Supreme Court allows more private money in election campaigns

[Davick]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Nor are you being drowned out if I purchase two advertisements to your one.

Wrong..

Doug's Workshop wrote:

First, I would disagree with the notion that allowing someone else to speak somehow drowns out other speakers.

Don't make me use my analogy again. Especially since your beer one is so poor. You're forgetting that Budweiser is still significantly in control of the market, and were we discussing politics it would then be as if they were also in charge of regulating beer. The alternative is that you're saying it's impossible for money to create a monopoly. Would you dare to make such a claim?

[Krensky]

meatrace wrote:

How about this: I'm willing to bet that, regardless of actual QUALITY (Budweiser tastes like piss) domestic beer producers make more revenue and have a higher profit margin than smaller breweries largely BECAUSE of such advertising.

Because advertising works. Money talks.

Advertising for consumer goods is largely a trivial matter, but things that get a lot of media attention, including aggressive advertising blitzes, are successful in swaying opinions of a product enough that the producer increases their profits. Regardless of the product's quality.

Our democratically elected government, on a state, local, and federal level, are not such trivial things. Allowing a few moneyed elites (only some 600 people hit these aggregate limits in recent cycles) to flood the market (so to speak) will absolutely have a deleterious and corrupting affect on American politics. To believe otherwise is willful ignorance.

Also because of collusion and bulling tactics and the completely screwed uo distribution rules.

A big reason you see 'small' beers in the 'domestic' aisles (fun fact, none of the big three are American companies) is that they aren't really small bears and if the store wants to sell Budweiser or Coors or Miller have to stock the smaller brands owned by the giant breweries.

None of which is surprising. Conservatives all the way back to Burke have always felt only the rich should have a say in things.

[Davick]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Davik, you're going to have to show me the full study, because the AJPH has a history of . . . shall we say . . . 'massaging' data to get the results they wish.

Yes, I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of something....

Doug's Workshop wrote:

I'll say it again, because you seemed to have tuned it out in your rant against anyone who you disagree with: If the message is good, money will find it. If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.

Actually I replied directly to this.

Davick wrote:

Bull. S+**. Given infinite time in infinite universes all possible permutations of reality will occur. But without that infinite timescale, your idea is just plain wrong. I cite the anti vaccination movement, the creationists, the crystal healers, climate change deniers, the magnet healers, the big bang deniers, and a myriad number of other flatly bad ideas that continue to draw in and spend boatloads of dough. Meanwhile infinite renewable energy struggles. As does science education and education generally. In a world where we spend more on war than education, I don't know how anyone could in good conscience make the statement you just did. When the people with the money are writing the rules, they'll write the rules that keep it that way. The foxes are deciding what's for dinner tonight.

Check out the entry on Chivas Regal..

The problem is there are a million hens and only two foxes, but the foxes used lies to convince chickens that it's the other chickens they have to worry about. Now they've gotten all the chickens to vote them as Supreme Fox Overlords and so only the foxes get to decide what's for dinner no matter how many hens there are.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Maybe your message just isn't good, Davik.

Yeah, that was Galileo's problem. He was totally wrong, otherwise people would have thrown money at him. And that explains why there's so much money being pumped into an ark "replica" because that all makes so much sense. I mean, have you never seen a bad movie? How did they get funding? The amount of willful ignorance necessary to think this brand of crazy stuff boggles the mind.

[meatrace]

So THATS why it's called Fox News.

[Dennis Harry]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?

Thank you for the question, Durngrun.

First, I would disagree with the notion that allowing someone else to speak somehow drowns out other speakers.

If you want to buy air time on a television station supporting your candidate, you are not being "shouted down" if someone else purchases air time on a regional or nation-wide station. Nor are you being drowned out if I purchase two advertisements to your one.

Does anyone complain that Budweiser "drowns out" competition during the Super Bowl? Because I still see lots of successful beers in the adult beverage aisle that aren't Budweiser, but I don't remember Killian's Red advertising during the largest sports event in the US.

Let's move away from advertising and stick to the subject of the political process. Advertising and how it functions as corporate propaganda is really an issue that deserves an entirely separate thread. Advertising and its effect on viewers really is quite a fascinating conversation but I have limited time.

I think an illustration of the concern of money = speech creating undue influence is what this thread is really lacking.

_____________________________________________

The Mayor of a prestigious city has come to the end of his term based on term limits he cannot run again. The two candidates with a realistic chance of winning are the Democrat and Republican candidates, a Douche and a Turd. Douche and Turd have been around politics in the city since at least the latest council cycle and are relatively young to the political scene.

A few months prior to the election, a Wealthy Real Estate Developer has begun planning to purchase property for a pet project which will net him some hefty returns. That pet project is in the middle of a neighborhood where the locals oppose the project.

The locals, there are a thousand of them, seeking to participate in the Democratic process pool their money together and decide to donate to both Douche and Turd. The locals are not wealthy but collectively they raise $20,000 and split the donations half and half, hedging their bets.

The Developer also decides that he would like to participate in our fine Democratic institution. He personally donates $5,000 to each candidate. He also donates $5,000 to each party member who is running for City Council (there are 5 council seats so 10 candidates). His company, then creates a mini PAC. Through this mini PAC he donates a further $250,000 to each party. His combined donation for the political cycle both personally and through his business totals $560,000.

