If money is speech, why I can't people give money to terrorist groups?
It's not so much that I want to fund terrorist groups as much as I don't think that money is speech.
[ August 20, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Given that effective political speech requires money, banning the contribution of money for speech is an effective ban on certain people's speech.
This is not a difficult concept.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Completely banning the contribution of money would be, but not restricting it.
Also, restricting the source of an activity is legally distinct from restricting the activity itself.
[ August 20, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Banning giving money to churches would definitely be seen as an attack on the free exercise of religion.
Making it illegal to give money to someone who wanted to sell ads advocating that no one drink and drive would be considered censorship.
Why should someone who wants to say who people should vote for be treated differently? Political speech is why the first amendment exists.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except that political speech is part of preserving the rights of the minority in a way in which the other examples aren't.
Putting restrictions on political monetary contributions preserves the right of the minority to be heard (there are potential other ways to do it as well, but its definitely one avenue).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It means I can't have any real input into this election unless I go through one of the parties or make only negative ads.
Newspapers and news outlets get exemptions from these rules, allowed to endorse candidates within 30 days of the election. Why are they deserving of this power and not me?
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
One solution to the whole problem I just thought of while reading the thread would be just to make all campaign contributions anonymous. That is, the candidate would not know where the money came from. This way, everyone gets to help their candidate 'talk' all they want. This way, the corruptive influence of money disappears. Rather hard to know what favors to do with the money you're given when you don't know who its from.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You know, that actually seems like a pretty good idea. I think I like it!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:money for speech
I didn't know the intention of the money was a substantive variable. Money for speech is considered speech, as opposed for money for bombs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't say I was in favor of all(or any, for that matter) campaign finance/advocacy restrictions in place, merely that I thought some possible ones reasonable.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Anonymous contributions might help some, but I would imagine corporations (or rich individuals) would just anonymously donate to the people who had policies favorable to them. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Why not just end campaign contributions completely, and have the government fund both campaigns equally?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Both? That would be unfair to third parties, unless they got an equal amount of cash.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's what he said, Dan.
Twinky, I tend to agree with that viewpoint, myself. The main argument that I've seen against that idea is that incumbents have an enormous advantage over newcomers because of name recognition. That is, if spending is about equal, the incumbent will almost always win.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Assuming, of course, the name recognition is good.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)