The Supreme Court: Free Speech v. Paid Influence

[_MeDotOrg]

What the Court has decided, in effect, is that free speech is constrained by not allowing unlimited access to paid influence. The Law, in its majestic equality, has decided that rich and poor alike have equal access to buying television time. As a democratic society, Americans need to ask what is meant by ‘free speech’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and what are the ramifications for our democracy when ‘free speech’ costs money.

To understand what this means, let's take a trip to the Northeast corner of Hyde Park in the city of London, where there is a place which should be sacred ground for everyone who believes in freedom of speech.

For over a hundred and fifty years, in the place called Speaker’s Corner, people have gathered to listen and in turn speak their minds.When we speak of ‘getting up on our soapbox’, we are talking about the traditional platform used at Speaker’s corner. When we say an idea should be ‘aired in the public square’, we are talking in a literal sense about what speakers from Karl Marx and George Orwell to Winston Churchill have done in the Northeast corner of Hyde Park.

Imagine, if you will, the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on Speaker’s Corner. Let’s say the Court decides that prohibiting people from bringing sound systems to Hyde Park is infringing on their freedom of speech. Everyone would still be allowed to speak, but in order to amplify your message (which is your right!) the government could not limit the size of the sound systems used in the exercise of those rights. A speaker’s effectiveness would be measured not by the virtue of their reasoning, but rather the decibels of their sound systems. People would spend more time raising money and designing sound systems than they would spend thinking about what they were going to say. Corporations would have pavilions where people agreeing with their corporate viewpoints would be invited to speak. And the poor sod who can’t afford a sound system? Oh he is still free to speak, (we believe in freedom of speech!) but no one can hear him. The speaker proposing a tax on sound systems would most certainly be drowned out by the the speaker with a sound system.

Isn't that what is happening in our Country today? Politicians have to spend more and more time raising money for their Sound Systems. They have become the servants, not of what they believe are the best ideas, but the COST of disseminating those ideas. Most politicians spend every spare moment asking someone they know, someone they don’t know, or someone they can’t stand for money. There is less and less time to spent on drafting or reading legislation, and less and less time for listening to their constituents, especially when those constituents don’t happen to have a checkbook in their hands.

What kind of political rhetoric is favored in this environment? If you’re going to ask for more and more money, your cause has to be more and more urgent. It just can’t be that Democrats and Republicans have legitimate differences on policy. That’s not good enough to raise the kind of money you’re going to need. Your supporters must not only be drawn to your ideas, but live in fear of your opponents. Extremists, not moderates, are the ones that benefit in this climate. You’re going to need to demonize the other side, and convince your supporters that not only is the other side wrong, they are evil, that God is on your side and the very future of Western Civilization hangs in the balance of your struggle.

Sound familiar?

Consider this description of a modern politician’s modus operandi : “...never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;”

That was the United States Office of Strategic Services evaluation of Adolf Hitler.

How has this evolution of the political process benefited representative government? Do we see better policies being formulated, better legislation being enacted? On the contrary, we see gridlock, with any hope of consensus of compromise hijacked by extremists.

Do the best ideas win? No, because the best ideas are not important. What is important is shouting your idea louder and more often than the other guy. And that requires money.

Money is the gateway drug of corruption. What happens to the integrity of a Congressman in our current political environment? He begins by trying to convince people with money that his are the best ideas. And he ends by convincing himself that people with money have the best ideas. The result is politicians whose principles and votes can turn on a dime, or more accurately, several million of them.

The vast majority of American people feel this happening.The percentage of voters approving Congressional job performance is in the low teens, disapproval ratings are above 80 per cent.

But ask a member of Congress and you’ll find Democrats and Republicans in lockstep agreement about both the problem and the solution: “Our side would love to get things done, but the other side is blocking us at every turn. So if you just give us more money, we can elect enough members to override their obstructionism. Of course, the enemy is very well organized, so you will have to give us a lot more money.”

And so our dysfunctional political system is stuck in the middle of a giant negative feedback loop. The more required to run, the more the system favors extreme candidates. The more extreme the candidates, the less room there is for compromise. The less room there is for compromise The less gets done. The less that gets done, the greater the crisis. The greater the crisis, the more extreme the candidates. Round and round we go.

Like blind idiots we feed the beast. We throw more money at a problem that is caused by too much money. The fundraisers tell us if they only had a little more gasoline they could put out the fire. We are in a political arms race that results, not in better government, but mutually assured destruction. Nothing gets done.

