Two Years After "Citizens United," Amending the Constitution is Essential

[bripat9643]

It's not about what's being said, but how it's paid for. You can do all the research you want, but if there's a backroom deal tied to campaign contributions, the deck may already be stacked.

Speech is speech, no matter who's paying for it. An ad in the newspaper or on television is speech.

Enough said.

 

[konradv]

Exactly. It's time for voters to grow up, and stop sitting in front of their TVs waiting to be advertised to.

I think it's time to quit making it easy for special interests to buy our representitives' votes.

Ok... so let's say we make it harder. Now only the people who really want to buy a candidate will be able to do it. Hmm.... how's that again?

Well then you'd be able to throw them in jail. Now you can't touch them, because the bribery is legal.

 

[bripat9643]

It wouldn't be a repeal of the first amendment,

Yes it would.

but something limited covering campaigns.

Where does the First Amendment make an exception for political campaigns? In fact, if there is one thing the founders would have mentioned explicitly, it's political campaigns.

It's also not about "access", people would still be able to lobby, just not contribute to campaigns. As for who gets funds, I'd have regular debates at all levels, even during off years. When elections approach, have sub-primaries to determine who has significant support from the parties and any independents. From there money would be divided equally and the number of candidates cut down after the primaries. Not only would that keep people from selling their votes, they'd also have more time to do OUR business, instead of spending so much of it auctioning their vote to the highest bidder.

The decision has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns. It refers to independent expenditures. Everyone opposed to the decision always talks about campaign donations. They have nothing to do with it.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's time to quit making it easy for special interests to buy our representitives' votes.

If politicians had nothing to sell, then special interests wouldn't be shopping for anything.

 

[konradv]

It's not about what's being said, but how it's paid for. You can do all the research you want, but if there's a backroom deal tied to campaign contributions, the deck may already be stacked.

Speech is speech, no matter who's paying for it. An ad in the newspaper or on television is speech. Enough said.

Don't really see your point. I agree that's speech, so what? I was talking about the quid pro quo that often accompanies campaign donations and how that can block the will of the people.

 

[konradv]

It wouldn't be a repeal of the first amendment,

Yes it would.

but something limited covering campaigns.

Where does the First Amendment make an exception for political campaigns? In fact, if there is one thing the founders would have mentioned explicitly, it's political campaigns.

It's also not about "access", people would still be able to lobby, just not contribute to campaigns. As for who gets funds, I'd have regular debates at all levels, even during off years. When elections approach, have sub-primaries to determine who has significant support from the parties and any independents. From there money would be divided equally and the number of candidates cut down after the primaries. Not only would that keep people from selling their votes, they'd also have more time to do OUR business, instead of spending so much of it auctioning their vote to the highest bidder.

The decision has nothing to do with contributions to political campaigns. It refers to independent expenditures. Everyone opposed to the decision always talks about campaign donations. They have nothing to do with it.

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

 

[dblack]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

What about other forms of influence? Media figures have tremendous influence this is not, directly at least, "money". Should Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow be silenced as well?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Abolishing the First Amendment isn't an option. Furthermore, you wouldn't even succeed in taking all money out of the system. You're ignoring all the free advertising that the DNC propaganda organs (liberal media) give to Democrat candidates. You're also ignoring the built in advantage of incumbency.

 

[konradv]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

What about other forms of influence? Media figures have tremendous influence this is not, directly at least, "money". Should Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow be silenced as well?

I'm not talking about silencing anyone. I'm talking about getting rid of the backroom deals. Limbaugh and Maddow are out in the open.

 

[konradv]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Abolishing the First Amendment isn't an option. Furthermore, you wouldn't even succeed in taking all money out of the system. You're ignoring all the free advertising that the DNC propaganda organs (liberal media) give to Democrat candidates. You're also ignoring the built in advantage of incumbency.

Never said anything about abolishing the First Amendment, simply tweaking it when it comes to campaign finance.

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

What about other forms of influence? Media figures have tremendous influence this is not, directly at least, "money". Should Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow be silenced as well?

I'm not talking about silencing anyone. I'm talking about getting rid of the backroom deals. Limbaugh and Maddow are out in the open.

How do you do that?

What do you know about the Nevada milk deal?

 

[dblack]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Abolishing the First Amendment isn't an option. Furthermore, you wouldn't even succeed in taking all money out of the system. You're ignoring all the free advertising that the DNC propaganda organs (liberal media) give to Democrat candidates. You're also ignoring the built in advantage of incumbency.

