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.
