And that was the point of the decision, was it not?.

[RC]

[skepticscott]

1. Silly strawman..

Of course spending is not the same thing as speech. The point is that the right to raise and spend money is inextricably linked to the right to disseminate political messages, and to restrict the former is inevitably to abridge the latter. If that's not the case, then why is everyone so concerned about the impact of this decision? People seem to be saying on the one hand that lifting restrictions on political spending will, without question, increase the number of political messages being broadcast, while at the same time denying that any such connection between speech and spending exists.

[hwmnbn]

2. When the cost of "free speech" advertising becomes prohibitive ...

then only those with enough resources will have their speech expressed/advertised. It's nothing personal, it's just business.

This ruling will DECREASE the number of political messages to only those that can meet the cost.

[skepticscott]

3. The First Amendment only states

that the government cannot abridge the right of free speech, and that is what the Citizens United decision was based on. The First Amendment does not guarantee anyone a particular forum for their speech at a "non-prohibitive" cost.

Your own statement "This ruling will DECREASE the number of political messages to only those that can meet the cost" merely reinforces my point that the right to raise and spend money cannot be separated from the right to disseminate political messages. But from this standpoint, the ruling really changes nothing, since political advertising has always been limited by a candidate's or a party's financial resources. It seems what most people are really worried about with this decision is that there will be less of the type of political messages that they favor ideologically, though I suspect that if the situation were reversed, they'd be perfectly happy with that.

[hwmnbn]

4. So in other words...

The First Amendment does not guarantee anyone a particular forum for their speech at a "non-prohibitive" cost.

You're claiming that as long as you can afford the cost, the First Amendment guarantees you a forum to exercise your free speech. People with unlimited resources can saturate the media with their messages. People without resources have to settle for their soapbox in the park. Am I understanding you correctly? In your opinion, was this the original intent of the First Amendment?

the ruling really changes nothing, since political advertising has always been limited by a candidate's or a party's financial resources.

The ruling changes EVERYTHING or else it wouldn't be such a big deal. Now candidates have unlimited advertising potential bankrolled by private corporate concerns in direct opposition and at the expense of the public interest. What was once regulated by albeit weak election financing laws has now been deregulated completely.

If you think deregulating the banking industry was a good idea, I can see why you'd love deregulating election financing. IMO, it's potentially a bigger disaster in the making.


I myself prefer to judge a politician's policies on their merit, not on his advertising budget. I contend that is a superior way to judge and choose our representatives. After this ruling, I will not hear as many policy alternatives from which to choose. That's the danger here.

[skepticscott]

5. Please don't put words in my mouth

You're claiming that as long as you can afford the cost, the First Amendment guarantees you a forum to exercise your free speech. People with unlimited resources can saturate the media with their messages. People without resources have to settle for their soapbox in the park. Am I understanding you correctly? In your opinion, was this the original intent of the First Amendment?

I claimed no such thing. The First Amendment does not guarantee you a forum under any circumstances. It guarantees you freedom from government interference or restraint, most especially where political speech is concerned. And yes, people with more money can afford to disseminate more messages than people with less money, just as was the case from the day the Constitution was ratified and ever since. You may not be happy with that, but the Framers were certainly aware of it, and it is not a First Amendment issue. The original intent of the First Amendment was most certainly not to ensure that every single voice and opinion got equal weight, time and access.

The ruling changes EVERYTHING or else it wouldn't be such a big deal. Now candidates have unlimited advertising potential bankrolled by private corporate concerns in direct opposition and at the expense of the public interest. What was once regulated by albeit weak election financing laws has now been deregulated completely.

What you seem to be saying is "Now candidates that I don't like have unlimited advertising potential bankrolled by private corporate concerns in direct opposition and at the expense of the public interest." Well, some people do like those candidates. Are those people more gullible and easily fooled than you? Would we all be better served by less political information rather than more? How much is the correct amount and who gets to decide?

Here's the thing...other people are allowed to base their voting decisions on what you or I might regard as "corporate", "right-wing" or "racist" propaganda, just as we are allowed to base our voting decisions on what they (just as strongly) believe is "socialist", "left-wing" or "politically correct" propaganda. That's the "free" part in "It's a free country".

If you think deregulating the banking industry was a good idea, I can see why you'd love deregulating election financing. IMO, it's potentially a bigger disaster in the making.

More putting words in my mouth to try to make your argument seem stronger. Did I say anywhere that I thought deregulating the banking industry was a good idea? Or that I love deregulating election financing? Even if this decision does end up having a detrimental effect on politics in this country, that is not the concern of the Supreme Court. Their concern is (or at least should be) to render a decision in accordance with Constitutional principles, without regard for the social or political consequences. When Brown or Miranda or Mapp were decided, critics of those decisions claimed (not without some justification) that they would cause enormous inconvenience and upheaval. Should they have been decided otherwise on that basis?

[hwmnbn]

6. I'll simply quote and respond rather than try to characterize your arguments..

The First Amendment does not guarantee you a forum under any circumstances. It guarantees you freedom from government interference or restraint, most especially where political speech is concerned.

By this logic then all campaign finance regulations would be government interference or restraint and therefore unconstitutional. I'm asking... Is that your bottom line? Because from my vantage point, this Citizens United ruling counters all established law regarding campaign finance reform since 1907. You said it changed nothing, I contend it changes everything. It is a precedent which will be used in future cases... guaranteed!

the thing...other people are allowed to base their voting decisions on what you or I might regard as "corporate", "right-wing" or "racist" propaganda, just as we are allowed to base our voting decisions on what they (just as strongly) believe is "socialist", "left-wing" or "politically correct" propaganda. That's the "free" part in "It's a free country".

If you eliminate any political speech either by force, or in this case economics, you eliminate an informed electorate. You may disagree, but IMO, a misinformed/uninformed electorate is not "free" and I doubt any interpretation of the Constitution would condone that. I suspect whether by accident or design, this deliberate stacking of the information deck will be the consequence of this ruling.... to the detriment of our democracy.

When Brown or Miranda or Mapp were decided, critics of those decisions claimed (not without some justification) that they would cause enormous inconvenience and upheaval. Should they have been decided otherwise on that basis?

The difference being in these cases, those decisions addressed substantial real world suffering and injustices toward the average citizens. What real world problem or injustice does Citizens United address? Seriously, you cannot equate codified segregation, illegal search & seizure, and self incrimination with the ability to donate unlimited funds to a political campaign. How have these corporate entities been adversely and irreparably harmed that they require intervention by the Supreme Court?

[skepticscott]

7. Well, go back to my original response

to the OP (which attempted to imply, satirically, that relating speech and the ability to spend money was misguided thinking). You seem to agree that the point of the OP was foolish, and that speech and the ability to spend money are inextricably linked.

As far as everything else:

Point 1: Yeah, that's pretty much the way the Court has gone, and I have yet to see a good argument on how government-imposed limits on political speech are Constitutional. As far as what's changed, what really significant, loophole-free restrictions were in place before this decision that aren't there any longer?

Point 2: Well, by your own argument, if this case had not been decided the way it was, there would be less political speech out there, and consequently (also by your argument) a less informed electorate. Again, you seem to have a problem only with having too much of a certain kind of political message, coming from a certain kind of source. But the Constitution makes no such distinction, and does not allow the abridgment of political speech just because it may happen to mislead some people (nor even if it is intended to mislead people). Nor, as I stated before, could it possibly be construed to require that all points of view from all political directions have equal prominence.

Point 3: Where is it written that a decision has to address "substantial real world suffering and injustices toward the average citizens" in order for constitutionality to outweigh social consequences? You seem to be under the delusion that the decision most in line with the Constitution must necessarily also be the one that will produce what you regard as the greatest possible benefit to our society. That'd be nice, but sorry to tell you, it ain't always so. The Framers were smart men, but their wisdom was not unlimited.

[hwmnbn]

8. to address your points....

You seem to agree that .... speech and the ability to spend money are inextricably linked.

I absolutely do not agree, in fact just the opposite. I contend the inordinate ability for monied interests to corrupt the electoral process is one of the biggest threats to our democracy. As I mentioned before, it's the quality of the policies, not the saturation of the message which determines my decisions. If I ruled the world, I'd have public financing of all elections and give every candidate the same amount of money with which to make their case.

I have yet to see a good argument on how government-imposed limits on political speech are Constitutional.

I take it then that you've opposed all the rulings on campaign financing since 1907. In your opinion, all that precedent was based on flawed logic and only now with this Citizens United decision is the Constitution finally being upheld. No limits or safeguards of any sort is what the framers intended, what the Roberts court finally delivered, and with which you concur. Do I have that about right??

Well, by your own argument, if this case had not been decided the way it was, there would be less political speech out there, and consequently (also by your argument) a less informed electorate.

No, no, no, you misunderstood. I contend BECAUSE this case was decided the way it was, there will be LESS political speech due to the economic imbalance, resulting in a less informed electorate, making it easier to advance the interests of the folks who put up the cash in the first place. I suspect that was the purpose of this ruling all along.

Where is it written that a decision has to address "substantial real world suffering and injustices toward the average citizens"

What's the point of the Supreme Court if not the final arbiter of justice for the average citizen? Complex situations embedded in changing political realities is the arena in which these Justices work, but ultimately their job is to insure the citizenry is afforded equal justice under the law. That's the "delusion" I've always had. What's yours?

[skepticscott]

9. So if speech and the ability to spend money are NOT inexorably linked

then why is it inevitable (as you contend) that an increase in spending from some quarters will have the effect that you predict? Why won't every point of view be able to publish their messages with equal voice whether they are spending a little money or a lot? I'm not sure you even realize what you're arguing, frankly.

And in my version of the Constitution, it says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" If you have evidence (as opposed to opinion, gut feeling and shoulda/oughtas) that the framers intended "no law" to mean something other than "no law" with regard to political speech, then let's have it.

"I contend BECAUSE this case was decided the way it was, there will be LESS political speech due to the economic imbalance" Again, you seem to mean less political speech of the type and from the sources that you favor ideologically, but more of other types. No support in the Constitution for those kinds of distinctions.


"What's the point of the Supreme Court if not the final arbiter of justice for the average citizen?" The point of the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and means, not just for the "average citizen", but for everyone to whom its law applies. You seem to think that the "average citizen" must always be on the side of the angels, and as I said before, it just isn't so. That's the cold, hard reality, and consequently I have no delusions, illusions or rose-colored views of the Supreme Court.

[hwmnbn]

10. This is getting fun, thanks for playing...

then why is it inevitable (as you contend) that an increase in spending from some quarters will have the effect that you predict?

Simple market forces. If candidate A has unlimited funds he will win every bidding war for media exposure. Why would would any network, newspaper, or radio outlet sell advertising time or space to candidate B for less than what A is willing to pay? They wouldn't. With unlimited money, which is what this ruling now allows, candidate A can freeze out all opposition. It's not fair but fairness and the public interest seems to not be a major concern for this court... or you.

And in my version of the Constitution, it says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"

Then in your world, you can yell "Fire" in a crowded auditorium and be within your constitutional rights because as you vehemently proclaim... "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." I'd say this is a serious conundrum for your position.

Your problem lies in your inability to reconcile your intellectual constructs with practical real world situations. But that's why I'm here to help. LOL

The point of the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and means, not just for the "average citizen", but for everyone to whom its law applies.

In my world, whether they are on the side of angels or not, everyone is an average citizen before the Supreme Court. How about you?

... I have no delusions, illusions or rose-colored views of the Supreme Court.

I'd describe it more as blinders on your eyes if you can't see that an influx of unlimited money without restrictions into political campaigns will corrupt an already suspect system even further. I doubt you're that naive to believe it won't. Maybe you don't care, maybe this is just an intellectual exercise for you. But the decisions the SC makes have real world consequences, this one affects our elections, and thus our democracy.