View Full Version : "Campaign Reform" and the 1st Amendment?
JeffL
12-10-2003, 10:25 AM
OK - I spent a lot of time reading everything I could on the "Campaign Reform" act, read the Supreme Court ruling, and I still can't figure out why this doesn't fundamentally violate the first amendment. When I boil it down, it reads as basically "We've decided that allowing people/groups to communicate their opinions on the candidates close to election time is bad in a number of ways, so we're going to forbid it." If you are a "news agency" you can say whatever the hell you want all the way up to the election, but if you're any other type of organization you get a muzzle.
So - let's say I'm running an organization called Spouses of the Incarcerated. Bush and company begin to push a law, 30 days before the election, that says it's too dangerous to the country to allow spouses to visit their incarcerated husband or wife because they might allow terrorist communications. 60 minutes could run a show talking about how this new law would have prevented Joe SuperTerrorist from passing secret codes to Suzie Terrorist which resulted in the Staples Center being wiped out during E3, and they highlight how much that goes on. (OK - it's a stretch - 60 minutes would never run anything positive on anything concerning a Republican. ;) )
But I want to put on ads on radio and TV telling the country that if Bush has his way, husbands and wives will never be able to see each other while one is in prison and that the law also has a clause that prevents children from visiting their parents and also says that they also can't even exchange phone calls or mail. My group is not allowed to do that.
In fact, I can't run any ad in that time frame that says my organization is against any federal candidate once it gets close to election time.
Where in the constitution does it say freedom of speech is restricted to the press? (hint - it doesn't.) So the only way I can read this is that freedom of speech CAN be restricted by laws if someone decides my speech is bad for the political system in some way. Which also means that there's nothing that prevents a law from being written that says, say, broadcast outlets can't say anything about candidates within some arbitrary time. Or that the existing law couldn't be extended to say that organizations can't run broadcast ads at ANY time before an election? Whether they would or wouldn't isn't the issue - what bothers me is that apparently these laws can be passed.
Perhaps I'm missing something really fundamental in my reading of all of this, but it bugs me a lot.
DennyA
12-10-2003, 10:39 AM
The crafters of the 1st Amendment have to be spinning in their graves.
Yesterday I was hearing a piece on the "free speech zones" set up for protesters for "security reasons" at campaign rallies for the President. Zones conveniently out of range of TV cameras -- or earshot -- from the actual speeches.
Ostensibly security is part of the the issue. Yeah, great security. Joe Terrordude will now have to carry a "Bush Rocks" sign instead of a "Bush Sucks" sign.
Something about the word combination "free speech zone" seems very un-American.
steve
12-10-2003, 10:58 AM
But I want to put on ads on radio.."
Stop right there. Once you purchase an ad, haven't you crossed a line from free speech to commercial speech? There are restrictions on commercial speech.
No one is stopping you from organizing a rally, speaking out on a TV show, or yelling at people as they walk by you on the street.
tronnc
12-10-2003, 11:10 AM
[quote=jeff lackey]Stop right there. Once you purchase an ad, haven't you crossed a line from free speech to commercial speech? There are restrictions on commercial speech.
No one is stopping you from organizing a rally, speaking out on a TV show, or yelling at people as they walk by you on the street.
Why, whats the legal difference between yelling at people on the street and mass communicating through TV/Radio.
Jakub
12-10-2003, 11:15 AM
Legally, money isn't involved in yelling across the street.
Practically speaking, yelling across the street doesn't reach such a large audience.
Squirrel Killer
12-10-2003, 11:18 AM
But I want to put on ads on radio.."
Stop right there. Once you purchase an ad, haven't you crossed a line from free speech to commercial speech? There are restrictions on commercial speech.
Commercial speech is usually defined as that which proposes a commercial transaction. Despite the same word, a commercial advertisments (ie a "The More You Know" PSA or a McDonalds ad) are not necessarily commercial speech (ie a McDonalds ad or a direct mail piece).
Rywill
12-10-2003, 11:33 AM
Free speech, like every other thing in the Bill of Rights, is not an absolute right. There are already dozens and dozens and dozens of laws on the books restricting free speech. No defamation. No dangerous speech ("Fire!" in a crowded theater). No copyright infringement. No terrorist threats. No threatening the president. No counterfeiting. No false advertising. No soliciting for crimes. No advertising cigarettes in schools. No putting up a billboard in a place zoned against it. And so on. So if your primary objection is "Hey, what's up with telling me what I can and can't say?", you're pretty late to the party, and most people I think would have to agree that some restrictions on free speech are sensible.