Our Wealthy Developer gives a call to both candidates. He emphasizes that he is pulling for that candidate and certainly hopes to support that candidate in the future but there is just one thing he wants to mention. That development site approval would go a long way towards ensuring that he can continue to pledge his support.

As this is a Democratic society, the person designated by the neighborhood to speak on their behalf also calls the candidates. He too mentions best wishes. That representative also mentions that the project is not really in the best interest of the neighborhood so if he could please not grant the permits/variance necessary that would be great.

One of the candidates inevitably wins, which one is irrelevant I mean we are talking Douches and Turds here there is not a fundamental difference between them. The Mayor and the City Council meet to discuss a number of things on the agenda among them, whether to support the interest of the Developer or the people living in the neighborhood when attending/discussing the planning board meeting which will decide the fate of that property.

The Wealthy Developer has given money to all campaigns (let's assume our Wealthy Developer did not call in any other political favors which is what is normally done in case you are wondering) and all of the newly elected politicians realize that the tap may well be closed next time around if they vote against the project. They review the submission by the Developer and the concerns of the locals. While the locals may have some legitimate concerns, between the donations made and the plan submitted they can rest easy knowing that they can hang their hat on some of the business purposes and public policy arguments that the Developer made.

The project is approved and construction begins to the chagrin of the locals.

IN this scenario, one man, with one vote was able to push through an agenda over the collective voices of the neighborhood of 1,000 voices. His deep pockets were able to drown out their collective criticism of the project.

This is all legal and above the board, nothing amoral took place in this scenario.
________________________________________________

Doug, let me know what you think about this example and let me know if you can see how one person's (or collective people's) free speech is being drowned out by money speech.

BY the way this type of stuff happens all of the time around the US. I am a Manhattan Attorney and I have been involved in cases and had friends involved in cases where similar things have happened just in case you are wondering how I came up with this scenario.

I am swamped this week so I will not be able to respond to anything else that I found interesting on the thread.

[Kryzbyn]

Not amoral? Certainly unethical.

[Dennis Harry]

No, it is not unethical. Well maybe :-)

Remember in my scenario, neither the Developer or the People's Representative stated that their support would come to an end if their demands were not met but such a conclusion was implied. So there is no charge of bribery or corruption that could possibly stick here, even if you wanted to attempt to indict someone.

Lobbyists do such things all the time both on the Local and the National level. Lobbyists lobby on behalf of their clients and they mention not only who the client is but how the client's desires will be beneficial to the politicians constituency. Now, a brief mention that the client is a big supporter is just a little reminder of who exactly the client is, just in case the politician forgot. Of course, the Lobbying firm is also very happy to draft sample Legislation which is instructive on how they believe a particular Law or Regulation should look like when it is finalized. Those exceptions in the Tax Code (amongst other laws) come from such "helpful and instructive" drafts.

Not saying I agree with it, I am saying that it is the reality of how the system functions. Capitalism first, democracy second, or not at all.

[Kryzbyn]

Doesn't matter. It's still a bribe, even if legally it isn't.

Hence, unethical. Capitalism is an economic term, not a system of government.

Those two things should not mix. I know this is a naive view, and not reflective of "real life". However, our system of government is a representative one, and only we can be held accountable for who we pick to represent us. We should be able to change things. But, I think in order to do so, the slate would have to be wiped clean. No incumbents getting reelected. No more "well that's how things are done".
No one wittingly or unwittingly in a person's pocket anymore.

Pipe dreams, I'm sure. But it would be nice.

[Ilja]

Well, that it's the reality of how a corrupt and despicable system works doesn't mean it isn't amoral or unethical.

It's just that the people with power are amoral and unethical, and so makes amoral and unethical laws, and then tries to use some deontological b$*&&~%# to argue that because those are the rules, it's not unethical.

[pres man]

Money has always controlled messages. If I can print 100 flyers and you can only print 5 flyers, even if we can only stand on a corner and speak there, my speech will be more significant than yours. If I can purchase a newspaper and put my views on the editorial page everyday, it is more significant still. If I can afford to purchase a cable station and push my views through that (*cough*Fox News, MSNBC*cough*) my speech is more significant.

Somehow, we have survived all of those, I'm not sure if someone can donate to every single Republican candidate in the entire country (there are still limits are how much you can donate to an individual candidate, just not limits on how much you can donate total), that is going to cause the sky to fall.

[thejeff]

Dennis Harry wrote:

No, it is not unethical. Well maybe :-)

Remember in my scenario, neither the Developer or the People's Representative stated that their support would come to an end if their demands were not met but such a conclusion was implied. So there is no charge of bribery or corruption that could possibly stick here, even if you wanted to attempt to indict someone.

Lobbyists do such things all the time both on the Local and the National level. Lobbyists lobby on behalf of their clients and they mention not only who the client is but how the client's desires will be beneficial to the politicians constituency. Now, a brief mention that the client is a big supporter is just a little reminder of who exactly the client is, just in case the politician forgot. Of course, the Lobbying firm is also very happy to draft sample Legislation which is instructive on how they believe a particular Law or Regulation should look like when it is finalized. Those exceptions in the Tax Code (amongst other laws) come from such "helpful and instructive" drafts.

