In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents

A new poll shows that the public is disgusted at the Supreme Court ruling which allows unlimited money, by ANY entity, to be used in campaign financing.

Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed.


Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.



Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.


The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

Click to expand...

Here is the way I see it:

1) There is a reason that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life - To prevent a tyranny by the majority.

2) Yes, this decision is very unpopular.

So here is MY solution to the problem:

Let the money flow all it wants to. The Supreme Court is right. Now, Democrats cannot cut off corporate funding of Republican campaigns. Republicans cannot cut off union funding of Democratic campaigns. Every corporation will be balanced by union, which will be balanced by a Rupert Murdoch, which will be balanced by a George Soros, which will be balanced by a CEO, which will be balanced by a....... OK, do you see where I am going with this?

I would only stipulate one thing - All contributions must be in the open, so everybody can see where a particular campaign is getting its money from. Is is truly grass roots, or are there think tanks, corporations, or unions behind all that money? The public has a right to know. Other than that, let the money flow, and let the public know which candidate has a tiger in his tank, and which candidate looks for the union money, as well as the union label. In the end, you will have 2 sources of meaningless white noise, one from the right, and one from the left, and people will become so disgusted that they will begin looking at the picture instead of the white noise. The picture, of course, contains the actual issues. Isn't is up to the people to look at the picture instead of the caca del toro, anyways?

Discussion?

Article is here.

I think it is a mistake to look at this in terms of which group benefits most or even in terms of balance. I would disagree with this even if I felt it gave me and my views an advantage. That's not what this is about.

To me, this is a free speech issue. I see free speech as a zero sum game where the increased speech of one group can very easily drown out and eliminate the speech of another. The practical effect of this is that it gives certain people more speech rights than other people, which harms the nation.

Because of that, I see this ruling as harmful to the free speech principal and to the population.

megaprogman said:

I think it is a mistake to look at this in terms of which group benefits most or even in terms of balance. I would disagree with this even if I felt it gave me and my views an advantage. That's not what this is about.

To me, this is a free speech issue. I see free speech as a zero sum game where the increased speech of one group can very easily drown out and eliminate the speech of another. The practical effect of this is that it gives certain people more speech rights than other people, which harms the nation.

Because of that, I see this ruling as harmful to the free speech principal and to the population.

Click to expand...

i never thought of it that way. good point.

So when Thomas Paine coined Common Sense, he wasn't actually increasing liberty but reducing it?

If the only criteria is that it is "bad" if people use their rights "more" than others, then it's only logical to conclude that Paine's ability to write pamphlets was eliminating other individual's freedoms because they could not write their own pamphlets. Indeed, under the past caimpaign finance "reform," both The Federalist and Common Sense would not have been able to be published. Both recieved unlimited funds, and were published anonymously.

Ah, irony.

Areopagitican said:

So when Thomas Paine coined Common Sense, he wasn't actually increasing liberty but reducing it?

If the only criteria is that it is "bad" if people use their rights "more" than others, then it's only logical to conclude that Paine's ability to write pamphlets was eliminating other individual's freedoms because they could not write their own pamphlets. Indeed, under the past caimpaign finance "reform," both The Federalist and Common Sense would not have been able to be published. Both recieved unlimited funds, and were published anonymously.

Ah, irony.

Click to expand...

i have to say, the entity/person with the most money should never have the most power sway. i believe all campaigns should be financed equally with taxpayer dollars only.

Areopagitican said:

So when Thomas Paine coined Common Sense, he wasn't actually increasing liberty but reducing it?

If the only criteria is that it is "bad" if people use their rights "more" than others, then it's only logical to conclude that Paine's ability to write pamphlets was eliminating other individual's freedoms because they could not write their own pamphlets. Indeed, under the past caimpaign finance "reform," both The Federalist and Common Sense would not have been able to be published. Both recieved unlimited funds, and were published anonymously.

Ah, irony.

Click to expand...

The fact you are using terms like bad and good means you are missing my point. My concern is that every citizen has a voice, not which citizens have a voice. Trying to determine the best speakers would also violate the speech principal and you are right, it would be ironic.