The question, then, becomes "How bad does a harm have to be before the state can outlaw harmful speech?" That's a tough one. Courts have been wrestling with it forever. I won't post a 2000 word treatise on it, but it's not enough to just say "Where's my damn free speech?"
JeffL
12-10-2003, 12:10 PM
So, what I'm seeing as the response is:
1. Buying time makes it "commercial speech." And that's different. Even though the law says that I can't voice the opinion on broadcast outlets whether I pay or they give me the time.
2. Free speech is limited, the old "you can't scream fire in a crowded theater." Now we're saying that voicing a political opinion is in that category.
3. This reaches a really big audience, so we lose our 1st amendment rights because the audience is too big.
Maybe I'm just making it too simple: but Congress being able to pass a law on expressing my group's political opinion on broadcasts waves, saying "Nope - not allowed. Why? Because we don't like the impact it might have" is a really scary precedent to me. It says Congress could decide to ban all such ads on broadcast outlets, at any time they decide they don't like the potential impact. People, we're not talking about screaming fire in a crowded theater, or telling people that if they stick their head in a gas oven they'll meet the big Kahuna on a comet, or to tak up arms against the government - we're talking about deciding that we're not going to allow you to air your political opinions. Brit Hume or Peter Jennings can say anything they like on the air close to election time, but you're not allowed to. It just seems to really cross a line when Congress can decide whether or not you can air a political opinion, and when.
JeffL
12-10-2003, 12:10 PM
So, what I'm seeing as the response is:
1. Buying time makes it "commercial speech." And that's different. Even though the law says that I can't voice the opinion on broadcast outlets whether I pay or they give me the time.
2. Free speech is limited, the old "you can't scream fire in a crowded theater." Now we're saying that voicing a political opinion is in that category.
3. This reaches a really big audience, so we lose our 1st amendment rights because the audience is too big.
Maybe I'm just making it too simple: but Congress being able to pass a law on expressing my group's political opinion on broadcasts waves, saying "Nope - not allowed. Why? Because we don't like the impact it might have" is a really scary precedent to me. It says Congress could decide to ban all such ads on broadcast outlets, at any time they decide they don't like the potential impact. People, we're not talking about screaming fire in a crowded theater, or telling people that if they stick their head in a gas oven they'll meet the big Kahuna on a comet, or to tak up arms against the government - we're talking about deciding that we're not going to allow you to air your political opinions. Brit Hume or Peter Jennings can say anything they like on the air close to election time, but you're not allowed to. It just seems to really cross a line when Congress can decide whether or not you can air a political opinion, and when.
Jason McCullough
12-10-2003, 12:15 PM
They upheld the 30 day part? Yuck.
My ideal system, I think, would be public financing of all campaigns at an actually reasonable level, plus no restrictions on donations - the ones we've tried don't seem to work.
Bitterman
12-10-2003, 12:37 PM
I am afraid you are not being clear as to exactly what you are talking about.
Are you referring to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment regarding electioneering statements? If so, I will be seriously annoyed at being forced to spend the time to edjumacate (tm) you as to the exact effects of the bill.
As far as the McCain-Feingold bill goes, it's been partially overturned already by a federal panel, who oddly enough simply struck portions of the bill rather than overruling it entirely. The Supremes denied an NRA request for a stay on the ruling, and are expected to rule at the start of their next session. So, yes, it is unconsitutional at the moment, although certain parts of the bill are still in force. My bet is that the supreme court will overturn it, or at least the parts that infringe.
Free speech is not black and white, it is a grey area. This instance is fairly clear cut, but it's not always a case of "say what you want, it is all protected". In this case, the idea behind the bill is to prevent corporations, etc, from laundering donations by purchasing airtime,etc as a third party. However, it is most likely the wrong solution to the problem.
Finally, the effects are a lot more limited than you think. There is no provision for CNN to state what they want to say about a certain candidate while blocking third party ads. Itjust says that there will be no third party-type ads that talk about a certain candidate. So you will be free to place an ad supporting your right to carry guns or have an abortion, as long as you don't name a specific candidate. I think you are overreating to an imagined issue and ignoring the potentially far more dangerous one.
If you are speaking of something else, please post some sort of URL or non-vague desription as opposed to expecting us all to know what you are speaking about.
Edited for spelling
steve
12-10-2003, 12:43 PM
1. Buying time makes it "commercial speech." And that's different. Even though the law says that I can't voice the opinion on broadcast outlets whether I pay or they give me the time.
Commercial speech has restrictions, so if it's deemed "commercial speech" (which I suspect it isn't), there's plenty of precedent. (Though if you view an election as something like a commercial transaction, it does fit.)
