posted
Given that effective political speech requires money, banning the contribution of money for speech is an effective ban on certain people's speech.
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not just end campaign contributions completely, and have the government fund both campaigns equally?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
