What campaign? I don’t like the what the Sheriff is doing with my case. If people choose to vote against him because of that, that’s up to them. I just want my case to be looked at. Since I am not contributing to a campaign of any kind I don’t know why my contributions should be limited.
Sure. I’m talking about expenditures on behalf of the campaign. Talk all you want.
Then it’s not a poltiical contribution. I think I’ve said that, but if not, I’m saying it now.
But all talk involves an expenditure of some kind. Minimally, it involves my time, which is worth money.
But let’s limit ourselves to other types of expression.
Can i make a sign? It costs money to do so. Can i print flyers and hand them out?
Can i make a website?
Here is part of the problem. There is almost nothing you can do which will get the FEC to take action against you today, and a most of why SuperPAC “coordination” enforcement has no teeth. If you want the FEC to be an active and effective check on ANY misbehavior, then it needs to be reconstituted completely.
I’m happy to excuse time. Spend all your time on campaigns, the law doesn’t care.
Make a sign? Sure. Run a TV ad in every major broadcast market 60 days before an election? No, that’s a campaign contribution. You can do it, but you have to comply with the contribution limits. So you and 100,000 of your like-minded friends give your maximum contribution to a PAC or a campaign and they run the ad. The point is to make individual contribution limits work the way they are supposed to. So, pick some reasonable limit and some reasonable expenditure threshold and everyone lives with it. Only individuals have political speech rights, but they can donate theirs to collective effort if they want. It isn’t that hard. Sure, we’ll argue about the thresholds, and there will be fringe examples, but that’s how the law works.
The reason why this plan would never work is this is not hard to do. I can work against someone or for someone and easily claim I am not doing either. Maybe it’s true. Maybe i am just a grieving mom who wants my daughter’s case to be heard and presumably solved, or maybe I just found a weakness and advertised it, or maybe it’s all just made-up.
There’s no way we have the capacity to look into this sort of thing, all the time. I also don’t need a corporation or a PAC to get money to spend on any thing I am passionate about. Sometimes it just starts with two people, some money, and an idea.
I’d be more in favor of a short election season than anything else but there is nothing stopping someone like Trump from turning his political rallies into celebrations or whatever other word he wants to give it.
And before you say, well other countries do it… yeah, yeah they do, but they don’t have Freedom of Speech as a right like we do. For good or ill, that is not a minor difference.
And what about the website? Can i do that?
What is i own a media outlet. Can i cover the campaign rallies of candidates?
What if I organize a public protest about something? Can i do that? Or an i not allowed to if it’s near an election?
What if I’m on TV for some reason? Am i allowed to say things, despite those things being broadcast to millions of people?
If I’m in the NFL, am i allowed to kneel in protest of political situation in our country, or do i need to stop doing that if it’s near an election?
Asked and answered. Establish a threshold and then figure out where the web site sits vs. that threshold.
Sure, why not?
Sure, why not?
Maybe it would help to address what I’m proposing rather than offer examples that I’m not proposing, or that I’ve already answered. I get that you don’t like the proposal, but address it rather than that dislike.
So I can make a website to express my views, but only if a limited number of people view it? So i can speak, but not to too many people?
What if i make the site, but then it goes viral during an election period, and suddenly gets tons of hits? Do i have to take it down?
Because in covering a rally, i am essentially giving that candidate airtime. I am helping them to get their message to the public, just like in a campaign ad.
Further, i can use editorial control to decide what events i cover and what events i don’t.
So, you’re saying that if i don’t own a media outlet, i can only speak to X number of people… But if i own a media outlet, then i can speak to as many people as i want. What exactly is the difference that justifies that difference in rights of expression?
But that organization is going to involve communicating a message to potentially millions of people. It’s going to cost tons of money.Why would that be ok? You just said that i can’t do that if it talks to more than a fixed number, or costs more than some amount.
And again, what if I’m a famous actor on TV? Or an NFL player? I get covered by the media. Am i allowed to speak about political things? My audience will be way larger than you limited previously. How does that work?
Are you really interested in this conversation?
No, I’d say it’s a function of what you spend on it, not how many people you reach.
Yes. Also if you run a newspaper, etc.
I explicitly said you can talk to any number of people you want.
Again, it’s a function of now much money you spend organizing the rally.
When did I limit your audience?
Oh, ok, so i can have a cheap website, but not an expensive one.
What about if that sure exists prior to the election? Do i have to take my website down just prior to the election?
What about web sites made by non Americans? Since we can’t really stop then from making websites, are we going to shut down the internet traffic outside of the country during elections?
Or are we only going to limit the political speech of Americans during elections?
So if I’m a news paper, or i own a media outlet, or I’m famous, then i can express myself publicly as much as i want.
But normal people can’t.
But a website also can’t. What if it’s a website by a news paper? What if it’s just a really bad media outlet? Like, Breitbart. Can they express any views they want?
Can i just say I’m a newspaper, and then publish whatever i want?
It sounds like Scott’s idea is to have the FEC backed up by judges decide what is news coverage by a legitimate media organization and what is prohibited electioneering. I’m sure that will turn out well.
What could possibly go wrong? These rules seem so simple.
‘It sounds like’ is code for I’m going to make something up now.
So simple that they were the law of the land from 1971 until 2010. So, maybe not so complicated as you’d like to make them out to be.
No man, they didn’t do things like you are suggesting. They didn’t prevent you from creating websites.
And you didn’t address any of those issues i asked you about. How are you going to deal with foreign websites? Shut down the internet? Or only limit the speech of Americans? Which is it?
This is why your plan doesn’t work. There’s no coherent, consistent application of rules that achieves what you want.
It does rely on us trusting the judicial branch and the government, something that I think Timex is loathe to do. But keep in mind, the Judicial Branch has been one of the few branches of government to check the President, especially on issues to do with immigrants, but also on the ACA and payments.
Anyway, before Citizens United, what was the system that was in place? How was it regulated? Perhaps some could explain how that system worked?
As @CraigM said, I’m in favor of anything that reduces the power of large donors and money in campaigns and I’m in favor of reducing annoying political advertising that does nothing more than create voter apathy and disengages people.
Limiting the amount you can contribute reduce the power of individuals in favor of groups of people. Rather than have 1 person shell out millions, we limit it to 1 person shelling out hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars. That way, candidates will be beholden to large groups of people instead of individuals. And the larger that group is, the more it will represent the will of the people.
Again, that does require having a minimum level of faith in both our government and our people, something that currently is at an all time low. Sadly, that lack of faith will probably be the ultimate downfall of our nation.
Foreign websites that try to influence an election is illegal. I thought we knew that already, or are you just trying to score points right now?
lol you think this?
What happens if someone publishes a website that espouses political views? Cause that ain’t illegal for anyone.
And certainly, you couldn’t actually DO anything to stop websites in other countries from simply saying things.
Like, someone in England makes a website that says “Trump’s a monster!”
What happens?