Supreme Court allows more private money in election campaigns

[thejeff]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So when were we a free society, by that standard?

The threat of the majority trampling over the rights of the minority has been recognized since before the Constitution was ratified.

If you want to say "our society was never perfect, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to inflict further wrongs against those we disagree with" you are no better than those who came before you.

Expect strong resistance from those who would not be serfs.

You want to make sure that those already on top of the heap have even more ability to influence the laws to help them stay there.

Won't someone think about the poor oppressed downtrodden millionaires? What will become of them if they aren't allowed to buy politicians outright?

Reminds me of the whining of the robber barons when the income tax was first passed. Or the slaveholder's fears of their property being taken away.

Our society has never been close to perfect. For the majority of our history minority groups (and women) have been denied legal rights or the rights they theoretically had were ignored. Even working class white males had little rights compared to owners of property. The class of owners you're so concerned about have fought those legal rights every step of the way. And they still are. They've still got more legal rights than you or I, because they've got the lawyers to insist on them.

They're not going to be serfs. But they've got a lot of people fooled into thinking they should be on their side. Divide and conquer. It's the only way sucha a small minority can ever keep control.

[Doug's Workshop]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Yeah, I can quote it (and a large volume of the rest of his writings and correspondence). The barriers are not arbitrary if they serve to remind people that, "hey, you're overstepping your bounds and beginning to step on mine."

What can be considered arbitrary is the decision of where those bounds lie, exactly. I tend to think that, if someone in the store hits me with a shopping cart, I should be allowed to kick their ass. Mrs Gersen tirelessly reminds me that the law sees it differently.

And that's what it comes down to: at some point you need a written code of laws so that everyone, even if they don't necessarily agree, sees where the limits have been drawn.

I agree.

And we have that written code. The First Amendment of the Constitution. Further laws exist to define libel and slander, as well as laws against speech that directly encourage others to commit specific or imminent illegal actions.

Using my example above, giving $284 vs $283 is not libel or slander (depending on written or spoken words), nor does the act of my giving those funds advocate for illegal activity, much less the necessary "specific/imminent activity" that the law requires.

[Doug's Workshop]

thejeff wrote:

Divide and conquer. It's the only way sucha a small minority can ever keep control.

And yet I'm the one who wants to treat everyone with the same First Amendment rights.

Divide and conquer, certainly. It's what the left does with every interest group they court. Poor vs rich. Black vs white. Men vs women. Straight vs gay.

The "haves" vs the "have nots."

[Andrew R]

I agree with you in theory Doug but at the same time saying the one with more money gets more "speech" is little different than letting the stronger man beat the weaker so he can have a chance to talk more than the guy he knocks out.

[Kirth Gersen]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Further laws exist to define libel and slander, as well as laws against speech that directly encourage others to commit specific or imminent illegal actions.

Yes, and so our positions overlap a lot more than it may seem. The only difference between us germane to the current thread is that I disagree that the Supreme Court's rulings on money-as-speech actually support the meaning of the 1st Amendment, and you do. You might be interested in this thread as well.

[thejeff]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Divide and conquer. It's the only way sucha a small minority can ever keep control.

And yet I'm the one who wants to treat everyone with the same First Amendment rights.

Divide and conquer, certainly. It's what the left does with every interest group they court. Poor vs rich. Black vs white. Men vs women. Straight vs gay.

The "haves" vs the "have nots."

As opposed to the right, which does the same with the interest groups it courts. See, I can make broad unfounded generalities too.

Of course, the right just happens to be on the side of those who historically had the power and mostly still do. I prefer to be on the side of the oppressed.

Keep fighting the good fight. Keep us from oppressing the rich and powerful. I'm sure they'll reward you.

And keep telling yourself you're standing up for everyone. To bastadize Anatole France, "The poor as well as the rich, must be legally free to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns."

[LazarX]

Krensky wrote:

It depends what you mean by Gravity.

That it exists and it has certain properties are facts.

What causes it to do so (and what the properties are at the very extremes of the scale) are covered by various theories and hypothesis.

