This is my first time encountering the issue myself rather than reading about it in an existing comment, but with JavaScript disabled the site doesn't render any text at all; it only showed up after I end enabled it for both this domain and `squarespace.com`. As far as I can tell, the only part of the rendering that's dynamic is the content slowly fading in as I scrolled (possibly with some faux scroll-like effect rather than actually native scrolling).
I assume from the need to whitelist squarespace.com that this is more likely to due to something done on that platform rather than an intentional decision by a developer, but it's unnecessary for a site with some basic text styling and an image or two not to just render the content without animations when JavaScript is disabled. Has anyone here used Squarespace before, and if so, is this typical for sites made with it?
This argument has little chance. To avoid the quid-pro-quo problem, [edit: super]PACs already avoid coordinating with politicians' campaigns. They create and distribute their own copy, that expresses their donors' own political views, which is protected speech.
If politicians are corrupted by people publically saying nice things about them, that doesn't seem a good enough reason to infringe on speech rights. Prosecute the corruption directly.
> PACs already avoid coordinating with politicians' campaigns.
No, they don't. Most PACs do and are allowed to coordinate with candidate campaigns, SuperPACs are legally prohibited from it, but also regularly do (sometimes with "hacks" like coordination by multiparty public signalling, but also fairly often just by outright violations of the rules, which are poorly enforced -- investigations are rare, and even they occur and violations are found and penalties are imposed, they are too delayed and too small to make it not worthwhile to violate the rules routinely.)
So there's no need to ban super PACs, just a need to enforce the existing rules? Sounds more workable than a state constitutional initiative that directly contradicts a SCOTUS ruling...
The problem is that the current enforcement by an "independent" (bipartisan, and in this case balanced) commission enables partisans of either party to block enforcement, traditional executive enforcement would raise the possibility of enforcement becoming (if nothing else, by negative action) biased for the current executive.
Maybe you could open up private litigation to enforce it, which reduces the bias problem to the bias of the courts and the usual problems of bias for resources to litigate, which might seem the minimally dysfunctional approach if it wasn't for the Supreme Court being in the middle of a brazen corruption crisis of its own.
This is an area which has a very big quis custodiet ipsos custodes problem, "just enforce the rules" as a solution kind of just skips over the fundamental challenge.
(Though I did make a mistake, I misremembered the small fines for soliciting large foreign donations as small fines for coordination; in fact, the FEC has never fined any PAC anything for coordination.)
One person’s freedom of speech is another person’s propaganda undermining everything important in society. How is bribery not a type of free speech for example?
Most countries have decided that during elections people spending huge sums of money is not going to lead to good government, but who knows.
Sure but much like monopoly and guns, at a certain they become a severe detriment to society. Everything has a limit, I think it’s time we revisit those borders in court. However, I think current SCOTUS would double down on Citizens and increase it’s influence in some manner. Another big one is why if someone can see my donations to political parties, why are super pacs allowed to hide who the dark money is coming from? Seems like a no-brainer to make it publicly available. If I find some restaurant chain I frequent is donating millions to someone promoting fascism, I’d love to be able to give my business to another restaurant chain
Most campaign funds are spent on ads, and ads don’t really persuade voters. When was the last time a political ad even registered to you? I think campaigns spend a lot of money for the same reason we spend lots of money on interventions at the end of life. It’s more a psychological thing because the stakes are high than the money actually having a major impact on the outcome.
> When was the last time a political ad even registered to you?
They're not targeting you. Or me. Or 99.9% of the folks on this board. They're targeting their efforts at the undecided middle who are not sure who they'll vote for, or even if they'll vote. The ones who hear "Genocide Joe" or "Von Shitsinpants" and don't apply any further critical thinking.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in swing states just doing "grassroots" get-out-and-vote campaigns.
I'm one of those people, and I don't think advertisements are effective on any of them. I think that's proven true empirically. In 2016, Clinton massively outspent Trump, but Trump broke the "blue wall" by winning over a bunch of Obama 2008 voters. If you look at polling over the last six months, Trump has significantly increased his support among working class Hispanics, and materially increased his support among black people. But Biden has spent two to three times as much as Trump on advertising: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/politics/advertising-election....
I think what you're really seeing with these voters is that they don't line up ideologically with either party, so their voting is highly context-dependent. They vote based on their perception of what's going on in the country. My wife and I are going to vote Trump in 2024, after voting for Biden in 2020, because of immigration, affirmative action, New York's prosecution of Trump, etc. The salience of these issues changes from election-to-election. In 2020, Biden was the pro-vaccination candidate, and in 2024, he's the pro-immigration candidate, and those two things cuts in different directions for many voters. But I don't think advertisements can change anyone's views on those issues. Obviously, cable news, Tik Tok, Facebook, etc., shape people's views on those issues (or rather, people's perception of the salience of those issues), but the candidates can't control that.
