I wonder how this is going to go?

[Trevis]

How is limiting money not a speech issue? Speech costs money, this forum costs money. Would you be in favor of this forum being shut down because it goes over some arbitrary limit? Isn't Illinois Carry incorporated?eta: just woke up actually, now off to work.

 

Money is not a means of communication, directly. You don't buy houses, cars, and cheeseburgers with speech. You don't work every day for a means of communication; you trade parts of your time for value, which you can exchange for goods and services. Just how is money more closely related to speech than it is simple property?

 

You're really not following what I'm saying if you think I'm in favour of any limit. What I am saying is that classifying money as speech allows for creative interpretation of your rights, when it doesn't have any of the other qualifiers that would logically place it under the 1st amendment. If you want to classify money as speech, we could draw the conclusion that people of lesser means have less access to their 1A rights, and therefore not equal protection under the law. You really want to trot down that path?

 

The other HUGE issue with this fuzzy logic is that you run out of money, you don't run out of things to say, generally. Money is a commodity, whose value lies partially in its scarcity. Believe me, people's opinions are never ending, and you'd much rather someone handed you a dollar than their opinion most of the time.

 

[jake8267]

Having more money does not directly equate to having more "speech" what it does is afford one the ability to purchase more venues in which to present your "speech," which may have the same affect, but is still a difference that needs to be noted. Since most people here would agree that we should be able to spend our money on whatever we want, then, so too should corporations, unions, and other groups, despite the fact that this allows these groups to outspend and therefore out message other groups. Though there is nothing preventing those other groups from raising funds to combat their opponents. We can't ask for the rights of others (in this case not, in my opinion free speech, but free use of money) to be limited simply because we find that the practice of those rights disadvantages us.

[Tompo]

 

In today's politicos, if you have $100 and I have $10....you have more 'speech' than I do. have you noticed the guy with the most money wins 95% of elections? That's not right.

The same was true when the Constitution was written. Ben Franklin and his printing press could afford a lot more speech than the farmer.

 

And you've just admitted that limiting money limits speech, you can't do that.

 

 

 

 

No, having someone with nearly unlimited money limits everyone elses speech. Free speech is supposed to be equal. If a billionaire is able to buy thousands of commercials, like a guy like Rauner, he's more likely going to win. Like it or not, if someone has more money than you, they have more "speech".

[Tompo]

Having more money does not directly equate to having more "speech" what it does is afford one the ability to purchase more venues in which to present your "speech," which may have the same affect, but is still a difference that needs to be noted. Since most people here would agree that we should be able to spend our money on whatever we want, then, so too should corporations, unions, and other groups, despite the fact that this allows these groups to outspend and therefore out message other groups. Though there is nothing preventing those other groups from raising funds to combat their opponents. We can't ask for the rights of others (in this case not, in my opinion free speech, but free use of money) to be limited simply because we find that the practice of those rights disadvantages us.

 

 

A corporation or a union isn't a "person". They have limited free speech rights. And, they definitely don;t have voting rights. Only people should be allowed to contribute to elections.

[Trevis]

 

 

No, having someone with nearly unlimited money limits everyone elses speech. Free speech is supposed to be equal. If a billionaire is able to buy thousands of commercials, like a guy like Rauner, he's more likely going to win. Like it or not, if someone has more money than you, they have more "speech".

 

This, my friends, is what we call a non-sequitr. Just because someone buys tons of commercials doesn't guarantee a win in an election. If that were the case, it would just be buying the election. (My own issues with the futility of voting aside...) There is more efficient ways of buying an election and keeping up the ruse that your vote actually matters. This still doesn't support the money being speech thing.

[defaultdotxbe]

A corporation or a union isn't a "person". They have limited free speech rights. And, they definitely don;t have voting rights. Only people should be allowed to contribute to elections.

The whole "corporations are not people" argument is a red herring to the actual issue. The question is whether limits on spending abridges free speech. You yourself say more money equals more speech so clearly limiting spending does in fact abridge speech

 

The constitution should seek to elevate those with less "speech" not tear down those with more

[jake8267]

 

Having more money does not directly equate to having more "speech" what it does is afford one the ability to purchase more venues in which to present your "speech," which may have the same affect, but is still a difference that needs to be noted. Since most people here would agree that we should be able to spend our money on whatever we want, then, so too should corporations, unions, and other groups, despite the fact that this allows these groups to outspend and therefore out message other groups. Though there is nothing preventing those other groups from raising funds to combat their opponents. We can't ask for the rights of others (in this case not, in my opinion free speech, but free use of money) to be limited simply because we find that the practice of those rights disadvantages us.

 

 

A corporation or a union isn't a "person". They have limited free speech rights. And, they definitely don;t have voting rights. Only people should be allowed to contribute to elections.

 

 

Possibly true, but where do we draw the line. In theory, corporations (looking at stockholders and owners, not employees) and unions are made up of people voluntarily associating with one another with a common goal. They then use their money to advance that goal. The NRA, LGBTA, the Humane Society, etc... are all made up of individuals voluntarily associating with a common goal and then using their pooled money to advance that goal. Which groups can spend money to support a candidate and which ones can't?

 

Further, do we stretch the prohibition to limit the spending of actual individuals? Bill Gates can spend more than I make in a year and wouldn't even notice. I can spend more than someone on welfare just managing to keep the family fed. Where should the line be on how people can spend their money?

[Trevis]

The problem isn't how much money is involved in politics, but THAT there is money involved in politics. I think the whole system is flawed from the start, so I can't say how this would be fixed.

[defaultdotxbe]

 

Possibly true, but where do we draw the line. In theory, corporations (looking at stockholders and owners, not employees) and unions are made up of people voluntarily associating with one another with a common goal. They then use their money to advance that goal. The NRA, LGBTA, the Humane Society, etc... are all made up of individuals voluntarily associating with a common goal and then using their pooled money to advance that goal. Which groups can spend money to support a candidate and which ones can't?

 

Further, do we stretch the prohibition to limit the spending of actual individuals? Bill Gates can spend more than I make in a year and wouldn't even notice. I can spend more than someone on welfare just managing to keep the family fed. Where should the line be on how people can spend their money?

Even then you run into the same problem. If the corporation can't spend money in support of a candidate they just write a check to an individual (a board member, or the CEO or something) who can then spend the money himself

 

So unless someone plans to say CEOs aren't people we are back to square one

[Tompo]

 

 

 

No, having someone with nearly unlimited money limits everyone elses speech. Free speech is supposed to be equal. If a billionaire is able to buy thousands of commercials, like a guy like Rauner, he's more likely going to win. Like it or not, if someone has more money than you, they have more "speech".

 

This, my friends, is what we call a non-sequitr. Just because someone buys tons of commercials doesn't guarantee a win in an election. If that were the case, it would just be buying the election. (My own issues with the futility of voting aside...) There is more efficient ways of buying an election and keeping up the ruse that your vote actually matters. This still doesn't support the money being speech thing.

 

 

 

 

Does having more money guarantee a win? Depends on how you define a "guarantee". 95% of the candidates who spent more--won. That's pretty damn close to a "guarantee".

[Tompo]

 

A corporation or a union isn't a "person". They have limited free speech rights. And, they definitely don;t have voting rights. Only people should be allowed to contribute to elections.

The whole "corporations are not people" argument is a red herring to the actual issue. The question is whether limits on spending abridges free speech. You yourself say more money equals more speech so clearly limiting spending does in fact abridge speech

 

The constitution should seek to elevate those with less "speech" not tear down those with more

 

 

 

No, limiting spending makes "speech" equal for all. There's no question if you have $1000 to spend on a campaign and I have $100, you have the ability to BUY more 'speech". The best candidate doesn't win--the candidate that has the most money wins.

[Tompo]

 

 

Possibly true, but where do we draw the line. In theory, corporations (looking at stockholders and owners, not employees) and unions are made up of people voluntarily associating with one another with a common goal. They then use their money to advance that goal. The NRA, LGBTA, the Humane Society, etc... are all made up of individuals voluntarily associating with a common goal and then using their pooled money to advance that goal. Which groups can spend money to support a candidate and which ones can't?

 

Further, do we stretch the prohibition to limit the spending of actual individuals? Bill Gates can spend more than I make in a year and wouldn't even notice. I can spend more than someone on welfare just managing to keep the family fed. Where should the line be on how people can spend their money?