Like a lot of physics, there's also a certain amount of... squidginess getting Newton and Einstein and Quantum mechanics to play nice.

EDIT: Also, what Kirth said.

That's not really the problem. Right now there simply isn't a theory that fits Gravity with the other three fundamental forces of the universe. It's what stops our current understanding of the origins of the universe at Zero Plus 10 to the minus 49 seconds. That Grand Unified Theory of Everything is the current Holy Grail of physics. And not everyone is sure that there actually is one waiting at the end of the search.

[Doug's Workshop]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Further laws exist to define libel and slander, as well as laws against speech that directly encourage others to commit specific or imminent illegal actions.

Yes, and so our positions overlap a lot more than it may seem. The only difference between us germane to the current thread is that I disagree that the Supreme Court's rulings on money-as-speech actually support the meaning of the 1st Amendment, and you do. You might be interested in this thread as well.

I'd thought about joining the thread, but a man's only got so much time to waste on the internet.

[LazarX]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Further laws exist to define libel and slander, as well as laws against speech that directly encourage others to commit specific or imminent illegal actions.

Yes, and so our positions overlap a lot more than it may seem. The only difference between us germane to the current thread is that I disagree that the Supreme Court's rulings on money-as-speech actually support the meaning of the 1st Amendment, and you do. You might be interested in this thread as well.

I'd thought about joining the thread, but a man's only got so much time to waste on the internet.

You had enough to make a throughly pointless post. Then again, so did I.

[Doug's Workshop]

thejeff wrote:

And keep telling yourself you're standing up for everyone. To bastadize Anatole France, "The poor as well as the rich, must be legally free to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns."

$2600 vs $2601

[thejeff]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And keep telling yourself you're standing up for everyone. To bastadize Anatole France, "The poor as well as the rich, must be legally free to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political campaigns."

$2600 vs $2601

Any limit imposed is going to be arbitrary in that sense. One dollar more is never going to be so much worse it's clearly horrible, while one dollar less was fine.

Following that chain of logic leads inexorably to either banning all campaign donations or having no limits whatsoever.
This also applies to all other laws involving points on a continuum. Whether it's speed limits, age limits, blood alchohol limits for driving, whatever.

And of course, we're talking about a decision that does allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be given, just not all directly to one candidate.
And the poor man isn't going to be able to give $2600 either.

[Doug's Workshop]

thejeff wrote:

Any limit imposed is going to be arbitrary in that sense. One dollar more is never going to be so much worse it's clearly horrible, while one dollar less was fine.

Following that chain of logic leads inexorably to either banning all campaign donations or having no limits whatsoever.
This also applies to all other laws involving points on a continuum. Whether it's speed limits, age limits, blood alchohol limits for driving, whatever.

And of course, we're talking about a decision that does allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be given, just not all directly to one candidate.
And the poor man isn't going to be able to give $2600 either.

Because the rich should have different rights to political speech than the poor? You're the one advocating for interests groups to have more power in the law than another. Maybe someday you'll have your own interest group oppressed and you'll get to see the fruits of your labors up close. I hope not.

[thejeff]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Any limit imposed is going to be arbitrary in that sense. One dollar more is never going to be so much worse it's clearly horrible, while one dollar less was fine.

Following that chain of logic leads inexorably to either banning all campaign donations or having no limits whatsoever.
This also applies to all other laws involving points on a continuum. Whether it's speed limits, age limits, blood alchohol limits for driving, whatever.

And of course, we're talking about a decision that does allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be given, just not all directly to one candidate.
And the poor man isn't going to be able to give $2600 either.

Because the rich should have different rights to political speech than the poor? You're the one advocating for interests groups to have more power in the law than another. Maybe someday you'll have your own interest group oppressed and you'll get to see the fruits of your labors up close. I hope not.

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

Well, I'm white, male and straight. I'm not likely to oppressed for any of that in this country, despite the complaints of some, so I'm not too concerned. I do work for a living and don't have piles of money laying around to give to politicians, so I'd say I'm already being oppressed by the rich's easy access to influence. Like 99% of us.

