Money IS Speech, Its Official!

What is the point of making it so that you have to contribute through one of these groups at all? Why not just say "Hey everybody! Throw your money anywhere you want!" Instead of setting up all kinds of legal jargon so that corporations and individuals can funnel money anonymously?

Making it so that I have to go through a Pac takes away my ability to support what I really want. I can give them money and let them do what they want with it. Maybe I only want to support certain people running and each pac only supports half the people I want with my money and then half the people I really don't want in office. Forcing me to contribute through someone else or spend even more moeny to set up my own is ridiculous and frankly I'm shocked you'd be in support of this.

Fair for who? In the end the company gets to make the decision of "teaching a noob @ 90k" vs "experience @ 100k". It's their call.

What's the problem with putting up a flyer anonymously around town advocating anything?

I actually agree with Nausi here. Private companies should be able to make decisions like that. They can hire some noob straight out of college for $120k if they think its the best path for their long term health.

You're not entitled to that position just because you have more experience. There might be other disqualifiers or they just might not like you.

Do you think it's fair that they hire someone based on the color of their skin rather than a more qualified candidate to appease a cry from the public?

Why would you want to do it anonymously? If you support these people so much that you're willing to dump millions into their campaigns... why be afraid to be associated with that fact?

In any case you're skirting the issue. Why am I limited as an indivdual but not limited as part of a larger group that I would just have to follow their lead even if they didn't fully represent my interests?

You are. Our schools misrepresent.

Technically we are a democratic republic. In actuality we are a kleptocratic plutocracy. Run those words through Dictionary.com and I am sure you will agree.

I suppose freedom is a government basically bought by the rich and wealthy whilst the word of the majority or poor is drowned out due to the sound of the coin exchanging hands through what equates to legalized bribery. Your sense of freedom seems to conflict with my own sense of justice, and sometimes justice trumps freedom such as in this very instance.

We may have freedom of speech but money isn't speech, speech is ideals, words, actions, the freedom to have our own opinions, it's not the freedom to force those opinions on others by spending currency in order to gain power or influence over the government itself.

Yep, I know. I more or less went with Dictionary because it's easiest way to prove a point with accurate definitions.

Ok, so I've gotten bored with the "I can't actually support this and it acts against my own benefit" arguments in favor of letting people spend freely. What I've noticed, though, is that every report and comment has been parroting the same line:

"We don't want the wealthy to unduly influence government."

Pardon me while I gasp for breath from laughing too hard. That nonsense is right up there with saying, "We don't want the Sun to unduly shine on the Earth," inasmuch as we have any capacity to affect it.

Interesting fact: in the 2012 Presidential election, which we'll recall was one of the bitterest battles in recent history, only 591 individuals came close to hitting the spending limit, anyhow. So there's your number: fewer than 1,000 people can buy your life. I can't say I find it surprising, but it is nice to know.

Anyhow, we know the wealthy will influence government. That's always going to be the case for a variety of reasons that are totally unrelated to campaign donations. What concerns me beyond the trammeling of what little free speech we have (funny, by the way, how Republicans make a lot of noise about freedom of speech when they're getting told to stop trying to ruin lives but trumpet the limiting of it when filthy lucre gets waved around like Pac Man Jones is on set) is the other effect.

We know that wealth will find a way to influence government. But what about when government officials can basically hold out their hands and say, "Pay me $10,000,000 (in 'campaign donations') or I'll pass a law that will ruin your business, pollute your neighborhood, rape your wife, and call you mean names in gym class"?

I imagine most Americans are unaware, but this kind of corruption is rampant in the second and third world. For instance, if you want something as simple as running water in India, you can try to go through the process of talking to the public water department and get nowhere, or you can bribe the local official and actually see it happen. And this is a non-partisan issue, to all you knee-jerk conservatives. If the Democrats are currently in power, they can strong-arm with the same fervor as Republicans can. Even out of power, they can leverage the same stalling tactics that have effectively stopped all action in the Senate for the past couple years.

Call that freedom of speech? Government to the highest bidder. If you aren't rich and you support that, you are deluded. Even if you are rich, you'd better hope someone isn't richer.