Even then you run into the same problem. If the corporation can't spend money in support of a candidate they just write a check to an individual (a board member, or the CEO or something) who can then spend the money himself

 

So unless someone plans to say CEOs aren't people we are back to square one

 

 

 

 

Or, you limit the amount an individual can contribute.

[defaultdotxbe]

 

No, limiting spending makes "speech" equal for all. There's no question if you have $1000 to spend on a campaign and I have $100, you have the ability to BUY more 'speech". The best candidate doesn't win--the candidate that has the most money wins.

 

So then what should the limit be? If I only have 100 dollars to spend does that mean no candidate can spend more than 100 dollars?

[defaultdotxbe]

Or, you limit the amount an individual can contribute.

 

Which is why I say "corporations aren't people" is a red herring. You have to limit people, whether that includes corporations or not

[borgranta]

 

 

Possibly true, but where do we draw the line. In theory, corporations (looking at stockholders and owners, not employees) and unions are made up of people voluntarily associating with one another with a common goal. They then use their money to advance that goal. The NRA, LGBTA, the Humane Society, etc... are all made up of individuals voluntarily associating with a common goal and then using their pooled money to advance that goal. Which groups can spend money to support a candidate and which ones can't?

 

Further, do we stretch the prohibition to limit the spending of actual individuals? Bill Gates can spend more than I make in a year and wouldn't even notice. I can spend more than someone on welfare just managing to keep the family fed. Where should the line be on how people can spend their money?

Even then you run into the same problem. If the corporation can't spend money in support of a candidate they just write a check to an individual (a board member, or the CEO or something) who can then spend the money himself

 

So unless someone plans to say CEOs aren't people we are back to square one

 

 

 

Or, you limit the amount an individual can contribute.

 

To be 100% fair they should limit how much a person can contribute to $0 that way everyone will be be on an equal playing field regardless of financial situation. A good lawyer could argue that campaign funding may be considered by some as a form of bribery especially since many campaign donors appear to have the ear of the candidates that they finance.

[defaultdotxbe]

To be 100% fair they should limit how much a person can contribute to $0 that way everyone will be be on an equal playing field regardless of financial situation. A good lawyer could argue that campaign funding may be considered by some as a form of bribery especially since many campaign donors appear to have the ear of the candidates that they finance.

 

That's not the issue though, the issue is how much a person (or union or corporation) can spend on their own in support of a candidate. That's what the proposed amendment seeks to limit

[jake8267]

 

Or, you limit the amount an individual can contribute.

 

Which is why I say "corporations aren't people" is a red herring. You have to limit people, whether that includes corporations or not

 

 

Which is then placing a limit on the free speech of individuals. And as borgranta said, the limit would have to be 0, since there is always someone who cannot afford to contribute anything and therefore, using Tompo's argument, they have no speech as it pertains to elections. Thus, everyone else has to have the same level of speech, none.

The amendment seeks to fix a symptom rather than the actual illness. The problem is that we have career politician's we are basically bribed into maintaining certain positions, while they focus predominately on getting re-elected rather than on the needs and wishes of their constituents or upholding their oath of office.

[TomKoz]

 

 

Possibly true, but where do we draw the line. In theory, corporations (looking at stockholders and owners, not employees) and unions are made up of people voluntarily associating with one another with a common goal. They then use their money to advance that goal. The NRA, LGBTA, the Humane Society, etc... are all made up of individuals voluntarily associating with a common goal and then using their pooled money to advance that goal. Which groups can spend money to support a candidate and which ones can't?

 

Further, do we stretch the prohibition to limit the spending of actual individuals? Bill Gates can spend more than I make in a year and wouldn't even notice. I can spend more than someone on welfare just managing to keep the family fed. Where should the line be on how people can spend their money?

 

Even then you run into the same problem. If the corporation can't spend money in support of a candidate they just write a check to an individual (a board member, or the CEO or something) who can then spend the money himself

 

So unless someone plans to say CEOs aren't people we are back to square one

 

Or, you limit the amount an individual can contribute.

What about those that can't afford to contribute anything?? They are left speechless.