No one is stopping you from voicing an opinion. You can voice it all you want. You can even get on TV in the form of debates, stories, etc.
But when you buy airtime, you make an issue one-sided. In the interest of fairness, shouldn't the network be obligated to run a counterpoint? What if you have factual errors in your ad? What if your spin is totally weird, but doesn't cross any legal lines? Is that really good for public debate either?
Would you have a problem if George Soros bought up all the commercial time the month before the election to blast negative George W. Bush ads 24-7? Do you think that would be good for Democracy?
Do you want a system where only those with the most cash can reach the most people? That's the situation where we're in right now, and why instead of running the country, GWB is out raising $100 million in cash.
We're talking about deciding that we're not going to allow you to air your political opinions. Brit Hume or Peter Jennings can say anything they like on the air close to election time, but you're not allowed to. It just seems to really cross a line when Congress can decide whether or not you can air a political opinion, and when.
Most of us can't afford to buy time, so we hold rallies, give speeches, talk to reporters, and get coverage that way. If the issue is big or important enough, it will get coverage.
Ben Sones
12-10-2003, 12:48 PM
Stop right there. Once you purchase an ad, haven't you crossed a line from free speech to commercial speech? There are restrictions on commercial speech.
A newspaper is a commercial venture, but I think people would be upset if the government wanted to restrict what newspapers said on the grounds that newspapers aren't protected by the First Amendment. I agree with Jeff--this is one of the things that bothers me about campaign finance reform efforts. I'm in favor of campaign finance reform in principle, but I think bills like this one cross the line so far that they can't even see it any more when they turn around and look back.
Squirrel Killer
12-10-2003, 01:03 PM
1. Buying time makes it "commercial speech." And that's different. Even though the law says that I can't voice the opinion on broadcast outlets whether I pay or they give me the time.
That is incorrect. Commerical speech is "speech (as advertising) that proposes a commercial transaction" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996), "propose a commercial transaction" (Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748), or "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience" (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 563).
Just because you pay to air your advertisment, does not inherently make your speech "commercial" (and thus subject to greater restrictions.) Steve's initial suggestion that perhaps purchasing the air time made the speech commercial was incorrect. An understandable error given the terminology. I haven't read the decision, but I would be very surprised if the court used that interpretation to uphold the finance reform laws.
Rywill
12-10-2003, 01:26 PM
I guess I just don't see what the big problem is. Are you against all campaign finance laws? The law already says, has said for some time, that your personal contribution in a federal election is limited to $1000. Are you against that? What about laws that say no electioneering outside the polling place? It just seems like your position is "Anybody should be able to make any sort of political expression they want, at any time and in any manner they want," and I think almost anybody would disagree with you. There is a legitimate societal interest in protecting the election from being dominated by large-money donors. There's a legitimate harm that comes from allowing elections to proceed without financial regulation. That doesn't mean I agree with all the campaign finance laws. But I can understand why those laws are not automatically evil.
Edit: grammar
Jason McCullough
12-10-2003, 02:07 PM
Is typing "U R BIAS" over and over in the Deus Ex 2 forums allowed?
If they were serious, they would limit donations or funding for ads to only those who were being represented in the election. For your typical congressmen, 30-50% of his contributions come from outside his district or state. These contributions are for one thing, special interests, they do not reflect the will or the backing of their constitutes.
Chet
If they were serious, they would limit donations or funding for ads to only those who were being represented in the election. For your typical congressmen, 30-50% of his contributions come from outside his district or state. These contributions are for one thing, special interests, they do not reflect the will or the backing of their constitutes.
Its hard to craft laws though that don't have substantial loopholes. I'm thinking in your case, what would prevent someone from forming a PAC in the congressman's home state which served to "launder" money from out of state?
I mean, McCain-Feingold said the money couldn't be funneled to parties or candidates, so now the money goes to 527 PACs like MoveOn.Org, which is spending millions of dollars on Anti-Bush ads. When we get the Democratic nomination out of the way, it'll be wierd, because technically, MoveOn.Org wouldn't be running ads for Sharpton or Dean or whoever, they'd just be running Anti-Bush ads.
Its like blocking a river -- the water's going to flow somewhere else.
The problem is that "free speech" in a presidential campaign needs piles and piles of money to get your ads out in various outlets. An election is quite heavily tied to the advertising market, and perhaps that's not the best way to do things.
That is a weak argument XPav, using that logic, you might as well not lock your car, because thieves are just going to find a way in anyways.
It needs to happen in stages, each stage refining the previous and closing loopholes.
