provides an efficient means of communicating that voice. The question is rather how to reduce, if not obviate, the damage caused by the role of money in lobbying without violating free speech rights.
- kyllo 12y agoYeah... I think the whole premise behind SuperPACs is the ridiculous notion that money = speech and campaign contributions are protected free speech.
- snsr 12y agoMoney is not speech, despite the Citizens United ruling.
- twoodfin 12y agoSo Congress could set limits on how much money the New York Times could spend to cover federal elections?
- lhc- 12y agoNews coverage of federal elections is vastly different than candidate advocacy.
- uptown 12y agoAgreed. But news agencies seem to cross that divide when they feel the need to endorse political candidates.
- twoodfin 12y agoIt doesn't matter how different it is: If money is not speech, why couldn't Congress prevent the Times from spending money to write and print articles about candidates?
- gfrdgre4 12y agoLOL what? The New York Times has endorsed a Democratic president for the last 50 years or something.
- seanflyon 12y agoIs it? I think instead of funding a superPAC I'll start a news organization to cover the election as I see fit.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]