 

$ I know, let's have taxpayer funded distributions to those poor folks just so they can exercise their Right to speech. $

[defaultdotxbe]

$ I know, let's have taxpayer funded distributions to those poor folks just so they can exercise their Right to speech. $

 

I have heard a similar proposal before. Rather than donating to a specific party or candidate all donated funds are put into a single pool and divided equally among all registered voters. Each person can then allocate their share of the funding to whomever they want

 

 

 

of course for that to work you would still have to restrict people from spending any money to campaign independently on behalf of a candidate

[borgranta]

Current technologies including but not limited to Live Stream and YouTube and Skype could be used to level the playing field since a candidate unable to physically be at a debate due to fuel cost and other factors can use Tele-presence to be their virtually which could help a non-career politician run just as good and as long as a campaign as the career politicians.

[Tompo]

 

 

What about those that can't afford to contribute anything?? They are left speechless.

 

$ I know, let's have taxpayer funded distributions to those poor folks just so they can exercise their Right to speech. $

 

 

 

 

 

 

You finally got something (half) right. The poor have NO voice.

[Tompo]

 

 

 

Or, you limit the amount an individual can contribute.

 

To be 100% fair they should limit how much a person can contribute to $0 that way everyone will be be on an equal playing field regardless of financial situation. A good lawyer could argue that campaign funding may be considered by some as a form of bribery especially since many campaign donors appear to have the ear of the candidates that they finance.

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like you're supporting federal funding of elections? I'm all for that. if we don't get the money out of politics, it doesn't matter who gets elected, the little guy loses.

[defaultdotxbe]

You finally got something (half) right. The poor have NO voice.

So by your logic no one should have a voice, so then its all equal

[dorvinion]

 

Does having more money guarantee a win? Depends on how you define a "guarantee". 95% of the candidates who spent more--won. That's pretty damn close to a "guarantee".

 

In a typical year, 85-90% of Congressmen and Senators are reelected.

 

Incumbent governors are reelected over of 75% of the time the last couple decades.

 

Now, maybe they do spend more than their challengers, more likely the real reason they win is that being an incumbent provides a substantial leg up over challengers.

 

Apart from name recognition, incumbents have access to a much bigger piggy bank than their challengers do...the general fund.

 

That's ignoring the fact that most Congressional and Legislative districts are gerrymandered to assure a particular party's candidate is almost guaranteed to win, and for statewide elections many states lean more than a few points towards R or D.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Sounds like you're supporting federal funding of elections? I'm all for that. if we don't get the money out of politics, it doesn't matter who gets elected, the little guy loses.

Federal funding is still money in politics. It just means the politicians get to decide how much funding they get by writing it into the laws

[Tompo]

 

Sounds like you're supporting federal funding of elections? I'm all for that. if we don't get the money out of politics, it doesn't matter who gets elected, the little guy loses.

Federal funding is still money in politics. It just means the politicians get to decide how much funding they get by writing it into the laws

 

 

 

But...every candidate gets the same amount. There's no denying the guy with the biggest pot of gold--wins.

[Tompo]

 

You finally got something (half) right. The poor have NO voice.

So by your logic no one should have a voice, so then its all equal

 

 

 

Where did you get THAT from? Where did I ever say or imply NO ONE should have a voice??? There's NO "logic" in that statement at all.

[TomKoz]

Any law that limits the amount of money I, or any corporation, can spend on political ads just seems to me as a way for the government to control more. More government control, what the left is all about. Must stop the conservative movement!

[Tango7]

I find it interesting that many of the people who complain about the Citizens United decision offering unlimited chance for influence to "the rich" feel that contributions by unions should remain unfettered.

 

There's also complaining about "the rich" as some nebulous, nefarious group, ignoring the fact that most politicians make the bulk of their personal wealth while in office.

 

Perhaps a better solution would be to prohibit anyone with wealth or income that exceeds a measure of the national median from holding office, or from profiting directly or indirectly from their own actions in a fashion that would be considered insider trading by anyone without a D or R after their name?

[dorvinion]

 

 

 

You finally got something (half) right. The poor have NO voice.

 

So by your logic no one should have a voice, so then its all equal

 

 

 

 

 

Where did you get THAT from? Where did I ever say or imply NO ONE should have a voice??? There's NO "logic" in that statement at all.

 

When government tells people they can't contribute exclusively to the candidate of their choice, or that they must fund advertisements for a candidate they reject government is directing their speech to ends that the government chooses, and denying a person the right to speak as they choose.

 

This is a gross violation of the first amendment.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk