Bribery is free speech too. Yet bribery is illegal. So where do we draw the line? Consider the special interest groups today that take this approach: "I'm not coordinating with the Senator, but I did start spending millions of dollars of attack ads on her opponent as soon as she voted against Cap and Trade on carbon emissions, and after she left Congress I hired her as a 'consultant' paying her a multi-million dollar salary." Currently that's on one side of the line. I think it needs to be on the other side of the line.
You didn't address my point. Where do you draw the line? At one point does one's choice of how one allocates one's money go from "free speech" to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?
Downvoters, this is something to consider. I'm no fan of money in politics, but I have a real difficult time trying to figure out how to get money out of elections without stifling the ability of folks (rich or otherwise) to advocate for their issues.
If you don't see any difference between advocacy (on your own dime) and literally handing a check to a person with regulatory power over your commercial interests, then you are well and truly lost to reason.
The Constitution guarantees the right to petition the government. It says nothing about the "freedom" to deliver those petitions in briefcases full of cash (slight hyperbole, but you get the idea).
Personally, I'd be willing to live with Citizens United if (a) the less debatable parts of election rigging were struck (i.e. gerrymandering, closed primaries, and private campaign finance) and (b) the rule against direct coordination between "independent" producers and campaigns they assist were extended to a ban on hiring anyone who had worked on a campaign for at least five years.
As it stands, people who have been deeply enmeshed with a campaign, who know all the players, and who know the strategy cold, can "quit", go to work for an "unrelated" PAC, and proceed to produce media that "happens" to mesh with the "unrelated" campaign.
It's bullshit, floor to ceiling. Truly independent political speech is one thing. The current reality is something else.
If you don't see any difference between advocacy (on your own dime) and literally handing a check to a person with regulatory power over your commercial interests, then you are well and truly lost to reason.
So I guess we're not going to discuss this like adults?
Like I wrote, I am no fan of money in politics, but if there is money in politics, there is always going to be a way to use that money to the advantage of someone else, by means other than "literally handing a check to a person with regulatory power over your commercial interests" - the only way to prevent that is take money entirely out of politics, but that does affect free speech.
Truly independent political speech is one thing. The current reality is something else.
Agreed. Now, how to you get one without the other without impacting one's right to free expression?
> If you don't see any difference between advocacy (on your own dime) and literally handing a check to a person with regulatory power over your commercial interests, then you are well and truly lost to reason.
The law is that you can't hand a candidate a check bigger than $2,500, nor can a corporation hand the candidate any such check. Citizens United does nothing to change that (because the Congress derives its power to ban that from its control over the candidate, not the donor).
What was at issue in Citizens United was precisely the question of advocacy on your own dime.
I have a real difficult time trying to figure out how to get money out of elections without stifling the ability of folks (rich or otherwise) to advocate for their issues.
That is the _entire point_ of this whole movement (i.e., the one Lessig is helping push).
It's not that hard. We need a better internet, and a more engaged public.
Money is a big deal in politics because money means advertisements and advertisements mean mindshare and mindshare means votes. All you have to do is bypass that.
It's not that hard. We need a better internet, and a more engaged public.
Those two statements are contradictory. Even if they weren't, "a better internet, and a more engaged public" doesn't automatically mean that people get to hear your message.
I'm not seeing an attack on free speech here. Unlike some campaign-finance proposals, he's not advocating any restrictions on anyone's ability to say whatever they want (and spend however much money they'd like in doing so). Instead he's proposing a public campaign-funding scheme which would be opt-in for candidates.
All rights must be balanced against each other when they come into conflict. Free Speech Laws vs. Election Campaigning Laws. Can't have both. How/Where does one draw the line?
I don't think there is any right that is unbreakable. A person can choose to not have medical treatment even if it kills them, meaning the state is willing to allow someone's right to life to be infringed (by that person). A person's right to a medical treatment can come up against someone else's right to life (in the case of abortion). Right to free speech is balanced against immediate public panic (the "fire in a crowded theatre" thought experiment), and is also balanced against someone's right to a good name (i.e. libel and slander law). The right to own property is balanced against the state's right to tax you. The right to privacy is balanaced against your child's right to not be abused (meaning the state can look at what you're doing). etc. etc.
Can you succinctly name a right that never needs balancing against another?