Not saying I agree with it, I am saying that it is the reality of how the system functions. Capitalism first, democracy second, or not at all.

Immoral. Unethical.

vs
Legal. Not violating any legal code of ethics.

That's the distinction.

[Dennis Harry]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Doesn't matter. It's still a bribe, even if legally it isn't.

Hence, unethical. Capitalism is an economic term, not a system of government.

Those two things should not mix. I know this is a naive view, and not reflective of "real life". However, our system of government is a representative one, and only we can be held accountable for who we pick to represent us. We should be able to change things. But, I think in order to do so, the slate would have to be wiped clean. No incumbents getting reelected. No more "well that's how things are done".
No one wittingly or unwittingly in a person's pocket anymore.

Pipe dreams, I'm sure. But it would be nice.

Fair enough and I don't disagree with your position at all. However, in my scenario both parties took the same approach and both parties had their interests heard by the Mayor. So both sides were acting "unethically" and both had their chance to make their money into speech.

[thejeff]

pres man wrote:

Money has always controlled messages. If I can print 100 flyers and you can only print 5 flyers, even if we can only stand on a corner and speak there, my speech will be more significant than yours. If I can purchase a newspaper and put my views on the editorial page everyday, it is more significant still. If I can afford to purchase a cable station and push my views through that (*cough*Fox News, MSNBC*cough*) my speech is more significant.

Somehow, we have survived all of those, I'm not sure if someone can donate to every single Republican candidate in the entire country (there are still limits are how much you can donate to an individual candidate, just not limits on how much you can donate total), that is going to cause the sky to fall.

The trick now isn't so much to donate to each candidate. It's to roll up the donations you could have made to each candidate and hand that money to the party committee and let them dole it out as needed. (Or as suggested by you and made known to the particular candidates you want supported. That would still be illegal, but much harder to prove than you handing the cash over personally.)

[Krensky]

Remember that one of the aspects is that it allows the parties to rebundle those donations. So yeah, you're limited to the individual candidate donations, but then the party can repool and distribute those donations.

So, in theory, you can donate $150,000 (or whatever) to every dog catcher election in the country and then most of that gets kicked up to the party, who can now bomb... I have no idea how many dog catchers are elected, but I feel safe saying it would be a metric crapton of money. Perhaps multiple metric crap tons.

Whether or not this will happen, I don't know. We probably wont for a decade or so when someone can analyse to donation records to go looking for those patterns.

[Dennis Harry]

thejeff wrote:

Dennis Harry wrote:

No, it is not unethical. Well maybe :-)

Remember in my scenario, neither the Developer or the People's Representative stated that their support would come to an end if their demands were not met but such a conclusion was implied. So there is no charge of bribery or corruption that could possibly stick here, even if you wanted to attempt to indict someone.

Lobbyists do such things all the time both on the Local and the National level. Lobbyists lobby on behalf of their clients and they mention not only who the client is but how the client's desires will be beneficial to the politicians constituency. Now, a brief mention that the client is a big supporter is just a little reminder of who exactly the client is, just in case the politician forgot. Of course, the Lobbying firm is also very happy to draft sample Legislation which is instructive on how they believe a particular Law or Regulation should look like when it is finalized. Those exceptions in the Tax Code (amongst other laws) come from such "helpful and instructive" drafts.

Not saying I agree with it, I am saying that it is the reality of how the system functions. Capitalism first, democracy second, or not at all.

Immoral. Unethical.

vs
Legal. Not violating any legal code of ethics.

That's the distinction.

Again, no disagreement here.

But if you want to fight against a power system currently in place you need to understand how it functions.

Once you understand how it functions you need to understand how it is justified and rationalized.

Once you can debunk the rationalization/justification as something that is not in the common interest of the collective then perhaps you can start convincing a majority of people to do something about it.

[Ilja]

pres man wrote:

Money has always controlled messages.

Define always.

Quote:

Somehow, we have survived all of those,

Humanity has also survived countless plagues and epidemics, dozens of giant wars decimating the world population, and at least one ice age.

I don't see what survival has to do with anything.

[thejeff]

Dennis Harry wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Dennis Harry wrote:

No, it is not unethical. Well maybe :-)

Remember in my scenario, neither the Developer or the People's Representative stated that their support would come to an end if their demands were not met but such a conclusion was implied. So there is no charge of bribery or corruption that could possibly stick here, even if you wanted to attempt to indict someone.

Lobbyists do such things all the time both on the Local and the National level. Lobbyists lobby on behalf of their clients and they mention not only who the client is but how the client's desires will be beneficial to the politicians constituency. Now, a brief mention that the client is a big supporter is just a little reminder of who exactly the client is, just in case the politician forgot. Of course, the Lobbying firm is also very happy to draft sample Legislation which is instructive on how they believe a particular Law or Regulation should look like when it is finalized. Those exceptions in the Tax Code (amongst other laws) come from such "helpful and instructive" drafts.

Not saying I agree with it, I am saying that it is the reality of how the system functions. Capitalism first, democracy second, or not at all.

Immoral. Unethical.

vs
Legal. Not violating any legal code of ethics.

That's the distinction.

Again, no disagreement here.

But if you want to fight against a power system currently in place you need to understand how it functions.

