19 Comments

What could possibly go wrong?

Dude the constitution is like a 100 years old or something. Did they have the internet back then? Did they have Iphones? Freedom of speech is so last century. I’m all for it unless people are getting all butthurt or some rich dudes want tax breaks.

/Facepalm, I weep for our nation. Both parties are so weak on civil liberties. Walter Olson for POTUS 2016.

I wonder . . . Will the debate on the proposed amendment – either in Congress or the states- violate the proposed amendment?

1. Congress has a reputation for enacting stuff that puts a limit on Congress. Sure.
2. “It could even ban political ads featuring celebrities” . This is insanity. How will I know who to vote for?

Is anyone on the left worried about this? Surely someone’s jaw has to be dropping on how far this goes. When people bring up these issues, all I see from the left is complete disbelief that any of them are actually true.

Here is the problem. On the one hand, libertarians want a small government. That is not on the horizon. If it were possible, then no-one would care whether the rich contributed to the system, because we would not be so concerned about crony capitalism, rent-seeking, etc. Given what we have, it is inevitable that people buy access and elections with their money, under the guise of free speech. As Walter pointed out in a previous post, it seems as though the rich can buy more free speech rights than the rest of us.

So, if you live in the utopian world where people lobby and pay for elections solely out of their desire for better government (as George Will apparently does), Citizen’s United poses no problem.

If you live in the real world, Citizen’s United invites fraud, corruption, and graft. On the other hand, we have that persnickity first amendment. Throw in a well-deserved skeptism toward and mistrust of government and allowing our representatives to limit that speech is a scary thought.

Bottom line: either we accept fraud, corruption and graft, or we accept a limit on speech. A Hobson’s choice if there ever was one.

Allan, you have presented what President Obama likes to call a false choice. Fraud will continue to inflect politics whether or not Citizens United stands. In any event, what exactly is the “fraud” you are complaining about — that people subordinate an idealized notion of “good government” to their selfish interests in seeking to influence elections? Again, that problem is going to survive, whether or not Citizens United does.

Money in politics is inevitable, but becomes far more damaging when there is so much government around to influence. You want us to take the size and scope of massive government as a given, then (presumably) resign ourselves to more restrictions on speech as a consequence? No thanks. This is just another example of the “unintended” consequence of more government crowding out basic freedoms.

“2. “It could even ban political ads featuring celebrities” . This is insanity. How will I know who to vote for?”

Well, Jesse — you vote for the former SNL star, who wasn’t funny, but he occupied some time on Sat. nights for a couple of years, and who wrote some books that weren’t funny or original, but occupied some space at Barnes and Noble, and whose radio program tanked for lack of an audience, and who admitted to snorting coke, and who didn’t pay his taxes or workers’ comp premiums. But, Gosh, Darn It! He felt good about himself.

But, wait, isn’t that who got elected anyway? Members of Congress — setting rules for the rest of us to live by.

DEM,

We must take massive government as a given. It is not going away. We may not like the idea, but it is what it is. Big government is the price we pay for having a country of 300,000,000 people.

Personally, I think there will be less crony capitalism if we took money out of politics. On the other hand, the USSR ostensibly took money out of politics, but cronyism, corruption, and fraud were evident there, too.

So. You are of the belief that money will always corrupt government, so we should have a smaller government because it would mean less corruption. I, on the other hand, believe that money can corrupt government and, if we can somehow take money out of politics it would lead to a better result.

Frankly, it is a conundrum, no matter what way you look at it. People want a big government (if not, would they not elect more small government politicians?). People want freedom of speech. But people do not want the corruption caused by money in politics. Like it or not, it is a Hobson’s choice given our reality.

wfjag,

You have crossed the line. Al Franken was funny (as my 1st grader would say: “that is a fact, not an opinion.”).

In any case, it does not matter.

Fred Grandy was not funny, but he was elected to Congress (and did a decent job of representing his constituents).

Sonny Bono was funny (and did a decent job of representing his constituents).

While not a comic actor, G.W. Bush was a joke before becoming a politician (and did a mediocre job, at best, in office).

Thus, I conclude that a person’s relative humorousness prior to running for office is entirely irrelevant.

When I was young I saw liberals as having an advantage by giving benefits to people. Conservatives balanced that out by financing candidates directly. It seemed to work well.

Now liberals have fundraising to match the rich guys and the balance got out of whack. And Ross Perot and others encouraged people to think that they could clean up government with their good intentions. But governments run on complicated policies. Censoring political speech is problematic. We already have that with respect to Global Warming.

And yes people still want to bar scientific evolution from schools. My understanding is that those people are finally less than a majority, but still large enough to justify a “Holy Smokes” response.

Franken was funny? I musta missed that episode.

You can’t get rid of money in politics unless you get rid of freedom of the press.

The New York Times (for example) has every right to endorse a candidate, or to simply tend to publish stories favorable to that candidate and unfavorable to another candidate. If you say they can’t do that, you’re abridging freedom of the press. If you say they CAN do that, you’re essentially saying that the super-rich can get around these rules by simply using their money to buy an entire media organization instead of an ad. Why should it be legal to buy the entire New York Times but not to rent some space on page 8?

This makes me wonder if the entire proposed amendment would have no effect at all. The text of the proposed amendment states that nothing in it should be construed to limit freedom of the press. But what IS freedom of the press, if not the freedom to use your money to publish things you want to publish?

C,

I think we can get around your concerns.