Chet
wisefool
12-10-2003, 03:03 PM
Chet,
I think a problem that could happen on a weak "campaign reform" law is that the politicians can run around and claim the riverbanks are safe thanks to them.
Then I flip NBC news, wow neat, ok campaign stuff is fixed, it takes time you know.
repeat every election.
That is a weak argument XPav, using that logic, you might as well not lock your car, because thieves are just going to find a way in anyways.
It needs to happen in stages, each stage refining the previous and closing loopholes.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try -- I'm just pointing out that loophole will continue to be found in every rules as society changes. Campaign finance reform should be a constant process, and no magic law will fix everything as long as free market forces require candidates to raise huge amounts of money to get their points to the American public.
Squirrel Killer
12-10-2003, 03:10 PM
The problem is that "free speech" in a presidential campaign needs piles and piles of money to get your ads out in various outlets. An election is quite heavily tied to the advertising market, and perhaps that's not the best way to do things.
Raising money is a necessary evil of the modern political campaign if you hope to win. Candidates already get federally mandated discounts on broadcast advertising ("lowest unit rate" which basically means that any qualified candidate gets to buy ads at the cheapest rate the outlet offered within the last 6 (IIRC) months.)
As for equal time, a station has to sell any candidate an equal amount of air time as any other candidate. The combination can get quite absurd.
(There was a radio station in Missouri a few cycles back that had accidentally given a loyal advertiser a sweatheart deal for a week too long and had to offer the candidates the same rate. The two candidates kept one-upping each other until the stations' entire ad inventory was devoted practically to just these two candidates. Eventually, the station manager called both candidates into his office and tried to come to a resolution. The candidates settled on 124 spots/day each. Yep, 248 ads each day between the two of them, over 10 each hour. I'm glad I didn't live in that market.)
If you publicly finance campaigns, you'll just be setting up a subsidy to TV stations and media buyers since that's were all the free money will go. And if that money doesn't go to advertising, it'll just get shunted into junk mail, automated calls, or more yard signs. Free money certainly won't raise the level of debate in politics, so I'm not sure that that's the best way do to things either.
JeffL
12-10-2003, 03:27 PM
I am afraid you are not being clear as to exactly what you are talking about.
If you are speaking of something else, please post some sort of URL or non-vague desription as opposed to expecting us all to know what you are speaking about.
Edited for spelling
The broadcast restrictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform law, otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold law. Apparently everyone other than you knew what I was talking about, particularly in light of the significant Supreme Court ruling today.
JeffL
12-10-2003, 03:42 PM
But when you buy airtime, you make an issue one-sided. In the interest of fairness, shouldn't the network be obligated to run a counterpoint? What if you have factual errors in your ad? What if your spin is totally weird, but doesn't cross any legal lines? Is that really good for public debate either?
Would you have a problem if George Soros bought up all the commercial time the month before the election to blast negative George W. Bush ads 24-7? Do you think that would be good for Democracy?
Do you want a system where only those with the most cash can reach the most people? That's the situation where we're in right now, and why instead of running the country, GWB is out raising $100 million in cash.
So, Steve, do you think the ads should be prohibited completely, and not just within the 30 - 60 days before the election currently in the law?
There are no restrictions on candidates raising and spending the money on the ads, so laws like this have no effect on the money raising campaigns of the candidates, such as GWB raising $100 MM.
I'm all for real campaign finance reform, and reading the bill in detail reveals some moves that are probably going in the right direction. But there seems to be a lot more posturing and "look good" in this bill than items that truly address the real problems.
I hate the fact that winning the presidency or a senate or house seat is all about having the most money. I wish there was a way to fix that - hell, I'd be all for saying each candidate for president gets exactly X million dollars, tax paid, no more and no less and having laws that made sure that's all that got spent. I'm not even convinced that I won't like the campaigns better without the organizational ads running right before the election. Damned those AARP grey hairs anyway! ;) BUT - this isn't commercial air time, with restrictions based on fraud, public health, etc. This is a law that says you can't buy airtime to express your political opinion. Whether it costs you $1000 or $10,000, whether you have the money or not, you're simply not allowed to any longer. And at some arbitrary period of time before the election. Where did Congress get that authority? What is the constitutional basis for them having that authority? That's what I can't find. And I don't like it. (like that amounts to a hill of beans.)
Rywill
12-10-2003, 03:49 PM
Obviously Congress has the Constitutional power to set and regulate elections. Article I, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." They also have their commerce clause power, which (under the current thinking) would apply.
JeffL
12-10-2003, 03:58 PM
Obviously Congress has the Constitutional power to set and regulate elections. Article I, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." They also have their commerce clause power, which (under the current thinking) would apply.
Yeah, I looked at those sections. But I'm not sure that I would extend those to restriction of expressing political opinions via broadcast or press outlets. I read Article I, Sec. 4 as pertaining more to the specific mechanics such as voting mechanisms, eligibility of voting, etc.
Of course, until I get on the Supreme Court (and being a college student during the 70s, THAT'S never gonna happen! ;) ) my opinion isn't what counts.
Jason McCullough
12-10-2003, 04:03 PM
Ran drugs across the mexican border, huh? It's happened to all of us.
JeffL
12-10-2003, 04:09 PM
Ran drugs across the mexican border, huh? It's happened to all of us.
LOL! Well, let's just say that in undergrad school I spent a lot of time playing guitar with a band that did a lot of gigs in New Orleans. And ran with a lot of musicians. ;)
Ben Sones
12-10-2003, 04:14 PM
I guess I just don't see what the big problem is. Are you against all campaign finance laws?
Not at all. As I said, I'm in favor of reforming existing campaign finance laws, I just don't think more restrictions on contributions are the way to go about it, and cause as many problems as they solve. And I oppose all laws that involve blackout periods on political advocacy.
The law already says, has said for some time, that your personal contribution in a federal election is limited to $1000. Are you against that?
Yes. If nothing else, that limit hasn't been adjusted for inflation since it was enacted, thirty years ago.
What about laws that say no electioneering outside the polling place?
It depends on the nature and intent of the law. If the purpose is to ensure public access to the polls (much like distance limits that protesters outside of Planned Parenthood clinics must adhere to, for instance), then I think it's fine.
It just seems like your position is "Anybody should be able to make any sort of political expression they want, at any time and in any manner they want, and I think almost anybody would disagree with you."
I said nothing of the sort. But I do think that any proposed restriction of political expression should be scrutinized very, very closely, and that any laws on the issue should err on the side of protecting First Amendment rights.
There is a legitimate societal interest in protecting the election from being dominated by large-money donors.
There is also a legitimate societal interest in allowing people to freely advocate political issues, and I think it outweighs the dangers of "quid pro quo" corruption that these reform bills are trying to mitigate. I think greater transparency and public accountability for campaign contributions is a better way to combat that sort of corruption.
There's a legitimate harm that comes from allowing elections to proceed without financial regulation.
I agree. I would not advocate that political campaigns be free of all financial regulation.
Rywill
12-10-2003, 04:26 PM
I was talking to Jeff, but thanks.
Ben Sones
12-10-2003, 04:40 PM
Sorry. You posted that right after my post, and didn't include any quotes, so I wasn't sure.
steve
12-10-2003, 07:37 PM
So, Steve, do you think the ads should be prohibited completely, and not just within the 30 - 60 days before the election currently in the law?
That's probably worth discussing, since I'm guessing that's where a large percentage of money goes to, and it's the area where able but perhaps less financially hooked-in candidates fail. If they had televised debates, devoted time to ads for candidates, maybe that's all the TV that's needed. And people might need to do some legwork to find out what a candidate stands for.
(And if this was enacted, it would probably create a situation where the networks had even more power on which candidate they chose to cover with the nightly news. But they'd also face additional scrutiny.)
This is a law that says you can't buy airtime to express your political opinion. Whether it costs you $1000 or $10,000, whether you have the money or not, you're simply not allowed to any longer.
But it doesn't keep you from expressing your opinion any more than keeping people from blocking the doors of a Planned Parenthood office keeps them from being able to protest abortion. It just changes the rules of how you present the message, not the message itself.
I'm not sure when TV ads became a constitutional right, though.
Jason McCullough
12-10-2003, 07:42 PM
I'm not sure when TV ads became a constitutional right, though.
Probably a ways before the population to House representative ratio hit 673,000 to 1. If congressman had smaller districts it wouldn't be as much of an issue. The ratio has tripled since 1910:
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PT_articles/Growth_in_U_S__Population_Calls_for_Larger_House_o f_Representatives.htm
No real way to get around it for senators, though.
JeffL
12-10-2003, 08:34 PM
Sorry. You posted that right after my post, and didn't include any quotes, so I wasn't sure.
And Ben expressed my thoughts far more articulately than I would have. ;)
Rywill
12-10-2003, 09:43 PM
Okay, then. Although I have to say -- and no offense to Ben, who's one of my best friends -- if this is as eloquent as you get, I don't get it. This post hardly says anything other than "I am against these laws."
