View Poll Results: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 38.16%
  • No

    43 56.58%
  • Other

    4 5.26%
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 129

Thread: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

  1. #21
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,972
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Money itself is not speech. But it's necessary TO exercise speech many times.


    I think the real issue not yet mentioned is....corporations....aren't ducking people.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  2. #22
    Educator newpublius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Riverdale, NJ
    Last Seen
    10-03-17 @ 08:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    714

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    If your objecting is that separating money from speech will lead to massive censorship... well then you're just making up nonsense.
    Well, that's funny because that's actually what the Citizens United case was, they're a corporate entity (to be precise a 501(c)(4)), they made a movie and in that movie they lambasted Hillary Clinton and the bottom line is that the FEC would've blocked that as an excessive contribution within whatever statutory window Congress determined. Same thing applied to Dog Eat Dog, Inc.'s Fahrenheit 9/11 which actually spent more money and they had to agree not to advertise the movie within, I think, a 60 day window of the election (or maybe July 31st?). With respect to 'massive' censorship, that would simply be the government's prerogative. For sure, massive corporate media giants like Fox, MSNBC, etc, etc had what the FEC called the 'press exception'

    It was Moore's express intent to alter the outcome of the election to unseat Bush, and the government's regulation absolutely muted his voice at least in some manner by preventing advertising in the more critical time period just before the election. Citizens United actually brought the complaint to the FEC and was inspired by the tactic which is obvious, that the movie was playing 'double duty' as a movie and an electioneering communication. And so Citizens United emulated the tactic.

    Which of course brings us back to your acknowledgment of the actual fallacy I exposed:

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Um... I suppose it could... with a compelling reason. But I can't imagine their being such a reason and in the face of its true purpose of keeping the NY Times from publishing, that would be unconstitutional interference.
    "Money isn't speech" but the consequences of that doctrine as applied to the NY Times are obviously unpalatable. So, the bottom line is that it exposes the raw underbelly of your doctrine which is that, in reality, you want to pick and choose who gets to spend money on speech activities. You're ok with the NY Times, but want to muzzle Citizens United.

    If you have evidence of a quid pro quo relationship, by all means, arrest them.

    ---------------------------------

    Moore was in a 'tight' spot of course, there was a veritable corporate keiretsu and affiliated entities, including PACs, infinitely more interested in ensuring the movie paid off, so for Moore to go into a fight with the FEC in Federal court wasn't really in his best financial interest of course. So naturally the release date was before the statutory window. But in reality, Moore should've said, "**** YOU, I DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO TELL THE WORLD GEORGE BUSH SUCKS" and sued them


    ---------------------------------

    So what about him? Did Dog Eat Dog, Inc. have the right to spend the money to make the movie and to advertise its release? Or not?
    Last edited by newpublius; 09-14-14 at 01:53 PM.

  3. #23
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?
    If people have a forum in which to communicate their ideas and a choice of forums, then the loss of one of those forums (money) does not necessarily constitute a loss of speech. However if that lost forum was the only available one then yet it does

    There's no real black and white

  4. #24
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    If you have evidence of a quid pro quo relationship, by all means, arrest them.
    If you think that corruption doesn't exist without a quid pro quo relationship, then you have no business in steering the political decisions of anything. And the most you have in your long rant is "grrr, librulz do it too!", which is meaningless to the overall topic. Spending money is an economic transaction, not speech. You don't need the government's permission to speak. But there are some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of your speech. This whole argument as relied on pro-corporate sycophants proclaiming that these two constitutionally supported maxims of law suddenly don't apply.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #25
    Advisor csense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    NE Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    329

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Speaking is speech. Writing is speech.
    So is art.

    All three are merely mediums for conveying an idea. It is interesting to note that the physical act of speaking and the printed word have language in common, while the third, art, does not. This means that language, also, is merely a medium, common as it is, for conveying an idea, and that idea does not necessarily need to be unambiguous, such as in art. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, although in most cases the transfer of money to another is not necessarily" speech," it can be.

  6. #26
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    I believe the citizenry should be free to use their money, including collectively, to exercise free speech about politics in a manner where other citizens can hear it (ie electronic media).

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #27
    Educator newpublius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Riverdale, NJ
    Last Seen
    10-03-17 @ 08:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    714

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    If you think that corruption doesn't exist without a quid pro quo relationship, then you have no business in steering the political decisions of anything. And the most you have in your long rant is "grrr, librulz do it too!", which is meaningless to the overall topic. Spending money is an economic transaction, not speech. You don't need the government's permission to speak. But there are some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of your speech. This whole argument as relied on pro-corporate sycophants proclaiming that these two constitutionally supported maxims of law suddenly don't apply.
    No, I was quite clear. You want the NY times but not citizens united. You can't pick and choose. Its all or none. The government is not permitted to pick and choose who can and who can't be in the press. My position isn't " liberals do it too" __ my position is that they (liberals) obviously should be able to do it, but that obviously its both or none, not some to the exclusion of others.
    Last edited by newpublius; 09-14-14 at 04:21 PM.

  8. #28
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,106

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?
    Ever publish a book? That requires a means of common exchange in order to secure goods and services .



    Which is why, during the Citizens United hearing, the Government declared that it had the right to ban books.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    It can be. In today's world, one needs to be famous and/or important to be heard in the mass media, which is most people's only source of information. Buying a sufficient number of advertisements or organizing a major demonstration, both of which require spending a significant amount of money, are the only other non-violent ways to be heard. Advertisements from organizations, such as labor unions, that have widespread grass roots support and are primarilly funded by modest donations from a large number of individuals, are an excellent example of democracy and free expression in action. The problem is that effective political advertising, especially advocacy for national issues, is primarilly available only to the rich, large corporations and the largest organizations.

    The ACLU and I disagree with most liberals regarding Citizens United. I don't think that suppressing funding and spending for political speech is consistent with the first amendment or likely to be effective. It will not be effective because well funded political interests will always be able to find a way to get their message out. I also oppose government funding of political campaigns because it escalates the steady increase in campaign spending.

    In my view the best way to even the political playing field between wealthy and non-wealthy interests is to provide free or affordable accesss to mass media to all interest groups, especially the less wealthy ones. The government can not, and should not, control the media. But the government does have the right and obligation to regulate broadcasters who profit handsomely from using a limited public resource (the airwaves). Broadcasters should be required to air political debates and candidate statements with all candidates on the ballot and guest editorials. Broadcasters should be required to air that content frequently and during a variety of times, including during prime time.

    In addition, governments can stage public candidate debates with all candidates on the ballot that will attract mass media interest. They can expand voter information pamphlets to include more in-depth information from all sides regarding candidates and ballot measures, some of that cost can be offset with modest fees for additional space. The government can also buy space in the major non-broadcast media outlets for information/advocacy on candidates or issues from all sides. With imagination and a reasonable amount of funding, government can insure that all candidates and all sides of issues can be effectively presented to the public.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

    ACLU position on Citizens United

    "....We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

    At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

    In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

    Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

    Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

    It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

    Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment...."
    https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/acl...itizens-united

    I disagree with the ACLU regarding public financing, but I strongly agree with the principal that "..the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy..."

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •