Liberals also say and do stupid shit

The status quo in 2010 was an incoherent mess and deserved to be replaced.

For those who are unaware, Citizen United started out because they thought Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 ought to be treated like a political advertisement against Bush. But instead, the FEC determined it was “art”. So CU basically started trolling the FEC with comparable documentaries, like Celsius 41.11. Which the FEC determined was not art, but a political advertisement. Because Moore had a more respectable history as a filmmaker. So CU churned out some more random work to establish a filmography. And the FEC found another pretext to dismiss them.

Timex has it right. Pre-CU, those who had an established voice (media owners, filmmakers) had a right to speak, and those who were used to listening (everyone else) had to shut up and listen. Great deal for the media elite (who prospered), but not so much for everyone else.

I can kind of understand how some folks may be so naive as to trust the government with the ability to silence political expression, under some other administration…

But NOW? With the current government?

How the fuck can you not see how incredibly terrible it would be for the guys in control of government now to be able to do things like arrest people for simply espousing political views?

I mean, normally, I’d say “Man, don’t support squashing freedom of expression, you’ll eventually be on the receiving end of that oppression!”

But now… I mean, jesus christ, you’d be on the receiving end of that oppression IMMEDIATELY.

The government had no qualms.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked, for instance, whether a campaign biography in book form could be banned. [Deputy Solicitor General] Stewart said yes …

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether it would make a difference if a 500-page book had a single sentence in it that said “vote for X.” Then he asked about “a sign held up in Lafayette Park saying vote for so and so.”

If corporate money were used to pay for the book or the sign, Mr. Stewart said, Congress would have the power to ban them before elections.

And that’s why Mr. Stewart lost that case.

The problem we have is lack of transparency, which Congress could easily rectify, but never will.

Scalia said posting lists of donors and contributions would be fine. Hell, he said we should do it.

Note how no one seems all gun-ho about doing anything of the sort.

Is this a serious question? US laws don’t apply to foreign websites. On the other hand, it is already a crime for foreign entities to (effectively) assist US political campaigns, so that problem isn’t a consequence of anything I’m proposing.

Corporate donations to campaigns were first regulated by the Tillman Act in 1907. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 made it illegal for unions to make indepependent expenditures on behalf of or in opposition to candidates, ostensibly to balance the strictures of the Tillman Act, which was still the law of the land.

Congress added more limits and reporting requirements with the FECA in 1971, and added personal independent spending limits in 1974. Both personal and corporation / union spending limits were struck down as overly broad in Buckley v Valeo in 1976. In its opinion the Court wrote that So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views. I (and everyone else) read this as the court stating that you could narrowly regulate independent expenditures which were clearly intended to benefit a candidate, but that the FECA didn’t do that properly.

That’s why McCain-Feingold tried to tackle the problem again, in 2001. Note their version of the prohibition on corporate independent spending was upheld by SCOTUS in 2003. It is only after the ideological composition of the court flipped with Souter’s departure that the law was overturned.

Every single law on the books relies on that.

In any event, I’m done with the topic, which should result in great rejoicing.

Yes, it’s a serious question, because it highlights how foolish your suggestion of censoring websites for expressing political views is.

Since your laws only apply to American websites, you are suggesting that we make laws that will limit the political speech of US citizens to a greater extent than they limit the speech of foreign actors.

You are suggesting that we censor websites that express political views.
No law ever did such a thing.
Because such a thing is, obviously, an unconstitutional limit on free speech.

So anyone heard the claim that 3 doctors saw protesters paid In cash To disrupt Brett Kavanaugh hearing? Its not on the big news networks, but it is on the right wing ones. I thought it might be legit fake news story, but I did a search and the Doctors do appear to be legitimate with facebook and medical presences. Not sure what to make of this one…but it does appear to be partisan left stupidity.

Eh… the fact that they are doctors doesn’t mean that they aren’t conspiracy theorist nutjobs.

EDIT:
Yeah, this dude is full of shit man.

Oh yeah, that’s totally how a paid protest would go down… have a bunch of folks get in line to the hearing, and then walk down the line with a big bag of money and pay them while they are in line.

Come on, jesus christ. The dude is obviously full of shit.

By Scott’s logic he should be arrested for what he’s posted in this forum. All of us should.
Especially Tom.

That’s where his road leads.

Unmitigated horseshit. I’ll have to add ‘by X’s logic’ to the list of phrases that signals the expression of a straw man.

Yeah, he doesn’t have an agenda at all.

You want to censor websites for expressing political opinions.
And that plan does not work, for obvious reasons, some of which have already been stated.

And your suggestion that we had laws that did this previously, is entirely false. We never had such laws. Because they would be so obviously unconstitutional.

The government cannot prevent you from making a website which expresses your political views.

Do you really not see why such a thing would be bad? I mean, I know you want to win this argument, but such a law would be OBVIOUSLY bad to you, right? You have to see that.

I do not.

This is what I am referring to. Perhaps you can clarify.

I think if you set out to help someone get elected with your money (rather than with your time or your speech) you’re engaging in making financial contributions to a campaign, and that there should be some limit to how much you can spend on that effort, because the absence of such a limit perverts democracy by giving the wealthy a greater voice and influence and impact on elections, and because it surely leads to tit for tat corruption by elected politicians.

A web site that expresses your political views need not run afoul of that restriction, unless it turns out that the web site serves no other purpose than to campaign for a particular candidate.

My view on this is not an unusual or controversial view in the historic scope of the country, because it was the prevailing view under the law for much of the 20th century. It is not the prevailing legal view now because courts have ruled against it. But in fact they ruled in favor of it before, too.

And that is my last word on it.

But that distinction means nothing.
For instance, saying that Trump sucks balls is totally a political viewpoint. But it could also totally have an impact on an election. You can’t reasonably restrict my ability to express that viewpoint.

And the examples I gave highlight how totally absurd such a rule would be, even apart from how it’s obviously infringing upon my right to express myself. Because it would mean that I as an American citizen couldn’t express that opinion, but someone in another country totally could, which is directly opposing the stated goals of your proposed laws.

You keep saying this. It’s not remotely true.

At no point was it illegal for me to express my political opinions in the public sector. And it was done every day in print and on TV.

Now if one of the doctors was a PhD from Texas with interesting ideas about race and immigration THEN maybe you’d have something.

Actually it’s those restrictions on political campaigning that disappear under the slightest scrutiny.

I actually kind of agree with both sides here - I think there should be restrictions on political advertising, and I think that would be a clear breach of the 1st amendment. In places without a 1st amendment broadcast media has generally been more tightly regulated, and this does seem to have helped a lot. However with the rise of the internet that regulation has become less effective at containing demagoguery. Can the government effectively regulate internet speech? Can they do so without chilling effects on free speech generally? I don’t think so.

At the end of the day I’m more worried, globally, about the threats to free speech than the threat from corporate over-representation in political influence. @legowarrior thinks he’s opposing Putin - but on this issue he sounds more like an authoritarian left winger of the type Putin loves to fund.

In the UK making signs, printing flyers etc. is all regulated as a campaign expense during the campaign period. Volunteer’s time is not accounted for.

This shifts ability to influence elections from well funded parties and corporations to the news media and large grassroots organisations staffed by able bodied people with free time.

Right now, in the UK, I’d say that’s a net win; but it kind of bears out the point you and Nesrie are making.