As I said, I'm in favor of reforming existing campaign finance laws, I just don't think more restrictions on contributions are the way to go about it, and cause as many problems as they solve. And I oppose all laws that involve blackout periods on political advocacy.
So what reforms are you proposing? And other than the fact that you're not in favor of them, what is the problem with restricting contributions? I mean, the whole point of these laws is to make sure that being rich doesn't give you undue influence over candidates. Isn't limiting how much of that money you can give to the candidates a natural and direct way to do that? I realize that it leads to a cat-and-mouse game (that's how we ended up with soft money), but you just keep plugging the leaks. It's like Chet said: a determined thief will get into your car, but that doesn't mean you should leave the stereo disconnected and sitting on the hood.
Again, other than the fact that you oppose them, what's wrong with advocacy blackouts right before an election? The purpose is to prevent a group from sandbagging somebody with a sensational (maybe skewed, maybe totally fabricated) claim right before an election, when the target won't have time to respond. Again, there's no restriction on news reporting. Just ads paid for with campaign funds.
The only objection I can think of to either of these measures is "But they place some limit on political speech." That's true: they both do. But they're tailored to the harm they prevent. The contribution law is a large restriction on political speech, but the harm it prevents is immeasurably larger. The harm prevented by the blackout is smaller, but the speech restriction is almost negligible (because you can still get out your message, just not during the blackout period).
The law already says, has said for some time, that your personal contribution in a federal election is limited to $1000. Are you against that?
Yes. If nothing else, that limit hasn't been adjusted for inflation since it was enacted, thirty years ago.
Is that your only objection?
What about laws that say no electioneering outside the polling place?
It depends on the nature and intent of the law. If the purpose is to ensure public access to the polls (much like distance limits that protesters outside of Planned Parenthood clinics must adhere to, for instance), then I think it's fine.
That's not the purpose at all. It's already illegal to block access to a polling place, whether you're electioneering or not. Electioneering laws prevent you from, for example, putting up a big poster with all the reasons you hate George W. Bush right outside a polling place. The purpose is to A) ensure polling places are nonthreatening and well-regulated; and B) prevent local militias from sandbagging a candidate right before the election. Again, the infringement on free speech is incredibly small, and put there for a very good reason. Other than the fact that you're against it, what's the problem?
I do think that any proposed restriction of political expression should be scrutinized very, very closely, and that any laws on the issue should err on the side of protecting First Amendment rights.
Okay, I agree. I think all these laws meet the test. What's your objection?
There is a legitimate societal interest in protecting the election from being dominated by large-money donors.
There is also a legitimate societal interest in allowing people to freely advocate political issues, and I think it outweighs the dangers of "quid pro quo" corruption that these reform bills are trying to mitigate. I think greater transparency and public accountability for campaign contributions is a better way to combat that sort of corruption.
This is the first thing in the post that says anything other than "I object to this" or "I don't object to this." Let's say we go your way and allow unlimited political donation but with 100% transparency. Big-money donors are going to own politics even more than they do now. I mean, maybe you disagree, but I can't see how. Huge corporations will give millions of dollars to get sympathetic people elected. It will work because the recipients of those dollars will use them to blanket the airwaves, the phone lines, and the mails with positive ads for themselves and negative ones for their opponents. Anyone who isn't in bed with these huge donors will be left with nothing to fight that tide except being able to say "Hey, he's taking all this money from companies you've never heard of like ADM and General Re, and I say those companies are evil."
Elections should be about leaders and their ideas. They shouldn't be about who can kowtow to big money donors and thus essentially buy themselves the election. Transparency will do nothing to alleviate this problem. I mean, I'm all for transparency--it's a legitimate problem in campaign finance that needs to be addressed. But the thought that transparency alone will get us better democracy is beyond conception IMO. Even with the laws on the books, the system is terribly crippled by the effect of money--look at Bush, riding a huge wave of donations into office despite being an idiot and a crybaby, and then turning around and doing all kinds of crap that favors his big-business donors while simultaneously fucking up our civil rights and diplomatic standing because he's an earnest, but profoundly unintelligent man.
I don't mean to rant. But really, this country needs to very much tighten campaign finance, and what you're proposing is to just throw open the floodgates. I'm a huge advocate of libertarianism, but there are some areas--national defense, antitrust, and without doubt, campaign finance--where the government really needs to regulate.
Just a little note on the fallacy of the $1000 personal donation. I did work for the center for responsive politics ( http://www.opensecrets.org/ ), and what we were looking for and found again and again were fun little things like, an electric company wanting to donate more money, so they gave their employees $1000 tool money. With the very clear implied implication where that tool money was supposed to go.
