Reply #32: Sorry, but you fail on every point

[skepticscott]

<This is your opinion. However, limits on financial contributions have been part of the American political landscape for over a century. This is not a case of restricting 'the ability to disseminate political messages'. This case was about unrestricted spending as a way to buy votes by folks and corporations that have money to burn. There is no 'right' as you say, in the Constitution that allows for anyone to buy votes.>

Not even remotely a matter of my opinion. The truth of it is attested to by your own reaction (and that of many other people here) to the decision. You reacted negatively to the decision because you yourself KNEW that lifting restrictions on campaign advertising would inevitably (not probably) increase the amount of political speech being disseminated, just as as you knew that keeping those restrictions in place (or reinstating them, as you'd like) would restrict and reduce it. The opinion here (yours, and not a very sound one) is that votes are being "bought". What's being bought is the opportunity to persuade people to vote a certain way, and nothing more. The decision on who to vote for remains, as it always has, with the individual voter, and if they are not persuaded, what exactly has been bought, under your theory of things?


<This is not the point of the case and you know it. It is about allowing the richest people in the world to drown out the voices of the average American. An example of this is the recent revelation that a single hedge fund manager from Long Island has single handedly bankrolled $175,000 in adds against a candidate in Oregon. That one person has had a disproportionate impact on the voting patterns due to the amount of money that he has available. The average American does not have this ability.

It is increasing the amount of 'political speech that is disseminated' (that is if you equate money as speech) but for only a handful of rich bastards that can afford the add buys. I have a problem, as I stated above, with this because it means that one voice/position is disproportionately disseminated over that of the average citizen. This has nothing to do with what speech I like or don't like, I am against any rich individual or group from having more representation over the average American regardless of political stripe. The fact that most of the rich are supporting Republicons this election cycle is beside the point.>

Maybe your version of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except when one side is having a lot more success getting its message out than the other, in which case Congress shall step in and level the playing field", but I can't seem to find that part in mine. Strange. And do you and everyone else who is up in arms about this decision get steamed when George Soros gives millions to Democratic candidates, allowing them to outspend their Republican opponents? If Democrats were raising and spending 3 or 4 times the amount that Republicans were on Congressional campaigns, even if that money came from a limited number of wealthy sources, would you be calling for a change in the system to even things out, so that one point of view wasn't being disseminated disproportionately? Somehow, I think not.

<This seems to be the core of your opinion, and the weakest. The notion that a stressed and uninformed electorate is somehow able to objectively cast a vote in their best interests while deluged with deception and outright lies in campaign adds funded buy 500 of the richest people and corporations in the world is laughable. It is entirely relevant that their voting is influenced by these rich bastards, that was the whole point of the case to begin with. Control. Control of the messages that are disseminated through the electorate by the very few for their own benefit rather that the benefit of the country as a whole. We do not live in a 'Free' society any more. This ruling merely reinforces this point. >

What's laughable is your presumption that your own judgement and ability to resist being swayed by political propaganda (it comes from the left too, btw) is far superior to those you look down on as being influenced by "rich bastards" and having no ability to judge their own best interests. And even if your presumption were correct, where did you acquire the right (or where did Congress or the Supreme Court get the authority) to decide on what basis people should be allowed to make their voting decisions? On what basis will you or they decide which messages are TOO deceptive, or who is TOO gullible to be allowed to exercise their right to vote? None that can be justified. Hence the whole freedom of speech thing.