Once you understand how it functions you need to understand how it is justified and rationalized.

Once you can debunk the rationalization/justification as something that is not in the common interest of the collective then perhaps you can start convincing a majority of people to do something about it.

Yeah, it's just that you were saying it wasn't immoral or unethical. When you seemed to mean in a legal sense, not in a moral or ethical one.

That's what people were jumping on.

[Dennis Harry]

thejeff wrote:

Dennis Harry wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Dennis Harry wrote:

No, it is not unethical. Well maybe :-)

Remember in my scenario, neither the Developer or the People's Representative stated that their support would come to an end if their demands were not met but such a conclusion was implied. So there is no charge of bribery or corruption that could possibly stick here, even if you wanted to attempt to indict someone.

Lobbyists do such things all the time both on the Local and the National level. Lobbyists lobby on behalf of their clients and they mention not only who the client is but how the client's desires will be beneficial to the politicians constituency. Now, a brief mention that the client is a big supporter is just a little reminder of who exactly the client is, just in case the politician forgot. Of course, the Lobbying firm is also very happy to draft sample Legislation which is instructive on how they believe a particular Law or Regulation should look like when it is finalized. Those exceptions in the Tax Code (amongst other laws) come from such "helpful and instructive" drafts.

Not saying I agree with it, I am saying that it is the reality of how the system functions. Capitalism first, democracy second, or not at all.

Immoral. Unethical.

vs
Legal. Not violating any legal code of ethics.

That's the distinction.

Again, no disagreement here.

But if you want to fight against a power system currently in place you need to understand how it functions.

Once you understand how it functions you need to understand how it is justified and rationalized.

Once you can debunk the rationalization/justification as something that is not in the common interest of the collective then perhaps you can start convincing a majority of people to do something about it.

Yeah, it's just that you were saying it wasn't immoral or unethical. When you seemed to mean in a legal sense, not in a moral or ethical one.

That's what people were jumping on.

Gotcha.

Well, it is a slippery slope but I do see the point. Very well then, let's leave ethical out of it and call it a "legal" play. Though what is "legal" and "illegal" and who decides is yet another tool in the arsenal of the Establishment.

[Irontruth]

Dennis Harry wrote:

The Mayor of a prestigious city has come to the end of his term based on term limits he cannot run again. The two candidates with a realistic chance of winning are the Democrat and Republican candidates, a Douche and a Turd. Douche and Turd have been around politics in the city since at least the latest council cycle and are relatively young to the political scene.

A few months prior to the election, a Wealthy Real Estate...

The issue with this scenario is that voting does still matter.

While I am opposed to additional money in politics, the flaw in this scenario is that politicians rarely go against a vocal group, unless there are equally vocal groups on the other side.

If the Wealthy Developer had the backing of local business groups, unions, etc, then he's going to get his way. But those groups represent blocks of voters as well, not just money.

In the US, a politicians number 1 fear is not winning re-election. On the presidential or even senatorial scale for some states, vocal groups with no money have little to no sway. In even house districts though, vocal groups can get their way just by being vocal. If a district feels strongly about an issue (not just a majority, but it's an important issue to that majority) a politician will never go against them for fear of losing the next election.

This is why democrats vote with the NRA. Not because the NRA pumps money into their campaign, but because NRA members are vocal. In those districts, they're more vocal than those who favor gun legislation. A gun safety lobby might pressure a politician and out donate the NRA, but if they don't get local voters to voice their opinion it won't sway the representative.

Second, that's how a system of public donations has to work. The hedging of bets and giving to both sides is just single-issue pragmatism if you don't care about any other issue. In a race where there is a difference between two candidates, would you give money to the person you oppose? Of course not. And if the person you give money to and vote for doesn't live up to their promises of the campaign, do you give more money and still vote for them? No.

Your example doesn't actually define that line of when you are directly getting something for your donation and when you are backing the candidate that shares your views. The Supreme Court's opinion highlights some of the difficulties in proving that as well. While I think their ideology shows through in how narrowly they define it, they're right in that the times when it is black and white are actually kind of narrow.

[Davick]

pres man wrote:

Money has always controlled messages. If I can print 100 flyers and you can only print 5 flyers, even if we can only stand on a corner and speak there, my speech will be more significant than yours. If I can purchase a newspaper and put my views on the editorial page everyday, it is more significant still. If I can afford to purchase a cable station and push my views through that (*cough*Fox News, MSNBC*cough*) my speech is more significant.

Somehow, we have survived all of those, I'm not sure if someone can donate to every single Republican candidate in the entire country (there are still limits are how much you can donate to an individual candidate, just not limits on how much you can donate total), that is going to cause the sky to fall.

As stated, not leading to extinction != a good thing. Also, while this in itself isn't the ultimate evil, a slippery slope is beginning to form between gutting of finance laws and voter protections. A lot of people did NOT survive Stalin.

[LazarX]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?

What the Supreme Court has said is that money is speech. If you're looking to block the influence of money you're effectively blocking out more "speech". By their argument, which I believe dates to Madison, the rights of the wealthy elite need to be protected against has been considered the "mob influence" of the majority.

[meatrace]

Well if we don't like the Supreme Court ruling we can just vote them out of office.

[Kirth Gersen]

Heh. And even a new court is sort of beholden to repeated rulings of past courts. What we want -- removal of "I haz the moneyz so I picks alls the candidatez" -- requires a Constitutional amendment at this point.

[LazarX]

I'm going to have to assume that meatrace made his comment from either ignorance or sarcasm.

Supreme Court terms are for life.

[Davick]

LazarX wrote:

I'm going to have to assume that meatrace made his comment from either ignorance or sarcasm.

Supreme Court terms are for life.

His comment was sarcasm.

[bugleyman]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Heh. And even a new court is sort of beholden to repeated rulings of past courts. What we want -- removal of "I haz the moneyz so I picks alls the candidatez" -- requires a Constitutional amendment at this point.

Don't forget "...and whoever wins owes me big time."

[thejeff]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Heh. And even a new court is sort of beholden to repeated rulings of past courts. What we want -- removal of "I haz the moneyz so I picks alls the candidatez" -- requires a Constitutional amendment at this point.

Only sort of. It's been known for the Court to say, in slightly more polite language, "What were those idiots thinking?"

[Dennis Harry]

Irontruth wrote:

Dennis Harry wrote:

The Mayor of a prestigious city has come to the end of his term based on term limits he cannot run again. The two candidates with a realistic chance of winning are the Democrat and Republican candidates, a Douche and a Turd. Douche and Turd have been around politics in the city since at least the latest council cycle and are relatively young to the political scene.

A few months prior to the election, a Wealthy Real Estate...

The issue with this scenario is that voting does still matter.

While I am opposed to additional money in politics, the flaw in this scenario is that politicians rarely go against a vocal group, unless there are equally vocal groups on the other side.

If the Wealthy Developer had the backing of local business groups, unions, etc, then he's going to get his way. But those groups represent blocks of voters as well, not just money.

In the US, a politicians number 1 fear is not winning re-election. On the presidential or even senatorial scale for some states, vocal groups with no money have little to no sway. In even house districts though, vocal groups can get their way just by being vocal. If a district feels strongly about an issue (not just a majority, but it's an important issue to that majority) a politician will never go against them for fear of losing the next election.

This is why democrats vote with the NRA. Not because the NRA pumps money into their campaign, but because NRA members are vocal. In those districts, they're more vocal than those who favor gun legislation. A gun safety lobby might pressure a politician and out donate the NRA, but if they don't get local voters to voice their opinion it won't sway the representative.

Second, that's how a system of public donations has to work. The hedging of bets and giving to both sides is just single-issue pragmatism if you don't care about any other issue. In a race where there is a difference between two candidates, would you give money to the person you oppose? Of course...

Except that a scenario very similar to what I outlined just took place and I have first hand knowledge about it...

Disagree if you want but it does happen and it just did happen, no I am not going to get into the who, what, when , where and why of it just trust me that it happened.

On occasion, you are correct, a vocal population gets its way over big money interest but usually the vocal poor and middle class are on the losing side.

[Irontruth]

Dennis Harry wrote:

Except that a scenario very similar to what I outlined just took place and I have first hand knowledge about it...

Disagree if you want but it does happen and it just did happen, no I am not going to get into the who, what, when , where and why of it just trust me that it happened.

On occasion, you are correct, a vocal population gets its way over big money interest but usually the vocal poor and middle class are on the losing side.

Similar, except I think your not relying salient facts that I pointed out. Was the Wealthy Developer literally the only person backing the project? Or were other business leaders, construction company owners, construction unions and other relevant groups behind the project as well? That's part of my point. These groups were vocal as well, plus money, were probably better organized and have dealt with these issues multiple times. The people who lost their homes have only dealt with it this one time.

The issue is much more complex than just a matter of money. Money was an influence, but it wasn't the only factor that decided the outcome.

-Mayors love building things, it's a lasting reminder that they were in control of the city.
-Development usually increases the potential tax base of the area.
-Not all citizens were opposed to the development.

[Dennis Harry]

Irontruth wrote:

Dennis Harry wrote:

Except that a scenario very similar to what I outlined just took place and I have first hand knowledge about it...

Disagree if you want but it does happen and it just did happen, no I am not going to get into the who, what, when , where and why of it just trust me that it happened.

On occasion, you are correct, a vocal population gets its way over big money interest but usually the vocal poor and middle class are on the losing side.

Similar, except I think your not relying salient facts that I pointed out. Was the Wealthy Developer literally the only person backing the project? Or were other business leaders, construction company owners, construction unions and other relevant groups behind the project as well? That's part of my point. These groups were vocal as well, plus money, were probably better organized and have dealt with these issues multiple times. The people who lost their homes have only dealt with it this one time.

The issue is much more complex than just a matter of money. Money was an influence, but it wasn't the only factor that decided the outcome.

-Mayors love building things, it's a lasting reminder that they were in control of the city.
-Development usually increases the potential tax base of the area.
-Not all citizens were opposed to the development.

Certainly I am not discussing every single fact, the fact pattern I created was a scenario. That scenario was made up of a number of scenarios which actually took place a hybrid if you will of real life events. The point is to illustrate an example of money = speech where the voices of the few drown out the voices of the many. Which as I stated, the thread was lacking.

[Doug's Workshop]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Maybe you can make that argument at 2:1 but what if I buy ten commercials to your one? 100? 1000? What if I buy all the airtime so your commercial cannot play? What if I pay so much for my airtime that the cost of airtime is raised beyond your reach? Do any of these scenarios affect your free speech?

Given the sheer multitude of television channels, print media, radio airtime, internet advertising, billboard space . . . no, they don't.

Because even if that happened, you could still hire people to go door-to-door (or get volunteers).

Besides, if you buy 10 commercials to my one . . . so? I've still been able to put my idea out to the masses. Or maybe my idea is just so poor that no one wants to donate money to my cause.

[Doug's Workshop]

Davick wrote:

Yeah, that was Galileo's problem. He...

I'm glad you brought up Galileo. He went up against the organization that had a monopoly on thought. I mean, how dare he! Why, he might have been a climate change denier. He had the wrong ideas, right? He should be prevented from speaking!

Let me see if I understand your position, and you tell me exactly where I go wrong:

"The people I don't like should be prevented from speaking so that the people I agree with have a chance to speak."

[Doug's Workshop]

Dennis Harry wrote:

Doug, let me know what you think about this example and let me know if you can see how one person's (or collective people's) free speech is being drowned out by money speech.

BY the way this type of stuff happens all of the time around the US. I am a Manhattan Attorney and I have been involved in cases and had friends involved in cases where similar things have happened just in case you are wondering how I came up with this scenario.

I am swamped this week so I will not be able to respond to anything else that I found interesting on the thread.

But the developer didn't drown out the voices of the public. The candidates heard both sides. If the mayor decided to continue on with the project against the will of his constituency, that's not a problem with free speech, it's a problem with the moral fiber of the candidates.

Good luck draining the swamp. Catch ya later.

Edited to add: Please note I'm not defending the mayor in this case, simply stating that, as presented, the "drowning out" did not occur. The mayor likely has a great career ahead of him working for the Developer as Vice President of Communications (a situation I have first-hand knowledge of).

[Doug's Workshop]

Davick wrote:

And that explains why there's so much money being pumped into an ark "replica" because that all makes so much sense. I mean, have you never seen a bad movie? How did they get funding? The amount of willful ignorance necessary to think this brand of crazy stuff boggles the mind.

Yeah, and it's not surprising that there will never be a Gigli 2.

And why should you care if other people build an ark replica or not? You didn't earn the money, you had no part in them earning the money. You seem to think that people should believe exactly what you believe, and then get angry with them when they don't.

[meatrace]

Or a Transformers sequel.

[Davick]

meatrace wrote:

Or a Transformers sequel.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Davick wrote:

And that explains why there's so much money being pumped into an ark "replica" because that all makes so much sense. I mean, have you never seen a bad movie? How did they get funding? The amount of willful ignorance necessary to think this brand of crazy stuff boggles the mind.

Yeah, and it's not surprising that there will never be a Gigli 2.

And why should you care if other people build an ark replica or not? You didn't earn the money, you had no part in them earning the money. You seem to think that people should believe exactly what you believe, and then get angry with them when they don't.

1. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to build an ark replica. 2. A lot of this is a separate issue, but I will say part of the problem is due to the town involved buying into a lot of really shady bonds to fund the project. But I mentioned earlier that we must allow bad ideas to exist. You're the one trying to say that none of those ideas are funded. Bringing up the subjectivity of that distinction only further proves you wrong.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Davick wrote:

Yeah, that was Galileo's problem. He...

I'm glad you brought up Galileo. He went up against the organization that had a monopoly on thought. I mean, how dare he! Why, he might have been a climate change denier. He had the wrong ideas, right? He should be prevented from speaking!

Let me see if I understand your position, and you tell me exactly where I go wrong:

"The people I don't like should be prevented from speaking so that the people I agree with have a chance to speak."

To equate the totalitarianism of the catholic church with peer reviewed science is a statement that is so far off base as to not even be wrong. You clearly do not grasp the concepts you are attempting to discuss. But while we're talking Galileo, you do realize he wasn't vindicated for around 200 years. And wasn't apologized to until, what was it, the 90s? That's the corrupting influence of money (and religion) in politics. It kept an integral idea shut out for centuries. That's what you're arguing for.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Let me see if I understand your position, and you tell me exactly where I go wrong:

"The people I don't like should be prevented from speaking so that the people I agree with have a chance to speak."

Nope. I want all parties to have an equal chance to speak. Now let me see if I understand your position. Let me know exactly where I go wrong:

"The people with all the money have successfully indoctrinated me into agreeing with them and vilifying those that are different from me."

[Davick]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Maybe you can make that argument at 2:1 but what if I buy ten commercials to your one? 100? 1000? What if I buy all the airtime so your commercial cannot play? What if I pay so much for my airtime that the cost of airtime is raised beyond your reach? Do any of these scenarios affect your free speech?

Given the sheer multitude of television channels, print media, radio airtime, internet advertising, billboard space . . . no, they don't.

Because even if that happened, you could still hire people to go door-to-door (or get volunteers).

Besides, if you buy 10 commercials to my one . . . so? I've still been able to put my idea out to the masses. Or maybe my idea is just so poor that no one wants to donate money to my cause.

Did you miss my link earlier?

Quote:

Wrong..

And you must be equating going door to door with commercials, otherwise you're admitting that money did have an influence on the parties' ability to speak. On the other hand, if you are equating them, then why would anyone buy adds when volunteers are way cheaper?

Which is it?

[Davick]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Edited to add: Please note I'm not defending the mayor in this case, simply stating that, as presented, the "drowning out" did not occur. The mayor likely has a great career ahead of him working for the Developer as Vice President of Communications (a situation I have first-hand knowledge of).

Since no one was "drowned out" then it's not an issue of speech being hindered regardless of how much money is spent. In which case the problem is corruption. And given the example, we see that the corruption stems from money's influence. So instead of limiting speech, we should be limiting money. Good idea.

PS: You can't keep agreeing with the idea that money=speech while also trying to argue that having more money != more speech.

[bugleyman]

Davick wrote:

PS: You can't keep agreeing with the idea that money=speech while also trying to argue that having more money != more speech.

Sure he can. He'll just continue to not make sense. :)

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Maybe you can make that argument at 2:1 but what if I buy ten commercials to your one? 100? 1000? What if I buy all the airtime so your commercial cannot play? What if I pay so much for my airtime that the cost of airtime is raised beyond your reach? Do any of these scenarios affect your free speech?

Given the sheer multitude of television channels, print media, radio airtime, internet advertising, billboard space . . . no, they don't.

Because even if that happened, you could still hire people to go door-to-door (or get volunteers).

Besides, if you buy 10 commercials to my one . . . so? I've still been able to put my idea out to the masses. Or maybe my idea is just so poor that no one wants to donate money to my cause.

And if you didn't have the money for one commercial, are you still getting your right to free speech? If you have to gather other people together in order to match my message, do you still feel you have the same free speech that I do? If it takes 100 of you to equal 1 of me, are our rights equal? Is your position everyone has a right to free speech but the rich have a greater right to it?

[Doug's Workshop]

Davick wrote:

Since no one was "drowned out" then it's not an issue of speech being hindered regardless of how much money is spent. In which case the problem is corruption. And given the example, we see that the corruption stems from money's influence. So instead of limiting speech, we should be limiting money. Good idea.

PS: You can't keep agreeing with the idea that money=speech while also trying to argue that having more money != more speech.

No, power corrupts. Money is a tool, nothing more. It can be used for good or ill.

The issue presented showed that both sides got to speak. Neither voice was drowned out. The situation could just have easily been a manufacturing company that offered to build a new facility, bringing dozens of new jobs and the tax revenue that those jobs bring. A morally weak mayor was corrupted by the power his tiny office afforded him. Thus the reason why we should encourage speech, to shine light on shadowy deals and roaches in suits and ties.

Now, in regards of hiring people to go door to door, what do you have against that? It's another form of speech. Maybe it's more effective. Maybe it's cheaper. You aren't in a position to tell anyone how they should exercise their right to get their message out.

Finally, you said you wanted all parties to have an equal chance to speak. So, you want the Pansexual Peace Party to share the stage with the Knights Party, while also sharing time with the Communist Party USA, at the same time having "equal time" with Republicans and Democrats?

Not all ideas are equal. Poor ideas (like the first three political parties I mentioned) don't get airplay not because they don't have money, but because no amount of money will attract people to those parties.

My stance is very simple, Davick. "Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech" is pretty unequivocal. Are you so proud of your own position that the words of the people who lived through tyranny mean nothing? Political speech, even though you don't like the message, should not be restrained in any way by government, or you have a bureaucratic inquisition set up for those who wish to exercise their right to speak freely.

I know you don't believe in that concept, and you'll just have to live with the fact that, luckily, the Constitution was written by people who had lived through far more than you'll ever experience.

[Doug's Workshop]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

And if you didn't have the money for one commercial, are you still getting your right to free speech? If you have to gather other people together in order to match my message, do you still feel you have the same free speech that I do? If it takes 100 of you to equal 1 of me, are our rights equal? Is your position everyone has a right to free speech but the rich have a greater right to it?

Of course our rights are equal. I have the same right to stand in a public space and preach my message as you do, and you have the same right to buy 100 commercials on television as I do. Do we have the same ability to do that? Probably not.

Now, are you suggesting that the least able speakers should have parity with the best speakers? Or the worst messages should have "equal time" to the best messages? To "level the playing field" in regards to ability, you'd have to set up a system that does impact freedoms, because the only way to standardize ability is to hamstring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and tell the more effective ones "You may not speak your mind, and if you do we will punish you."

Are you really suggesting that "freedom of speech" should mean some people are held to a different legal standard than others? So, just throw the 14th Amendment out the window?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

My stance is very simple, Davick. "Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech" is pretty unequivocal. Are you so proud of your own position that the words of the people who lived through tyranny mean nothing? Political speech, even though you don't like the message, should not be restrained in any way by government, or you have a bureaucratic inquisition set up for those who wish to exercise their right to speak freely.

Am I to assume then you are against any laws against slander or libel? You are against laws preventing fraud? You believe people have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater? People should be allowed to encourage people to riot or commit violence against others?

Does this only apply to speech or all of the first amendment? Does a right to freedom of religion allow animal or human sacrifice? Genital mutilation?