The problem is not inherent in the ideology of either party. The problem is systemic, and it begins with the ungodly amounts of money required to run for office.

[_bcspace]

Here was the question before the court in a nutshell:

Congress allows contributions to nine candidates, but not 10. How could giving to candidate No. 10 cause any corruption if giving to candidates one through nine doesn’t?

[_MeDotOrg]

Here was the question before the court in a nutshell:

Congress allows contributions to nine candidates, but not 10. How could giving to candidate No. 10 cause any corruption if giving to candidates one through nine doesn’t?

If you see it as an issue of incremental-ism, then you're right, it's no big deal. To me it's like we're lobsters in a pot who think the water is getting nice and toasty.

"It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party -- it just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

First of all, it isn't just 'the 10th candidate', it's potentially 535 of them. There is now no limit to how many federal campaigns to which you may contribute, just on the maximum amount you may contribute to each.

But this all begs the question: Is it right to unequivocally equate a person's ability to spend money with free speech? To me, this is the financial equivalent of 'might makes right'.

Is it right for Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers or George Soros to have that much influence on 434 House elections that occur outside their home districts, or influence the Senatorial elections of 48 Senators who don't live in their home states? Our democracy is becoming more and more skewed in the direction of a plutocracy.

[_subgenius]

Here was the question before the court in a nutshell:

Congress allows contributions to nine candidates, but not 10. How could giving to candidate No. 10 cause any corruption if giving to candidates one through nine doesn’t?

If you see it as an issue of incremental-ism, then you're right, it's no big deal. To me it's like we're lobsters in a pot who think the water is getting nice and toasty.

this metaphor is actually with frogs...lobsters are put in pots with the water already boiling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

"It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party -- it just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

First of all, it isn't just 'the 10th candidate', it's potentially 535 of them. There is now no limit to how many federal campaigns to which you may contribute, just on the maximum amount you may contribute to each.

But this all begs the question: Is it right to unequivocally equate a person's ability to spend money with free speech? To me, this is the financial equivalent of 'might makes right'.

It is right. A system that is founded on the idea of "representation" must allow for it. Money is not evil, like you hope, people do evil things. Not every person with money disagrees with you nor agrees with me. People that are upset about this sort of thing are just poor and/or envious.
I remember a mayor (san diego i think) years ago being challenged by a reporter for speaking out against smoking when it was clear he was taking campaign money from tobacco companies - to which he responded "if you can't take money from someone and then screw them over, you have no business being in politics".

Is it right for Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers or George Soros to have that much influence on 434 House elections that occur outside their home districts, or influence the Senatorial elections of 48 Senators who don't live in their home states? Our democracy is becoming more and more skewed in the direction of a plutocracy.

perhaps you are correct on this notion
http://news.yahoo.com/party-rich-congre ... ction.html
"But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California."

[_MeDotOrg]

But this all begs the question: Is it right to unequivocally equate a person's ability to spend money with free speech? To me, this is the financial equivalent of 'might makes right'.

It is right. A system that is founded on the idea of "representation" must allow for it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't see how representative democracy is served by someone from out of state influencing the election of your congressional district.

Money is not evil, like you hope, people do evil things. Not every person with money disagrees with you nor agrees with me. People that are upset about this sort of thing are just poor and/or envious.

I don't see how you can make the argument that people like John Kerry or John McCain "are poor and/or envious".

But you're quite right: money is not evil, anymore than heroin, cocaine, or automatic weapons are evil. It's how they are used, and how people allow themselves to be influenced by their use, that can create evil.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence to show that excessive amounts of money in politics can create corruption.

What I think, what I hope, or what you think I hope has nothing to do with it.

Is it right for Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers or George Soros to have that much influence on 434 House elections that occur outside their home districts, or influence the Senatorial elections of 48 Senators who don't live in their home states? Our democracy is becoming more and more skewed in the direction of a plutocracy.

perhaps you are correct on this notion
http://news.yahoo.com/party-rich-congre ... ction.html
"But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California."

I don't see the logic in connecting billionaires influencing congressional elections outside of their districts to which party represents wealthy congressional districts. That's comparing apples to oranges (or frogs to lobsters ;-) Nancy Pelosi won her seat in 2012 with 85% of the vote. If Pelosi didn't spend a dime on her re-election campaign she would still have been re-elected. No amount of money was going to change the outcome.