Never said anything about abolishing the First Amendment, simply tweaking it when it comes to campaign finance.

Fair enough, but it seems that when you take away direct contributions, wealthy and powerful interests will simply find other ways to influence the campaigns. Look at the progression. We limited the ability of wealthy people to give money directly to candidates, so they've resorted to supposedly issue-oriented PACs, who buy advertising on behalf of the favored candidate. If you close those down, it will simply accelerate the already growing trend of directly buying the media. Fox News is only the tip of the iceberg if you take away private contributions.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm talking about something larger, public financing to take ALL private money out of the system.

Abolishing the First Amendment isn't an option. Furthermore, you wouldn't even succeed in taking all money out of the system. You're ignoring all the free advertising that the DNC propaganda organs (liberal media) give to Democrat candidates. You're also ignoring the built in advantage of incumbency.

Never said anything about abolishing the First Amendment, simply tweaking it when it comes to campaign finance.

Of course you have. If you want to limit all independent expenditures, you are talking about Abolishing the First Amendment.

First you claim you aren't talking solely about campaign contributions, then you claim you are, then you claim you aren't. You can't stick to one position or the other because you understand that an solution to the "problem" means abolishing the First Amendment and putting the government in charge of deciding what speech is allowed and what isn't allowed.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I was right there until you started talking "the 1%". Visions of OWS propaganda and horse dookey... My eyes started to glaze over and I was quickly falling asleep... More class warfare...

So you don't like what others are saying? I don't care how much money someone spends on "political messages", I tend to make up my own mind. That's why it doesn't bother me when unions spend so much on political messages. You first have to subscribe to the fact that they should be listened to...

 

[konradv]

Abolishing the First Amendment isn't an option. Furthermore, you wouldn't even succeed in taking all money out of the system. You're ignoring all the free advertising that the DNC propaganda organs (liberal media) give to Democrat candidates. You're also ignoring the built in advantage of incumbency.

Never said anything about abolishing the First Amendment, simply tweaking it when it comes to campaign finance.

Fair enough, but it seems that when you take away direct contributions, wealthy and powerful interests will simply find other ways to influence the campaigns. Look at the progression. We limited the ability of wealthy people to give money directly to candidates, so they've resorted to supposedly issue-oriented PACs, who buy advertising on behalf of the favored candidate. If you close those down, it will simply accelerate the already growing trend of directly buying the media. Fox News is only the tip of the iceberg if you take away private contributions.

You could make a rule that for a certain period before an election or primary that only candidates using public funds can make media buys. I wouldn't make any rules about free media, except that you have to present all the candidates. I've got nothing against speech, it's the backroom money deals that bother me.

 

[konradv]

Abolishing the First Amendment isn't an option. Furthermore, you wouldn't even succeed in taking all money out of the system. You're ignoring all the free advertising that the DNC propaganda organs (liberal media) give to Democrat candidates. You're also ignoring the built in advantage of incumbency.

Never said anything about abolishing the First Amendment, simply tweaking it when it comes to campaign finance.

Of course you have. If you want to limit all independent expenditures, you are talking about Abolishing the First Amendment.

First you claim you aren't talking solely about campaign contributions, then you claim you are, then you claim you aren't. You can't stick to one position or the other because you understand that an solution to the "problem" means abolishing the First Amendment and putting the government in charge of deciding what speech is allowed and what isn't allowed.

Now you're making things up. I haven't changed my position. If you think so, prove it with a cite. Just saying so, doesn't cut it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Communist Party USA is calling for the exact same thing

 

[konradv]

The Communist Party USA is calling for the exact same thing

What's that? Gotta give me more info!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

the only way to get money out of politics, is to take government out of business and put them back in their proper role of upholding the law. Once government can not sway the business sector or the market to special interest groups, the money that corps dump into government for favors would be useless and wouldnt happen.

No sway over business = Can not be bought by business

 

[dblack]

You could make a rule that for a certain period before an election or primary that only candidates using public funds can make media buys. I wouldn't make any rules about free media, except that you have to present all the candidates. I've got nothing against speech, it's the backroom money deals that bother me.

Sure, but my point is that you're just moving the back room deals to different rooms. Direct bribery is already illegal. So what they've been doing instead, is financing the candidates' campaigns. If they can no longer give them money to buy advertising directly, they'll simply buy the media and give them free advertising in the form of biased reporting and "opinion news" saturation, ala Fox News. If we make serious efforts to stop that, then we are getting into straight up infringement on the first amendment.