Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

TheDemSocialist said:

Spending money for a internet connection on or paying for a paper=speech?

Click to expand...

Paschendale said:

Spending money is an economic transaction. The act of communicating a message is speaking. You have the right to communicate a message. Buying something is not communicating a message, and regardless of what method you choose to use to communicate it, you're still communicating it. Even if certain methods are unavailable to you (like they are to every last one of us), other methods are available. Spending money is a wholly different thing than speaking.

In a nutshell, NO!

Click to expand...

You two seem to want to play word games. Well let's take a look at the Amendment in question.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Boy that covers a lot, did you notices the word "press"? We all know that no press will run without money, and in these times freedom of speech or the press usually requires money, so the answer is yes, SO TAKING THINGS IN THE CONTEXT PROBABLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE OTHER MEMBERS HERE.............YOU ARE BOTH WRONG. Money is part of the ability to express political ideas or opinion, which is what we're talking about.

Going down to the 7-11 and buying a Slurpee is not the spending we're talking about Pasch, and I think you know it. We're not talking about a financial transaction, we're talking about the ability or access to the ability to express our opinions.

newpublius said:

'free' doesn't mean without cost to you, it means free from government restraint. You're conflating the two different senses of the word.

Click to expand...

I take it in every sense. Nothing in the Constitution gives even an inkling that you should have to pay for the privilege.

TheDemSocialist said:

We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do but I also think a vulnerability in our system of electing government officials is outcomes can be unduly influenced when interests with huge amounts of money have the ability to speak louder, to more people and thus have greater influence in determining election outcomes than people with less money. IMHO:

- This is the reason we have campaign finance laws.
- The superpac model is a campaign finance law loophole that would otherwise addresses this imbalance
- It also gives undue influence to foreign nationals in American elections
- It is a problem that our founding fathers did not anticipate
- Many of the people who hold strong opinions on this are throwing principle out the window and only hold their opinions because it presently helps their side

ChezC3 said:

I take it in every sense. Nothing in the Constitution gives even an inkling that you should have to pay for the privilege.

Click to expand...

What????????
You're really stretching to make a case for your side with that post. just sayin'....

Paschendale said:

Spending money is an economic transaction. The act of communicating a message is speaking. You have the right to communicate a message. Buying something is not communicating a message, and regardless of what method you choose to use to communicate it, you're still communicating it. Even if certain methods are unavailable to you (like they are to every last one of us), other methods are available. Spending money is a wholly different thing than speaking.

In a nutshell, NO!

Click to expand...

All that is true except that there is an obvious and trackable trail of what you bought...and that does add up to information...a message.

And we already know that that message is used....one example is a grocery shopping card. You get discounts and they get info on what you purchase and make decisions based on those....but they include more than just the item and $$...they include your demographic info and address, etc.

BTW this is just a generic post that could have gone to anyone in the thread but I liked your response.

Meister said:

What????????
You're really stretching to make a case for your side with that post. just sayin'....

Click to expand...

For my side eh? LOL...

Citizens United was a horrendous decision which put the US stamp of approval for commodifying free speech which means you have to pay to play. The Constitution gives no clause for this. It isn't a stretch, it is precise in that when you start commodifying our rights than you are going to have a situation where you're only allowed to exercise your rights if you can afford to. There is already an imbalance in our judicial system in this regard. Supporting something like this only compounds it.

TheDemSocialist said:

We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?

Click to expand...

The concept of "speech" in the original constitution is now being defined as "freedom of expression".

If you begin with the idea that spending money on advertising is an extension of free speech, then obviously spending money is a form of expression. The same would thne apply if you were buying your wife a Cadillac to show your undying love or need for massive forgiveness.

Buying another company and breaking into little pieces and firing the workers would also be a form of expression, however most advanced societies see the expression of unvarnished greed as kind of ugly.

TheDemSocialist said:

We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?

Click to expand...

No. Speech is what you say, write, etc. Speech does not require money. Money only facilitates wider distribution of your speech.

radcen said:

No. Speech is what you say, write, etc. Speech does not require money. Money only facilitates wider distribution of your speech.

Click to expand...

Speech sends a message. You send a message when you send....both implicit and explicit.

I havent had time to read the entire thread yet but it's an interesting topic to explore.

Neomalthusian said:

Speech is an expression of ideas. People can express ideas with their own vocal chords, or they can do so using their vocal chords through a loud speaker, or they can write their ideas, and they can pay to print the written expression of ideas in various places, or they can express the ideas in any of a wide variety and combination of ways.

Some of the ways in which a person can express his/her ideas cost money to be able to express them the way they want. There is not a legitimate reason to infringe upon their ability to express ideas, nor any legitimate way to say they can't spend their own money expressing their ideas.

If our people in general are so utterly brainless that they believe whatever propaganda they see on a TV commercial, then we're screwed in any case, and not because people are allowed to express ideas, but because people who hear those ideas are so stupid that they don't think critically about them.

We need a populace that thinks critically and investigates the truthfulness of dubious claims they hear from people with an agenda. We don't need to protect the populace from ideas based on the assumption that they can't think critically about them. That would just mean that someone is appointed censor over the society, which is just as bad and for all the same reasons.

Click to expand...

Paschendale said:

Spending money is an economic transaction. The act of communicating a message is speaking. You have the right to communicate a message. Buying something is not communicating a message, and regardless of what method you choose to use to communicate it, you're still communicating it. Even if certain methods are unavailable to you (like they are to every last one of us), other methods are available. Spending money is a wholly different thing than speaking.

In a nutshell, NO!

Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

The problem with the ruling behind Citizens United is that "the people's right to peacefully assemble" to have their grievances heard has been co-opted moreso by the wealthy rather than the common man. Moreover, it's not grievances that PACs and SuperPACs are addressing. It's putting forward their campaign message for or against a particular candidate or political party. And when a singular or collective economic force is able to spread a message far and wide across multiple media platforms in such a way that the voice(s) of the opposition is effectively drowned out, it really means that ONE VOICE is being heard at a price tag no one else can possible compete with. No greater evidence of how such drowning out occurred than with the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary when it came down to Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in Florida. Newt just could not compete because his media war chest had run dry, whereas, Mitt had plenty of money to burn...and burn Newt he did.

Now, the counter argument is just because you have millions to spend on political advertising doesn't mean you'll win. Such was the case here in AL. But with no ceiling on the limit to campaign contributions, it's unlikely that candidates with small advertising budgets will come out victorious more often than candidates with deep pockets and/or heavy financial backers.

The other argument, of course, is people have the right to donate money to any candidate they want which is true. But that's part of the problem where "corporations" are wrongfully equated as "people" and "assembly" is passed on to equate to "like-minded people under a political for-profit or non-profit entity" instead of a public gathering. IMO, if people want to assemble for a specific cause to have their grievances heard and a corporation wishes to sponsor the gathering, then the corporation should do so with the knowledge that they get the same benefit every other corporation would receive for their public relations effort - a tax write-off. Otherwise, you don't pure money into a for-/non-profit "corporation" for the sole purpose of political advertising then call it "assembly" and plant such under the guise of "free speech".

Neomalthusian said:

There is no way to enforce equality in the advertising of ideas. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with equality of expression. It has to do with government not being able to muzzle dissent, and having a responsibility to make sure people aren't muzzling each other.

Click to expand...

The current situation with some candidates and advocates able to buy large amounts of advertising and driving up the cost, and others unable to afford to do so is an example of people muzzling each other. I don't advocate any censorship, only for providing more free and low cost opportunities for candidates and advocates to get their message out to the voters effectively.

Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

Click to expand...

no.

it is absolutely the role and responsibility of government to regulate the campaign finance system and to shine a light on who is donating, the organizations that they are donating to, and exactly what is being done with that money. this should all be easily accessible public knowledge. otherwise, you get a shadowy system of purchasing preferential legislation, as we have now.

ecofarm said:

I buy organic when I can. It's an expression of my beliefs.

Click to expand...

But you are the only person who knows this
Speaking to yourself doesnt count.

dogtowner said:

But you are the only person who knows this
Speaking to yourself doesnt count.

Click to expand...

I'm speaking to the people in the marketplace, not myself. I'd only be speaking to myself if I purchased the products from myself, after having grown and processed them myself.

What someone purchases is a reflection of their values and beliefs. It's an expression of those values and beliefs.

My attempt to manipulate the market towards goods and services that I support is without any ****ing doubt activist expression.

Helix said:

no.

it is absolutely the role and responsibility of government to regulate the campaign finance system and to shine a light on who is donating, the organizations that they are donating to, and exactly what is being done with that money. this should all be easily accessible public knowledge. otherwise, you get a shadowy system of purchasing preferential legislation, as we have now.

Click to expand...

This implies all avail themselves of this information. Hardly anyone does. Thats a lot of tax dollars spent to little effect.

dogtowner said:

This implies all avail themselves of this information. Hardly anyone does. Thats a lot of tax dollars spent to little effect.

Click to expand...

i'm saying that every cent of it should be on the public record. we deserve to know who is buying what, because we're the ones who have to deal with the results of the purchase.

dogtowner said:

This implies all avail themselves of this information. Hardly anyone does. Thats a lot of tax dollars spent to little effect.

Click to expand...

Pick up a rock and the creatures living under it scurry away....for awhile.

Helix said:

no.

it is absolutely the role and responsibility of government to regulate the campaign finance system and to shine a light on who is donating, the organizations that they are donating to, and exactly what is being done with that money. this should all be easily accessible public knowledge. otherwise, you get a shadowy system of purchasing preferential legislation, as we have now.

Click to expand...

The disclosure requirements were upheld.

newpublius said:

The disclosure requirements were upheld.

Click to expand...

the "disclosure requirements" are woefully insufficient.

Helix said:

the "disclosure requirements" are woefully insufficient.

Click to expand...

That's up to Congress. The Supreme Court can't tell Congress to bolster disclosure requirements, it can only uphold those enacted.

RGacky3 said:

No because the government cannot infringe on freedom of speach.

Nor can they dictate what you do With Your time.

THey CAN however, regulate Commerce.

Click to expand...

There are many laws saying what we can't do with our time.

Hard Truth said:

The current situation with some candidates and advocates able to buy large amounts of advertising and driving up the cost, and others unable to afford to do so is an example of people muzzling each other. I don't advocate any censorship, only for providing more free and low cost opportunities for candidates and advocates to get their message out to the voters effectively.

Click to expand...

I agree that, especially nowadays with the internet, there should be easy and cheap ways for outspent candidates to nonetheless widely communicate to their voters what they're about. No one should be getting their candidate information from advertisements anyway. Campaign ads are by and large pure unadulterated garbage. Not the least bit convincing or intelligent. And if we as a people are too stupid to turn off the ****ing TV and investigate candidates directly and intentionally, then how is Congress going to save us from that?

Up here for example, I do not favor Mark Begich at all, his politics or his party, never have had any intention of voting for him, but it's clear there are some enormous, national-level pots of money fueling the incessant deluge of propaganda ads about him to take him down. Every single YouTube video you watch within Alaska's boundaries right now starts with a 15-20 second hit piece on Begich. Every single one. Not so much having anything to do with Begich, but just because his seat in Congress is valuable to some very powerful and rich people somewhere. Does that make me want to vote for Begich's main opponent? No. The obnoxious ads make me more skeptical of his opponent than if there were no such ads.

The ads should be completely ineffective at swaying public opinion. They certainly are for me. It's so easy to just get online and find non-biased or at least significantly less-biased analyses of candidates' positions, voting records, etc.

I don't think we can trust federal politicians to write laws that protect people from their own utter ignorance. It's up to them to not be ignorant. And if you're letting a TV ad convince you who gets your vote, you're ignorant, and your ignorance weakens the country -- no way around it. The answer to Citizens United and Congressional corruption is not to ask Congress to police how people are spending money to fund their own campaigns. The answer is for the American people to use the tools at the fingertips and do their own homework and stop being idiots. If we can't figure out how to stop being idiots, then we deserve all the corruption and bad leadership that's in store for us.

mpg said:

There are many laws saying what we can't do with our time.

Click to expand...

Yes, if you make something a legal crime, you cna't use Your time to do that ....

RGacky3 said:

Yes, if you make something a legal crime, you cna't use Your time to do that ....

Click to expand...

So the government can regulate what we do with our time, the same as they can regulate what we do with our money. Therefore they can limit the amount of time that we spend talking about politics, as easily as they can limit the amount of money we spend talking about politics.