How about the other amendments? Should we have the right to grenades or high explosives? Do we have the right to "bear" nuclear "arms"?

[Doug's Workshop]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Am I to assume then you are against any laws against slander or libel? You are against laws preventing fraud? You believe people have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater? People should be allowed to encourage people to riot or commit violence against others?

Does this only apply to speech or all of the first amendment? Does a right to freedom of religion allow animal or human sacrifice? Genital mutilation?

How about the other amendments? Should we have the right to grenades or high explosives? Do we have the right to "bear" nuclear "arms"?

I've already answered those questions.

And for the record, I've handled a 40lb block of uranium. Not really that exciting.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

And if you didn't have the money for one commercial, are you still getting your right to free speech? If you have to gather other people together in order to match my message, do you still feel you have the same free speech that I do? If it takes 100 of you to equal 1 of me, are our rights equal? Is your position everyone has a right to free speech but the rich have a greater right to it?

Of course our rights are equal. I have the same right to stand in a public space and preach my message as you do, and you have the same right to buy 100 commercials on television as I do. Do we have the same ability to do that? Probably not.

Now, are you suggesting that the least able speakers should have parity with the best speakers? Or the worst messages should have "equal time" to the best messages? To "level the playing field" in regards to ability, you'd have to set up a system that does impact freedoms, because the only way to standardize ability is to hamstring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and tell the more effective ones "You may not speak your mind, and if you do we will punish you."

Are you really suggesting that "freedom of speech" should mean some people are held to a different legal standard than others? So, just throw the 14th Amendment out the window?

Are the wealthy automatically the "best speakers" and the poor the "worst speakers"? If you're limited to one ad because of your finances and I'm limited to five ads by the government, do you have less freedom or do I?

[Doug's Workshop]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Are the wealthy automatically the "best speakers" and the poor the "worst speakers"?

Nope. But better speakers tend to attract more money than bad speakers.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

If you're limited to one ad because of your finances and I'm limited to five ads by the government, do you have less freedom or do I?

The government just told you "we will punish you if you continue speaking your mind." So, we both have less freedom, because if the government can punish you for speaking your mind, there's nothing stopping them from punishing me from speaking mine.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

So you did, my bad. So exactly how do you reconcile this...

Doug's Workshop wrote:

My stance is very simple, Davick. "Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech" is pretty unequivocal. Are you so proud of your own position that the words of the people who lived through tyranny mean nothing? Political speech, even though you don't like the message, should not be restrained in any way by government, or you have a bureaucratic inquisition set up for those who wish to exercise their right to speak freely.

with this...

Doug's Workshop wrote:

And you can yell fire in a crowded theater if, in fact, there is a fire. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

As for the free exercise of religion, you're right that human sacrifice is banned. Because that infringes on one's right to life. Similarly, you don't get to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it could very likely injure someone.

Right to bear arms doesn't mean nuclear weapons, correct. But I can own 264 pistols, 93 rifles, and 32 shotguns. A curious student might wonder why that is, instead of "strawmanning." Here's hint: You can cause considerable damage to innocents' life and property even when using it correctly. Which is why you also don't have a CDL without special certification.

So we can limit the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because it would affect others but we cannot limit someone's ability to drown out others right to speech?

[meatrace]

Except "speaking your mind" in all of these examples is "bribing politicians and public servants to bend the law to my whim".

If money=speech then I ought to be free to do whatever with my money that I wish. But I'm not.

Arguing with Doug is completely useless though because he doesn't care about freedom, only the ability of the ultra rich to have their way with the electorate. This is what happens when you worship money.

[meatrace]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

So we can limit the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because it would affect others but we cannot limit someone's ability to drown out others right to speech?

Of COURSE you can, and we do in many ways. It's simply not okay to limit the speech of the RICH because, as we all know, those with more money are simply better than us. Intrinsically. Otherwise they wouldn't be rich, because money is an objective measure of how smart, good looking, and worthwhile one is as a person.

[LazarX]

Davick wrote:

To equate the totalitarianism of the catholic church with peer reviewed science is a statement that is so far off base as to not even be wrong. You clearly do not grasp the concepts you are attempting to discuss. But while we're talking Galileo, you do realize he wasn't vindicated for around 200 years. And wasn't apologized to until, what was it, the 90s? That's the corrupting influence of money (and religion) in politics. It kept an integral idea shut out for centuries. That's what you're arguing for.

That's because in essence Galileo WAS fully guilty of what he was accused of. Galileo wasn't prosecuted for presenting a theory. He was presenting a theory AS fullly proven science which it was not, and he made fun of a Pope who was just as prickly about being offended as he was.

Galileo was told that he could publish his works as a theory. He presented them as proven science. WHICH IT WASN'T. because the science to back up his observations would not be around until Newton and Kepler who were still the better part of a century into the future. He was fairly arrogant during his trial because he was confident that the Church couldn't do anything to him and he was right. Submitting him to anything more than house arrest would have made him a martyr and contributed to the growing unrest caused by the Reformation. So Galileo could even get away with spreading more fiction about himself. (such as the rumor of him saying "Yet it moves" during the trial when he did not.)

While Galileo was right in his claims... he was right for the wrong reasons. The only reason he's held up as a hero today is largely due to his own self-promotion.