I think you're correct that the grassroots get-out-and-vote campaigns have a large impact, but I think that's also very different from money spent on ads. That's about each party turning out its base to actually go vote, not really influencing people through mass media. Is it a bad thing that money is spent doing that?
> the prosecution of Trump in New York cemented my vote choice [for Trump]
That's a shame. Here's another perspective: Trump has made a career out of, so to speak, defiantly driving as fast as he wants, whenever and wherever he wants. This time, he's gotten a big ticket for going 90 in a 70 mph zone on an interstate highway — sure, it's not a school zone, but it's hard to see the ticket as political persecution.
(And let's not forget that the judge in the NY case bent over backwards to be fair to Trump — not to mention that the jurors, each of whom Trump's defense counsel had a chance to strike, were unanimous about all 34 felony counts.)
> Trump has made a career out of, so to speak, defiantly driving as fast as he wants, whenever and wherever he wants.
That’s utterly unsubstantiated. Trump has been a businessman in New York City for decades and was never prosecuted criminally for anything until he entered politics. It’s also irrelevant. Even if it were true that “he’s gotten away with lots of crimes in the past” that doesn’t justify prosecuting him on a creative legal theory. When a gang member is prosecuted for bullshit, defense attorneys fall over themselves saying that each prosecution must be justified on its own, not the defendant’s uncharged and unproven bad acts.
> This time, he's gotten a big ticket for going 90 in a 70 mph zone on an interstate highway — sure, it's not a school zone
It’s not like that at all. Trump was prosecuted on a creative legal theory—stitching together three different laws which individually couldn’t support a prosecution for either jurisdictional or time-bar reasons—that even CNN’s legal commentator Elie Honig called “unjustified.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-t...
> it's hard to see the ticket as political persecution.
It is not only a political prosecution, but the bar’s deafening silence is profoundly shameful to our whole profession. Attorneys who do extensive pro bono work getting gang members off on technicalities are looking the other way when New York brings a novel prosecution that they would condemn has it been brought against a violent criminal.
At some point recently, many attorneys abandoned longstanding principles of the legal profession for liberal moral sensibilities. I remember folks at my wife’s old firm, Arnold & Porter, sniffing about how they would never represent Trump. This is a firm that has made its money for decades (and continues to do so) defending Philip Morris against cancer victims. This was before January 6, back when Trump’s biggest crime was being, in their view, “a racist sexist homophobe.” In the new morality embraced by much of the legal profession, that makes Trump worse than a company that peddled poison and killed millions of people over decades.
Big firms should be lining up to work pro bono on Trump’s appeal given the novel legal issues it raises. But they won’t because Trump offends their moral sensibilities in a way that defending gang members somehow does not. It’s sick.
> Trump has been a businessman in New York City for decades and was never prosecuted criminally for anything until he entered politics.
Objection, nonresponsive.
> even CNN’s legal commentator Elie Honig called “unjustified.”
I had to look up Elie Honig, whose name didn't ring a bell.
Another fact: When NYC DA Alvin Bragg initially elected not to bring the charges against Trump, two of his prosecutors in charge of the investigation resigned. CNN's reporting indicated that the internal debate, among prosecutors in the DA's office, wasn't whether it'd be proper to bring charges — that much seemed to be largely agreed, at least by most of the prosecutors — but whether doing so would be a waste of time and taxpayer money, given the need for a unanimous jury verdict and the expected credibility attacks by Trump's lawyers against key prosecution witness Michael Cohen. [0].
> This [Arnold & Porter] is a firm that has made its money for decades (and continues to do so) defending Philip Morris against cancer victims. ... In the new morality embraced by much of the legal profession, that makes Trump worse than a company that peddled poison and killed millions of people over decades.
I hold no brief for tobacco companies or their counsel, but I assume that, like the rest of us lawyers, you were taught that in court, everyone is entitled to a defense, even those who ought to be social pariahs for their misdeeds. (That said, I confess I haven't figured out how to reconcile that principle with the kinds of scorched-earth defense that big, wealthy companies typically put on against plaintiffs who clearly have a strong case.)
If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is?
For the same reason that Bob is allowed to purchase a pistol, but isn't allowed to organise with Joe and Frank and buy a functional tank with a 120mm cannon.