For me this is an issue of where the ideals hit practical reality. If Thomas Paine's work, in competition with a number of different view points had to compete for shelf space at the local book store with limited space and he won out because he was able to hire a majority of the presses which created a shortage of other works, than yes it would be harming speech by limiting the range of ideas that are presented to the public.

If the pamphlets are handed out on the street corner and there are plenty of street corners to go around for other people with other ideas, than no it wouldn't have the effect of harming speech.

The point is not that there are unequal means in distribution, but that there is only so much space in the distribution channels and the interaction between those means and a limited space for presentation does create problems because of a crowding effect. Right now, I think we are at a saturation point where the practical effects of distribution have to be considered as a part of the right.

For me, it is not enough to point to the constitution and say "we have a right" it has to be usable in practice for it to mean anything.

What of corporations that are controlled by foreigners?

I believe the US limits political contributions by foreign nationals

But how would that work with corporations incorporated in the US?


Would Hummer (had it been bought by the Chinese) have been able to make contributions to Sarah Palin's presidential bid?

Would Toyota be able to make contributions to various democratic campaigns

Lord Tammerlain said:

What of corporations that are controlled by foreigners?

I believe the US limits political contributions by foreign nationals

But how would that work with corporations incorporated in the US?


Would Hummer (had it been bought by the Chinese) have been able to make contributions to Sarah Palin's presidential bid?

Would Toyota be able to make contributions to various democratic campaigns

Click to expand...

This is a question I asked on this thread. I don't think the matter has been decided by the courts though. My hope is that they ban all political speech for corps that are not 100% owned by US Citizens (I know this would catch all publicly traded companies, but I think that's fine)

megaprogman said:

I think it is a mistake to look at this in terms of which group benefits most or even in terms of balance. I would disagree with this even if I felt it gave me and my views an advantage. That's not what this is about.

To me, this is a free speech issue. I see free speech as a zero sum game where the increased speech of one group can very easily drown out and eliminate the speech of another. The practical effect of this is that it gives certain people more speech rights than other people, which harms the nation.

Because of that, I see this ruling as harmful to the free speech principal and to the population.

Click to expand...

That can be used against democratic voting as well.
Be careful what you wish for.

Harry Guerrilla said:

That can be used against democratic voting as well.
Be careful what you wish for.

Click to expand...

How so?

dfffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

megaprogman said:

How so?

dfffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Click to expand...

The majority of voters exclude all others giving themselves more free speech rights than the people that are excluded.

Should they be treated in the same manner as moneyed corporations?

Harry Guerrilla said:

The majority of voters exclude all others giving themselves more free speech rights than the people that are excluded.

Should they be treated in the same manner as moneyed corporations?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is true. The main parties do crowd out the others

However, I think this could be solved by public campaign finance. However, we have to be practical at some point and realize that there has to be a certain minimum threshold in terms of the number of voters. This is potentially a problem, but I think it creates a smaller problem than any other scheme I can think of.

I'll say the same thing I said the last time one of these polls came out: I couldn't care less what "the public" thinks about this, because the vast, vast majority of the public doesn't have a clue what this decision was about.

This thread is a perfect example - the posters on here are by and large far more intelligent and politically aware than the average citizen. Even among this rarefied group, most people are fundamentally wrong about what the decision said:

danarhea said:

Let the money flow all it wants to. The Supreme Court is right. Now, Democrats cannot cut off corporate funding of Republican campaigns. Republicans cannot cut off union funding of Democratic campaigns. Every corporation will be balanced by union, which will be balanced by a Rupert Murdoch, which will be balanced by a George Soros, which will be balanced by a CEO, which will be balanced by a....... OK, do you see where I am going with this?

I would only stipulate one thing - All contributions must be in the open, so everybody can see where a particular campaign is getting its money from.

Click to expand...

liblady said:

i have to say, the entity/person with the most money should never have the most power sway. i believe all campaigns should be financed equally with taxpayer dollars only.

Click to expand...

Lord Tammerlain said:

What of corporations that are controlled by foreigners?

I believe the US limits political contributions by foreign nationals

But how would that work with corporations incorporated in the US?


Would Hummer (had it been bought by the Chinese) have been able to make contributions to Sarah Palin's presidential bid?

Would Toyota be able to make contributions to various democratic campaigns

Click to expand...

This decision had absolutely nothing to do with donations to campaigns. It did not address rules on campaign donations, nor did it change them in the slightest. Corporations are still unable to donate money to candidates. What this decision did do was give corporations the ability to make direct expenditures out of the company's general treasury in order to publish messages regarding political issues.

Under the old system, Unions/Goldman Sachs/Murdoch/Soros would take their money and create new organizations that would produce political ads, but could not mention candidates names and had to avoid particular words. Now, those companies can just make the ads themselves and can actually say things straight out as opposed to being coy. The practical result of this is likely to be absolutely minimal.

I'm not trying to pick on you guys in particular, because I think that the majority of people would make the same mistake. That's exactly why I don't put any credence in these polls.

Holy crap!! Code Pink didn't like my thread, so is attacking it. :mrgreen:

megaprogman said:

The fact you are using terms like bad and good means you are missing my point. My concern is that every citizen has a voice, not which citizens have a voice. Trying to determine the best speakers would also violate the speech principal and you are right, it would be ironic.

For me this is an issue of where the ideals hit practical reality. If Thomas Paine's work, in competition with a number of different view points had to compete for shelf space at the local book store with limited space and he won out because he was able to hire a majority of the presses which created a shortage of other works, than yes it would be harming speech by limiting the range of ideas that are presented to the public.

If the pamphlets are handed out on the street corner and there are plenty of street corners to go around for other people with other ideas, than no it wouldn't have the effect of harming speech.

The point is not that there are unequal means in distribution, but that there is only so much space in the distribution channels and the interaction between those means and a limited space for presentation does create problems because of a crowding effect. Right now, I think we are at a saturation point where the practical effects of distribution have to be considered as a part of the right.

For me, it is not enough to point to the constitution and say "we have a right" it has to be usable in practice for it to mean anything.

Click to expand...

Your examples fail to even make your point, which I totally disagree with. Every citizen gets a vote, that's what elects representatives. Commericials don't have a vote. It's not up to the government to ensure equal speech, but only to ensure you're not kept from speaking. And no one can stop you.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This explains what exactly what changed by this decision, and Obama is totally wrong.

American said:

Your examples fail to even make your point, which I totally disagree with. Every citizen gets a vote, that's what elects representatives. Commericials don't have a vote. It's not up to the government to ensure equal speech, but only to ensure you're not kept from speaking. And no one can stop you.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This explains what exactly what changed by this decision, and Obama is totally wrong.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about votes, I was talking about speech. And you are right, it isn't up to the government to ensure equal speech because it was not an issue in the late 1700s. Today it is so the constitution should be changed to address that. The government should not be able to stop a person from speaking, but competition from fellow citizens may have the effect of drowning it out, which is just as wrong.

Blocking free speech is wrong if a government does it and its just as wrong is fellow citizens or non governmental groups (like corporations) do it as well. These restrictions should not be limited only to government and should not be infringed, even by voluntary contract. (You should not be able to sign this right away)

megaprogman said:

I think it is a mistake to look at this in terms of which group benefits most or even in terms of balance. I would disagree with this even if I felt it gave me and my views an advantage. That's not what this is about.

To me, this is a free speech issue. I see free speech as a zero sum game where the increased speech of one group can very easily drown out and eliminate the speech of another. The practical effect of this is that it gives certain people more speech rights than other people, which harms the nation.

Because of that, I see this ruling as harmful to the free speech principal and to the population.

Click to expand...

So in theory you would be in favor of congressional legislation putting restrictions on famous people like actors, musicians, athletes, etc from speaking publicly about any particular political candidate or issue because they are afforded "More" Speech than the average person based on their fame/wealth and are able to have more venues to spread their speech to larger amount of people through press conferences, interviews, concerts, and other such things?

Since they're speech is so much greater than my speech due to their resources available to them they are harmful to free speech and should be legislated?

Honestly, I am aware of the problem, but I am not sure what a cure that isn't worse than the disease could be.

It may be one of those things that we have to live with.