You could see CEO's of insurance companies having every family member donate $1000 including out of state relatives.
There is a reason no one is bitching about the $1000 limit, because they already know how to get around it, so why not leave it so they can point to it and say - look only a $1000.
Of course there are other bigger "donations" like a Chinese chip maker hiring neil bush for $2 million ( http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/neil-bush-contract.htm )
Chet
Campaign finance laws are really Incumbant protection laws.
You're not allowed to put your money where your mouth is to say what you want. Instead you are forced to rely on "oficially designated" media stations - decided of course by the incumbants agencies.
The "officially sanctioned" media then reports on what happens, and of course incumbants, already having positions of influence will get more airtime than challengers.
If you believe in something enough to blow 50 grand on an ad to tell people about it, you should have the right to say it - especially when it comes to politics.
The notion that the government should be allowed to dictate what you can and can't say about the government is INHERENTLY repulsive to any lover of the first amendment. Sorry Madison, you can't write those federalist pamphlets, they're violating campaign finance laws.
Squirrel Killer
12-11-2003, 07:44 AM
Just a little note on the fallacy of the $1000 personal donation.
Another aspect of that fallacy is that the $1,000 limit is per election, which includes primary elections. So really, a candidate can get $2,000/person each election cycle.
Oh no! the hard-coded limit set in the seventies is still a thousand dollars. Meaning that the limit's value shrinks each year due to inflation.
A thousand dollars is enough for anybody. 640k is enough for anybody.
And putting your money where your mouth is should be regulated, because we don't want americans to be TOO serious about their political speech. It might get politicians to vote the way they want...
Rywill
12-11-2003, 07:55 AM
Just a little note on the fallacy of the $1000 personal donation. I did work for the center for responsive politics ( http://www.opensecrets.org/ ), and what we were looking for and found again and again were fun little things like, an electric company wanting to donate more money, so they gave their employees $1000 tool money. With the very clear implied implication where that tool money was supposed to go.
I don't know that I'd be so cavalier about admitting that, what with it being illegal.
bago, if you think that opening up campaign finance will allow average citizens with $50,000 and a burning cause to get on the airwaves (in place of large corporations, PACs, etc., who I guess in your mind don't have $50,000 to spare on political contributions), I'll just agree to disagree.
JeffL
12-11-2003, 08:15 AM
I suppose in my mind it really isn't an issue of good or bad (wrt the restrictions on expressing political opinions over the airwaves.) It probably IS for the better. I just don't think that allowing Congress the power to pass such restrictions on speech and opinions, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing in our opinions, is something I like. This isn't preventing people from voting, or defrauding people, or intimidating someone at the polling place, etc. The fact that it is only "bad" 30 days before the election and OK at every other time is an indication of just how arbitrary this restriction is. My fear is that if this is constitutional, then it is precedent for all manner of restrictions.
The finance restrictions don't bother me at all - that's such a game and the only thing it will restrict are the little people who don't know how to get around the laws, while the very people who are the problem are laughing at the restrictions and nudging the Senators with a wink. Like I said before - if we're going to truly reform campaign financing, it's going to take more than a law whose intent was to look good for the voters, it's going to take something profound. The problem is so big that only a radical change will fix it. Such as giving every candidate who meets the requirements a set amount of money, and strictly tracking and enforcing the limits such that the total spent on the campaign doesn't go over that amount. And the penalties being such that the candidates themselves are intent on not going over that amount - e.g., you go over, you lose whatever election you're in.
Nobody in office has any desire to truly fix the system that got them in office and insures they get to keep their power.
Squirrel Killer
12-11-2003, 08:22 AM
Let's say we go your way and allow unlimited political donation but with 100% transparency. Big-money donors are going to own politics even more than they do now. I mean, maybe you disagree, but I can't see how. Huge corporations will give millions of dollars to get sympathetic people elected. It will work because the recipients of those dollars will use them to blanket the airwaves, the phone lines, and the mails with positive ads for themselves and negative ones for their opponents. Anyone who isn't in bed with these huge donors will be left with nothing to fight that tide except being able to say "Hey, he's taking all this money from companies you've never heard of like ADM and General Re, and I say those companies are evil."
Let me preface this by saying that I think there should be some sort of campaign finance reform, but I'm not really sure I have a good solution.
There are some examples of unlimited political donations with 100% transparency at the state level. In Iowa, for example, there's no limit on personal contributions (still no corporate donations allowed though) and required reporting along the lines of the federal requirements.