First, the NY Times does not have to be a corporation. It can just as easily be a partnership or some other entity.

Second, the amendment would not take away anything, at least initially. It would simply give the government the chance to regulate. Consequently, the NY Times might retain the ability to do whatever it wants to do.

Third, the government could make laws trying to explain which corporations could spend money on politics.

I am not saying that the proposed amendment is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am saying that no corporation will necessarily lose its rights if the amendment passed. However, a corporation would be in greater jeopardy of losing those rights, which, perhaps, is just as bad.

@Allan,

“First, the NY Times does not have to be a corporation. It can just as easily be a partnership or some other entity.”

No it couldn’t.

1. There are only three options for a for profit business, incorporation, partnership and sole proprietorship.

2. The NYT is not a cash cow, they face numerous future financial problems due to declining readership.

3. For the NYT to unincorporate, a real person or a small group of real people would have to buy all of the outstanding shares and first take the NYT private.

4. Do you really think that there is anyone out there with enough money to buy the NYT who would be willing to do so if they knew up front that they would be losing the protection of limited liability? Billionaires don’t get that rich by being stupid.

After having lived in the EU for a while, I appreciate very much the benefits of the first amendment for the whole world, not just the USA. We are the only country that has a bedrock principle that protects ALL political speach, and almost all other speach. In other countries, the governments are allowed to ban whatever speach they consider dangerous or hurtful or whatever.

With the internet and the US first amendment, it is possible for people in other countries to read and talk about issues that are forbidden in their own countries. Even news that cannot be reported locally (this actually happens in the EU, in France and the UK), gets reported on some US-based news supplier. The combination of the internet and the 1st A serve a powerful need on this planet. It is sad that the rest of the world has been trying mightly to censure the internet, with demands for local control of content, and the EU saying that people have the right to be forgotten. Now the progressives say that we have to help them by gutting the 1st amendment.

They should be ashamed of themselves, and the rest of us need to condemn them in the harshest (but civil) possible way. When the Dems lose the senate this year, the names of the senators who voted for this abomination need to be inscribed on a stone tablet-of-shame that should be installed inside the National Archives next to the constitution.

“We must take massive government as a given. It is not going away. We may not like the idea, but it is what it is. Big government is the price we pay for having a country of 300,000,000 people.”

I don’t agree. For one thing, our government is utterly unsutainable financially, fueled by debt (and now money printing) that simply cannot go on indefinitely. That, combined with the fact that massive government and the welfare state have failed to deliver on any of their promises, makes me optimistic that the tide will turn. I can’t predict when, but it’s only a matter of time.

I suppose the money/politics issue is a connundrum to some extent, but your proposed solution will inevitably trample on speech rights and is therefore the worst of all solutions. Our government was instituted to secure the blessings of liberty, not to trade them off for the illusions of freedom spawned by a welfare state.

Our country has ALWAYS been funded by debt. Without debt, we would not have had enough funds to win the Revolutionary War (or fight the Civil War or WWI or WWII). Without debt, we would not have the infrastructure we have.

The tide did turn, in 1980. The question is whether the turn has ebbed and we are on the way in the other direction or whether it has merely slowed. If you are waiting for the tide to turn us back to pre-New Deal government, I am afraid that not even Reagan’s moon-like effect on our politics was enough.

@Allan: I don’t see how any of that addresses my concerns at all.

“First, the NY Times does not have to be a corporation. It can just as easily be a partnership or some other entity.”

But it currently IS a corporation. Are you saying that established media like the NYT would have their freedom of the press abolished if this amendment passes, but could restore it for themselves if they reorganize? I don’t see why I should be OK with that. The NYT can’t easily reorganize itself. It has shareholders. Do you SERIOUSLY want to require that all media organizations instead must be owned by one or two people? Exactly what positive effect do you think that will have?

And of course, there’s nothing in the amendment that says the government can’t do the same things to a partnership or a sole proprietorship that they can do to a corporation. Quite the contrary.

“Second, the amendment would not take away anything, at least initially. It would simply give the government the chance to regulate. Consequently, the NY Times might retain the ability to do whatever it wants to do.”

That’s kind of like saying we could repeal the entire First Amendment and it would have no initial effect. Even if true, it wouldn’t be wise.

I would argue that this amendment DOES take away freedom by stating that the government CAN take away freedom. The government pressures industries into taking action under the threat of passing a law all the time. How do you think we got those “voluntary” movie ratings? Passing this amendment, even without passing anything else, sends a huge message – don’t do anything we don’t like, or else.

And the action might actually HAVE an effect – primarily, that existing laws that were found unconstitutional but were never repealed might or might not suddenly be constitutional. At the very least everything involving campaign finance would have to be re-litigated.

But are you seriously saying that they’d go so far as to pass a constitutional amendment, and then do nothing with it?

“the government could make laws trying to explain which corporations could spend money on politics.”

That’s kind of the point of the entire amendment.

But anyway, how does this – or ANY of what you just said – affect my scenario? My proposition was that you cannot get rid of money in politics without abridging freedom of the press, and gave the purchase of the NYT as an example.

Are you saying that the government could implement a blanket exemption for media? If so, how does that prevent my scenario of someone simply buying the NYT? Are you saying that the government could examine each media outlet to make sure they weren’t too political, or weren’t bought by the wrong person, or weren’t organized as a corporation? If so, isn’t that abridging the freedom of the press horribly? Are you saying that the government could pass this amendment and then not actually do anything? How does that get rid of money in politics?