In the same way your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to walk over (like literally step on top of) other people.
Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations.
Size matters. Organisation matters. Joe saying something is his free speech. Joe buying ads to say something is free speech. 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. An association of people isn't a human. In many languages there are even specific terms for "physical person" and "juridical person" (like a company, association, grouping, etc.). It doesn't get human rights.
And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that. Otherwise you can have extremely rich people simply innundating everyone with their views, skewing people's opinions and getting the results they want instead.
> Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations.
I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech.
The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning.
> 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact.
What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different?
> An association of people isn't a human.
This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced?
> And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that
This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?
>If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is?
Nothing per se. However if Bob and Joe are "running ads about how bad Issue X is," I'd like to know (or at least be able to find out) that it's Bob and Joe and not Steve and Larry who are financing such ads.
While no one has mentioned it here yet, it seems to me that "dark money"[0] is a significant issue.
I am not very knowledgeable about freedom of speech laws in the US, but is it limited to individuals, or is it very broad, including organizations, coalitions and partnerships of multiple people as well?
In the US, the joke is that companies/organisations are people in terms of rights (to do damage), but not in terms of responsibilities.
When Boeing or any of the oil giants or a megachurch/any other cult kill or defraud people, the organisation doesn't go to prison. There's a small fine, cost of doing business, nothing more.
Free speech can generally be constrained - it is not absolute right (Article 19 of ICCPR), so every case where restriction is considered must take into account the context and the other human rights, rather than granting the free speech right unconditionally. I don’t think SCOTUS understood well the gravity of their decision back then.
When considering free speech for corporations, it must be taken into account that corporations often have more resources at disposal which they can use to amplify the voices of their shareholders or management, distorting the democratic process. Right to choose the government and hold it accountable is also a human right, which is clearly harmed by created imbalance of power.
This is exactly what has happened in America, making some researchers calling it oligarchy rather than republic.
> This assumption is trivialization of the problem.
No, this is the main objection. You need to justify why, and how, you're going to restrict freedom of speech instead of avoiding the problem.
> Free speech can generally be constrained - it is not absolute right (Article 19 of ICCPR), so every case where restriction is considered must take into account the context and the other human rights, rather than granting the free speech right unconditionally. I don’t think SCOTUS understood well the gravity of their decision back then.
Irrelevant, the U.S does not respect the ICCPR regarding freedom of speech. But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man.
> When considering free speech for corporations, it must be taken into account that corporations often have more resources at disposal which they can use to amplify the voices of their shareholders or management distorting the democratic process.
So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than a celebrity, an activist group, or demographic behavior distorting the democratic process? Can you quantify and demonstrate the effect?
> Right to choose the government and hold it accountable is also a human right, which is clearly harmed by created imbalance of power. This is exactly what has happened in America, making some researchers calling it oligarchy rather than republic.
Sorry, I didn't realize we slipped into an alternate dimension where poor people could not vote. Just kidding, haha. Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular.
> Free speech can generally be constrained
> But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man.
No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph (and I needed to say it because on this forum some people actually argued that free speech is absolute in the past, so I cannot assume that you or anyone else agrees with that).
>So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than...
People can vote even in totalitarian dictatorships. It is not the only process that defines democracy. They must have a candidate to vote in the first place. What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? How this candidate can secure a party nomination in presence of various special interests groups with money? The list of questions like that is very long. So no, it is not about "poor people who cannot vote". It is a much more complex issue.
>Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular.
You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I don't have/support any political projects related to USA. That country is not my problem, it's just an object of my curiosity.
This document is about funding transparency, and seems unrelated to what I said. Are you trolling me?
> What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters?
Very good, actually. Donald Trump was a party outsider, and far different from establishment Republicans. Bernie Sanders was second place in the primaries, twice in a row, and does not identify with the party, he simply invites himself in during election season. They both received tons of funding from various sources, with small contributions making up a large chunk of their funding. Turns out if you're popular money will flow your way.
There's also in the same clause freedom of the press. So yes, it's explicit that you can band together with others to freely publish your joint speech.
"Get money out of politics" -- one of the all-time juvenile ideas.
And ideologically biased as well: they really mean "make it so only people with a lot of time on their hands, like us, will be able to participate in politics."
I assume from the need to whitelist squarespace.com that this is more likely to due to something done on that platform rather than an intentional decision by a developer, but it's unnecessary for a site with some basic text styling and an image or two not to just render the content without animations when JavaScript is disabled. Has anyone here used Squarespace before, and if so, is this typical for sites made with it?