Timex
4982
The reason that speech is limited in the cases you describe there is that they are not considered to be protected since they aren’t really an expression of a political opinion. It’s not simply because they can potentially be considered harmful. Things like racist speech can be considered harmful, but it is still protected because it represents an expression of an opinion.
You are taking about specifically trying to prevent people from expressing a political opinion.
And what becomes problematic about such a position, is figuring out where such a limit can be drawn. But how exactly are you able to say that I shouldn’t be allowed to express my support for a person? Or my opposition to a person? I can’t go out and buy an ad where I say I don’t like someone? Can i just go up to people and tell them that? Can I go door to door and tell people? Can I rent an auditorium and tell people? What if the news covers me telling people? What if I am a writer for a newspaper? Am I still allowed to express my opinion? What if I OWN a newspaper? Am I allowed to use my influence to choose stories that only support my position or candidate?
The problem your position runs into, is that you quickly realize that there is no clear point where a limit can be placed.
Speech is either protected or not based upon whether it constitutes an expression of a political opinion, not based on how effectively you express it.
You know what fixes a lot of this mess? Public funding of these campaigns.
Pedantic point: I think the restrictions go on when it’s commerce, actually, rather than freedom being granted when it’s politics or PSA’s. Aside from that, I agree.
If money is speech though, how do you restrict other parties from weighing in?
I just saw this on my Twitter.
Still working this one over in my head, lol.
Thraeg
4987
This is a classic fallacy of the beard. The difficulty of agreeing where the exact boundary should be placed doesn’t mean that it’s inherently futile to pick SOME boundary short of the extreme of allowing everything.
Personally, I’d be fine with a line that just cracks down on the transfer of large amounts of money to PACs, even if rich people could still, as individuals, engage in any of the behaviors you cite. Even if it doesn’t reach the utopian ideal of equalizing opposing voices, it curbs the worst abuses of the current system.
magnet
4988
There’s a clever way around this (I forget who came up with it):
-
Ban contributions to elected officials. Or more accurately, elected officials who accept a contribution lose their job immediately. This is in keeping with many other current restrictions placed on government employees regarding speech, gifts, etc to prevent conflicts of interest.
-
Challengers can raise or spend as much money as they want. But they must report their spending to the election commission.
-
For every dollar spent against an incumbent, the government gives the incumbent one matching dollar to spend on the election.
In short, challengers have unlimited free speech, whereas incumbents can only use public funds. But the two are always perfectly matched, so neither gets an unfair advantage. And donors are left pondering: how can you “buy” a politician who has no use for you once in power?
Not everyone buys into that line of thinking. Money is a megaphone, but it is not inherently speech itself.
Timex
4991
From watching all the coverage, there are a number of folks who show up repeatedly.
One of these people is Hugh Hewitt.
Hugh Hewitt, with his normal face, looks pretty normal.
But then he smiles, and its like his human disguise almost falls off.
This isn’t even remotely the most creepy I’ve seen him.
I wonder how he would look in the “They Live” Sunglasses…
Seattle just did exactly that in the last election. We’ll let you know how it plays out, but I can’t imagine the results will be anything other than good for democracy.
Hard for me to be objective on Rubio - he’s a Tea Party Republican wrapped with a bow. But since American politics values style over substance*, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised he’s the darling of the punditry class. Anyway, he will likely place at least 2nd here and before long become the clear front runner unless somehow he falls apart at Saturday’s debate. I’ve seen some of Kasich’s town halls, and he seems positively human compared against the field - Bush too, for that matter. I think they both do better than expected, but I don’t know if it’s enough to overcome the heard mentality. On the Dem side of things, I think Bernie will not do as well as some of the polls suggest, with Clinton probably closing the gap to something less than a 10% margin. (On a side note we attended a Sanders rally and were asked to be part of the folks on stage. Interesting, but only seeing the back of his head the entire time suggested might not have been the best choice to agree.)
I think it’s useful in painting a framework with broad strokes. (I find the social sciences kind of ‘fuzzy’; in college I always viewed psych and sociology as having ‘hard science’ envy, but they’re not entirely without merit.) The grouping also largely dovetails with how I view the candidates, e.g. how close Cruz and Rubio are, and which group of voters might fall into the ‘swing’ category. It’s also revealing just how low across the spectrum Republicans score on the Care scale.
Marco Rubio is running a presidential campaign marked by precision, caution and discipline – so much so that the Florida senator delivers the exact same speech, jokes, quips and one-liners wherever he goes.
When he addresses the media, his aides select the reporters who can ask questions, often shutting down follow-ups. During media interviews and presidential debates, Rubio is quick to fall back on the same script that he often delivers before GOP audiences in New Hampshire and Iowa.
His campaign makes sure every room is packed. Lately, that’s because an overflow audience is interested in hearing from the surging candidate. But other times his aides have cut the room in half with drapes, ensuring it’s a standing-room-only crowd.
Tim_N
4995
So a poll from PPP (D) of 517 likely voters from 2/2-2/3 had (nationwide) Clinton at 53 and Sanders at 32. Now, a poll from Quinnipiac from of 484 registered voters from 2/2-2/4 has Clinton at 44 and Sanders at 42. You expect them to be noisy but wow! That 2/4 day must have changed a lot of minds.
Timex
4996
Hard for me to be objective on Rubio - he’s a Tea Party Republican wrapped with a bow.
Rubios record is quite conservative, but the term tea party conservative is pretty broad. For instance, I think there are fairly stark differences between Rubio and Cruz. Rubio doesn’t want to shut down the government, or cause defaults, for instance. Rubio doesn’t hate immigrants.
They’re both terrible, just in different ways.
We have public funding for the Presidential campaign, which everybody used in the general election until Barrack Obama opted out in 2008. I was astonished to hear Bernie Sanders say during the last debate, that he had opted out of the system. Especially because the system was designed to encourage exactly the type of contributions Bernie has received millions of small donations.
I don’t know if I should be upset with Bernie for ignoring his principals when they clash with practically or pleased to know that he is pragmatic enough to ignore them.
How does public financing work in the Presidential? IOW can a candidate still fundraise over the internet, or are they allowed only the public funds? If the latter that probably explains why he didn’t take it, as he can raise far more money from individual donors (at the average rate of 30 bucks, give or take.)
He supports canon law over constitutional law, is a young earth creationist, and a climate change denier. He’s also a neocon in terms of foreign policy, so I guess that separates him a bit from the Tea Party.
I view Bernie as fairly pragmatic across the board. That’s part of how he’s ascended to power with his moral principles fully intact. The two issues with campaign finance are whether candidates can even be competitive & whether they’re being bought. I think Bernie managed to win on both counts with his decision, which as far as I’m concerned makes it the right thing to do.
As for public campaign finance, while the Seattle system works a little differently, I was disappointed to learn that candidates can still opt out. It goes hand-in-hand with Citizens United, but I don’t think we’ll be able to disincentivize government by & only for the rich until there’s a legal requirement to give everyone an equal say, insofar as money counts as speech.
Even so, the Seattle system does a lot of the right things, and I expect at a city level it will be fairly effective.