Several years ago, Congressman Fred Grandy (yep, Gopher from The Love Boat) tried to run for Governor in Iowa. He had William Metz, owner of a huge western Iowa baking company bankroll his compaign. The reporting entries were jaw dropping, a $100,000 donation here, $50,000 there, etc... I don't remember the ratio off-hand, but he out-raise his opponent something like 2-1. He was good looking, popular in his district, had great name recognition throughout the state, his opponent reneged on a highly visable promise, and obviously had piles of cash. And he lost. The reason people voted against him: He was trying to buy the governorship.
I'm not saying that it would work nationwide, but unlimited contributions with 100% transparency is not as bad as some make it out to be. Perhaps with big contributions, there would be more of a call for officials to recuse themselves on legislation that directly affects their contributors. Right now it's kinda silly to say that Rep. X should vote on Bill HR:Y because he got $2,000 from the CEO of a company that the bill affects, but if he got $100,000 it'd be harder to dodge the call to recuse himself for that vote (although he'd still likely work for the bill in other ways).
Although he used his own money, Mike Huffington's husband tried to buy an election in California and he lost too (his 27 mil vs Feinstien's 14 mil). Jon Corzine squeked out a win even though he spent $63 mil. Paul Wellstone won his first time despite a huge spending disadvantage. Money isn't the end all be all (but it sure is nice).
Rywill
12-11-2003, 09:20 AM
Mike Huffington's husband tried to buy an election in California
:lol:
Seriously, though, I understand what you (and Ben) are saying, I just don't agree. For every example of some dummy who tried to buy an election and suffered a backlash, there are 10 who were openly big donation recipients and didn't suffer a backlash or lose (GWB being foremost among them). To condense my prior huge post: the more money individual donors can give to a campaign, the more influenece they wield compared to the average voter. The more the influence balance shifts in favor of those few wealthy donors, the more the candidates will try and kowtow to those individual powerful donors rather than the electorate as a whole.
average citizens with $50,000 and a burning cause to get on the airwaves (in place of large corporations, PACs, etc.,
The implied notion that an average citizen has more of a "right" to buy free speech than corpoations, PAC's etc. is patently offensive.
Rywill
12-11-2003, 09:53 AM
The implied notion that an average citizen has more of a "right" to free speech than corpoations, PAC's etc. is patently offensive.
You're right. Good thing nobody implied that, since the campaign finance law affects everyone equally and puts all entities (real or legal) on the same footing. Whew! Dodged a bullet.
Good thing nobody knows what the term "In place of" means. It's not like I quoted it or anything...
Squirrel Killer
12-11-2003, 09:58 AM
bago, if you think that opening up campaign finance will allow average citizens with $50,000 and a burning cause to get on the airwaves (in place of large corporations, PACs, etc., who I guess in your mind don't have $50,000 to spare on political contributions), I'll just agree to disagree.
Keep in mind that PACs are usually just aggregations of typical voters. My $10 may not be a big deal, but if the ACLU, or ARRP, or the EFF, or the NRA get enough of those $10 donors, they can make the donors' voices heard.
Mike Huffington's husband:lol:
:oops:
I drew a blank on Huffington's first name, so I just wrote "Ariana Huffington's husband" and forgot to strike the "husband" bit after I found my brain.
Rywill
12-11-2003, 10:03 AM
Good thing nobody knows what the term "In place of" means. It's not like I quoted it or anything...
The point--not to restate something that's pretty obvious--is not whether real persons or artificial persons should have more or less right to political speech. It's whether having more money should allow more or less right to political speech. I say no. You apparently think yes. Whatever. I'll just disagree with you. In other words (sorry if this sounds condescending), the sentence I wrote that you partially quoted was just pointing out that if you let money be the only deciding factor, artificial persons will dominate because they have more money than individuals. Not that they should have less time, just that they should have equal time.
Actually, there are major problems with corporations buying political speech. They're using shareholder money to do it, and the shareholders may not agree with the political stance. I have the same problem with labor unions, btw.
People (bago is an obvious example) tend to forget that just b/c a corporation is defined as a person in some specific legal contexts, that doesn't make it a person with the full rights and responsibilities of a person.
PACs are different, of course, b/c you give money to a PAC for the express purpose of making a political statement. (But a corporation (or a labor union) shouldn't be able to donate to a PAC).
Gavin
Chris Nahr
12-11-2003, 12:43 PM
People (bago is an obvious example) tend to forget that just b/c a corporation is defined as a person in some specific legal contexts, that doesn't make it a person with the full rights and responsibilities of a person.
I agree, I can't see any good reason why an artificial person should be allowed any kind of political speech whatsoever. That's just a construct for the arbitration of civil contracts. Corporations aren't allowed to vote either, are they?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.