If I wanna speak my politics anonymously shouldn't I have the right to? Christ, you're on an anonymous internet forum about politics after all....

I don't necessarily think anyone should be limited from spending their own money however they want, The ruling maintains the current individual limits but those limits weren't really why the case was brought to court. The argument that was made to the court was "I should be able to contribute to as many individual candidates and PACs as I want as long as the individual limits aren't breached."

If you can't find a PAC that supports what you want, start your own PAC. Create the supply for the demand.

Besides what's the alternative to a privately funded political system where you pick where your money goes? A public one where you don't have any choice? Seriously, you guys advocate for less of a private system for some of the the exact reasons public systems suck.

Neither advocacy nor speech equates to forcing a particular opinion down anyone's throat. The fact that you think it does is a pretty good indicator to me that you just simply refuse to tolerate opinions you don't like to hear.

The removal of aggregate limits effectively increases the amount of money a single individual can pour into an election. When this amount is larger than any amount of money most of us will likely ever see in our lifetimes, it drowns out whatever paltry financial support you or I may happen to give to a particular candidate.

How in the hell do you see this as a good thing? Remember, Democrats/Liberals have a substantial amount of money to throw around in elections as well.

anonymity is a double edged sword. you should be able to spend your money however you see fit, but you aren't entitled to anonymity when exercising influence. if bill gates gives 5 million dollars to candidates that propose to let software companies import children for beta testing, i want to know about it, so i can exercise my power as a consumer and spend my money how i see fit. if he is allowed to bankroll politicians that further his agenda anonymously, i no longer have the ability to further mine.

the only honest way to conduct elections is publicly, or we may as well be letting billionaires choose our elected officials.

Goodness, a genuine use of facts and arguments. How novel.

Could you please cite examples of public systems of political funding. I find myself unable to agree or disagree with you as I do not appear to be familiar with the alternative.

Clearly people are too stupid to listen to advocacy and make up their own minds about it?

Seriously, you're just whining that you don't have any money at this point...

If money buys elections, how come Romney didn't win?

It's like you skim over half of my post and then just continue on with whatever thought you have on the topic at hand...

You can but I just think it's funny that people don't want their names associated with their political affiliation.

I think they should take money out of it altogether. Let the politicians that get in to office be free of the chains that money binds them to.

I adressed starting a new PAC already...

What are you even talking about at this point?

Because they raised approximately the same amount of money and no one liked Romneybot.

Answer the question.

How do you think it's funny? You're anonymously posting about your political opinions on this very forum. I don't see you giving out your name and address along with "comeatmebro".

Take money out of it altogether? Are you mad? How would they finance their campaigns? Or do live in a place where campaigns don't require financing?

Free speech is never a bad thing...

Well, so much for that interlude with real arguments. Hello, again, obstinate, terse, meaningless posts.

Doesnt your vote count as your voice in democracy?

I havent read further than this point in the thread(doing so right after this post) but this stuck out to me.

Yes, that is why there are no limits to free speech. Everything is allowed since there are no negative repercussions ever.

Really unless your free speech puts me in direct harm (yelling fire in a crowded theater), you have a right to say it.

Please continue your argument as to how limitless political advocacy, puts one in direct harm.

We're a Representative Democracy, we vote for a guy/gal who then votes/makes decisions for us. Obviously they can easily be bought and paid for too.

Sheldon Adelson wants nothing more than war against Iran and in the last month or so, almost every potential republican candidate went to Vegas to kiss his behind, begging for money.

I see potential harm there.

I'm going to create a PAC to limit free speech. Who is with me !

Not even SCOTUS thinks limitless monetary donations is a good idea (at least for the moment >.>). You're trying so hard to act dense in order to keep up this argument.

Well I'm no legal scholar but I think the Supreme Court knows what is free speech or not.


I do pretend to be one on the internet though...

I wish we did. I really wish we did.

Well we all know how much you and your kind love your authority figures.

I came here to complain about how much free speech there is. We need to start regulating it before it gets out of control.