Where money figures prominently in influencing elections has nothing to do with wealth of the district, it has to do with how evenly divided the district is. The more evenly divided, the more money will be thrown at the election to influence it.

If you lived in Mississippi or California in 2012, you didn't see as many Obama or Romney commercials as you did if you lived in Ohio. It had nothing to do with the state's median income.

It is possible not to see the issue as a zero-sum game between Democrats and Republicans.

[_Brackite]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence to show that excessive amounts of money in politics can create corruption.

Yes, there is. Especially with California's Public-sector unions.

"When you're trying to put a stake through the heart of the labor movement, people will come out of the woodwork," said Steve Maviglio, spokesman for the campaign against Prop 32 and for the unions lining up against Reed's proposal.

"I could say that if a measure like this moves forward, it'll outstrip what was spent on Prop 32."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... R820131203

There are 31,527 retired public workers in the “$100,000 pension club” and 582 who are receiving pensions of at least $200,000 a year. Including wages and benefits, there are 227,059 state and local workers earning total compensation of at least $100,000 a year.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stat ... ublic.html

Since then, Reed had been pushing a 2014 statewide measure that would change the constitution to allow cities to make such cuts, but Attorney General Kamala Harris drafted a ballot summary that seemed lifted from the union playbook. The measure would “eliminate” constitutional pension protections, she wrote. Reed sued over the wording, but a Sacramento judge last week sided with Harris.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Mar ... -bad-news/

If you lived in Mississippi or California in 2012, you didn't see as many Obama or Romney commercials as you did if you lived in Ohio.

If you lived in California in 2012, most of the political commercials you saw on TV or heard on the radio had to do with Propositions 30 and 32. Unfortunately, Proposition 32 failed to pass in California, and that was mainly with all of the money that California's Public-sector unions spent against it.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, there is. Especially with California's Public-sector unions.

At least in those cases we're dealing with far less money and representation of millions of people. That you would even mention unions proves you're not at all interested in this subject. What the Republicans are so excited about is that their many billionaire donors can now trot across the country donating millions in states, let alone districts, that they've never lived in before.

Do you really not see how this is a problem for our democratic process? Do you really think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our representative democracy? Or do those dead men suddenly not matter, now that you have a radical Republican judge on the bench rewriting a century of campaign finance law?

It isn't a big secret that money wins elections. What scares Republicans is that they rely more on a small percentage of billionaire donors while Democrats tend to get most of the American, average Joes, so to speak. SO obviously they love the court's ridiculous ruling. I remember during Romney's campaign he was relying almost entirely on relatively few wealthy donors, because the number of small donors was significantly lower when compared to Obama.

"Obama’s campaign raised about $25 million in August from people contributing $200 or less. Romney’s campaign? A comparatively anemic $9.4 million."

"More than half of Mr. Obama’s fund-raising total has arrived in donations of less than $200. Just 13 percent of Mr. Romney’s fund-raising has come in such small denominations. Instead, a majority of the money Mr. Romney has raised arrived $2,500 at a time, the maximum campaign donation allowed for either the primary or the general election (an individual can contribute $2,500 to a candidate’s primary campaign and another $2,500 to the general election campaign)."

[_MeDotOrg]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence to show that excessive amounts of money in politics can create corruption.

Yes, there is. Especially with California's Public-sector unions.

"When you're trying to put a stake through the heart of the labor movement, people will come out of the woodwork," said Steve Maviglio, spokesman for the campaign against Prop 32 and for the unions lining up against Reed's proposal.

"I could say that if a measure like this moves forward, it'll outstrip what was spent on Prop 32."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... R820131203

First of all, if you're thankful that Californians have an initiative process that can "put a stake through the heart of the labor movement", you should thank the Progressive movement. If it were up to conservatives, the initiative process would have never happened.

If you fell that it is corruption for a group of tens of thousands of Californians to spend money on what is in their self interest, how do you feel about Charles Munger, who spent more than $50,000,000 in support of Prop 32? A single individual outspent the largest group opposing the proposition (the California Teachers Association) by more than 2 to 1.

But all of this is a little off the original subject matter, which is whether it is right for wealthy individuals to exert inordinate amounts of influence on elections outside of their states or districts.

[_subgenius]

the irony of someone complaining about "paid influence" yet they are on board with Hillary Clinton.