[Andrew R]

thejeff wrote:

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

The rich also have diffent rights to keep and bear arms as prices are being forced higher. Part of the opposition to things like "smart gun" technology is the fear of pricing peoples rights away. just saying, this money issue exsists on many levels

[Doug's Workshop]

thejeff wrote:

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

Well, I'm white, male and straight. I'm not likely to oppressed for any of that in this country, despite the complaints of some, so I'm not too concerned. I do work for a living and don't have piles of money laying around to give to politicians, so I'd say I'm already being oppressed by the rich's easy access to influence. Like 99% of us.

So a basic, fundamental right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, should apply differently to different people, depending on which group they belong to?

Guess that whole "equal in the eyes of the law thing" really does have an Animal Farm quality to it.

"All animals are equal
But some animals are more equal than others."

[bugleyman]

Oh noes! Class warfare!

Someone had better get out there and defend the poor, victimized .1%, before their "free speech" is compromised! And I know just the man to do it...

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

Well, I'm white, male and straight. I'm not likely to oppressed for any of that in this country, despite the complaints of some, so I'm not too concerned. I do work for a living and don't have piles of money laying around to give to politicians, so I'd say I'm already being oppressed by the rich's easy access to influence. Like 99% of us.

So a basic, fundamental right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, should apply differently to different people, depending on which group they belong to?

Guess that whole "equal in the eyes of the law thing" really does have an Animal Farm quality to it.

"All animals are equal
But some animals are more equal than others."

Except it's not applied differently. The poor would be limited to the same amount as the rich.

[bugleyman]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Except it's not applied differently. The poor would be limited to the same amount as the rich.

Class warfare. ;-)

[LazarX]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

Well, I'm white, male and straight. I'm not likely to oppressed for any of that in this country, despite the complaints of some, so I'm not too concerned. I do work for a living and don't have piles of money laying around to give to politicians, so I'd say I'm already being oppressed by the rich's easy access to influence. Like 99% of us.

So a basic, fundamental right, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, should apply differently to different people, depending on which group they belong to?

Guess that whole "equal in the eyes of the law thing" really does have an Animal Farm quality to it.

"All animals are equal
But some animals are more equal than others."

When the United States was still being hammered out as a country, voting rights was a contentious issue. The first change was to strip women's voting rights in those states that had previously allowed them as colonies. Among the others was to set a requirement that ownership of a certain amount of land for voting.

So yeah, even back in the day it was an issue.

[137ben]

Andrew R wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The rich do have different rights to political speech than the poor. The poor can't give thousands of dollars to politicians, because they're poor!

Arguing that limiting the rich to only giving far more than the poor will ever be able to give instead of overwhelmingly more is giving the poor more power than the rich is utter nonsense.

The rich also have diffent rights to keep and bear arms as prices are being forced higher. Part of the opposition to things like "smart gun" technology is the fear of pricing peoples rights away. just saying, this money issue exsists on many levels

The rich also have different 3rd Amendment rights than the poor. Particularly the poor who don't own houses.

LazarX wrote:

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Further laws exist to define libel and slander, as well as laws against speech that directly encourage others to commit specific or imminent illegal actions.

Yes, and so our positions overlap a lot more than it may seem. The only difference between us germane to the current thread is that I disagree that the Supreme Court's rulings on money-as-speech actually support the meaning of the 1st Amendment, and you do. You might be interested in this thread as well.

I'd thought about joining the thread, but a man's only got so much time to waste on the internet.

You had enough to make a throughly pointless post. Then again, so did I.

This is the best post in the history of politics threads on non-politics-related forums:)

[bugleyman]

Hey Doug's Workshop...try watching this; You might learn something. It's even free (Socialist!) on Netflix.

I have to warn you, though -- it is narrated by a well-educated (read: lefty elitist intellectual) former Secretary of Labor (read: government stooge), so it may not be to your taste. Heaven knows you can't trust those university types, what with all their studying and facts and stuff.