FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » $ and Free speech question

   
Author Topic: $ and Free speech question
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
I was watching an old western when they mentioned the common, and then legal practice of buying votes.

The Citizen United court case has been explained to us laymen as the following.

"Companies, Corporations, and Unions are just organizations of people. Those people have a right to free speech and organized free speech, is still free speech.

Further, donations of money to promote a view point or a policy is one way to exercise your free speech."

So $ = Speech, both from individuals and corporate entities.

So are laws that make buying of votes no longer valid? After all, I am speaking through my check book. I am saying "here is $20 to vote pro-business, and the pro-business candidate is Joh Schmoe."

After all, a good businessman knows to save money, cut out the middle man.

Can you imagine the economic stimulus effect if the last election would have had the $ spent on ads people hated been instead just paid to voters directly?

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Also worth noting that this is at least related to the notion of "vote for me, I'll lower taxes."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Also worth noting that this is at least related to the notion of "vote for me, I'll lower taxes."

It certainly is... if you take the view that all income earned by citizens actually belongs to the government, and they just allow individuals to keep a certain amount of it to keep them productive/appease them/promote general welfare/etc.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Insert Alexis de Tocqueville quote
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
One nation, with liberty and kickbacks for all.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Also worth noting that this is at least related to the notion of "vote for me, I'll lower taxes."

As is "vote for me, I'll increase social programs".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Also worth noting that this is at least related to the notion of "vote for me, I'll lower taxes."

As is "vote for me, I'll increase social programs".
That depends on your financial status. I am in favor of increasing social programs but most will not help me. Unless disaster occurs, I am not going to qualify for WIC, food stamps, medicaid, Chip, etc, yet I will vote for a candidate who is in favor of them.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That depends on your financial status.
That is true for both notions.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Is it really true in the same way? It's sort of an inverse relation. Those who are poor aren't helped by tax cuts, as the very poor don't pay income taxes, and politicians rarely offer to suspend entitlement tax payments. Those who are wealthy do not personally benefit from social programs because most don't qualify. Support for those programs under those circumstances would be for some reason other than personal gain, unless you create a scenario in your head where these things lead to a personal gain, I suppose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
I think mph is just saying that not everyone who votes for lower taxes is necessarily going to be a beneficiary just as not everyone who votes for social programs is necessarily going to be a beneficiary.

That said, there's a correlation between income level and voting habits. You're more likely to vote if you're well-off than if you're poor so from the perspective of buying votes, offering tax cuts is probably the better sell than offering to increase social programs.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Shouldn't you be writing your speech that's due tomorrow? [Wink]
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
[Razz]
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Also worth noting that this is at least related to the notion of "vote for me, I'll lower taxes."

It certainly is... if you take the view that all income earned by citizens actually belongs to the government, and they just allow individuals to keep a certain amount of it to keep them productive/appease them/promote general welfare/etc.
Or perhaps we simply believe that everyone should be required to pay their fair share of the cost of things that benefit society in general, like roads, fire departments, schools, prisons, military, parks, etc.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Flying Fish
Member
Member # 12032

 - posted      Profile for Flying Fish   Email Flying Fish         Edit/Delete Post 
Outside of four-legged voting, how does a vote buyer know how someone voted on a secret ballot?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or perhaps we simply believe that everyone should be required to pay their fair share of the cost of things that benefit society in general, like roads, fire departments, schools, prisons, military, parks, etc.
How are people who are receiving all or most of their money from the government paying their fair share?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Or perhaps we simply believe that everyone should be required to pay their fair share of the cost of things that benefit society in general, like roads, fire departments, schools, prisons, military, parks, etc.
How are people who are receiving all or most of their money from the government paying their fair share?
I guess it depends on what you see as a "fair share".

I had a SIL who recently died. She had multiple disabilities and a degenerative disease. She was on disability and medicaid for about 20 years before her death. What would you consider her "fair share".

But any way you define it, I see a major difference between those who are too poor to pay "their share" and those who despite having 5 and 6 figure incomes, still resent paying "their share."

Part of the problem is that people tend to view only a snap shot where some people are receiving public assistance and others are paying for it. But we don't live a snap shot. All of us go through periods in life where we need more than we are able to contribute and periods when we are able to contribute more than we need. We were all once children or young adults living off the work of others. One day we will all (hopefully) be too old or sick to work.

I know a lot of tax paying productive citizens who have at one time or another received financial aid to go to school, collected unemployment or social security benefits, needed food stamps, got food from WIC, lived in homeless shelters or got subsidized medical care. I know people who are doctors, teachers, professors, engineers, scientists and lawyers, who wouldn't have made it through high school let alone college if it weren't for public assistance for their families.

Yes, there are some who will never be able to pay their "fair shair". I am told we are the richest society that's ever existed on this planet. If we can not care for those few, like my sister in law, who are never really able to pay their "fair share" in this world, we are an abomination. Taking care of the needy is one of things any moral society has to do.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
1) Supporting legislation that may or may not benefit you is not the same as paying for votes.

2) Flying Fish, that's hard to answer. However if you promise someone $20 to vote for you, the majority who would agree to that arrangement would do so. Lets say its 40% would take the money and vote for you. You offer this to 100,000 voters and get 40,000 votes. It would be a better investment than paying $2,000,000 for a TV Commercial that will only change the mind of 100 people.

3)DK, the question is how do you define Fair. You seem to think its a set $--$1000 per person. Liberal thinkers believe its a % of income over subsistence level living. Below that level they are doing the best they can by not attacking society to survive.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
I think not seeing how childhood innoculation programs or public education might benefit you even if you don't personally take advantage of them suggests a significant lack of imagination.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But any way you define it, I see a major difference between those who are too poor to pay "their share" and those who despite having 5 and 6 figure incomes, still resent paying "their share."
I agree, although many people with 5-figure incomes are poor, and recognized as such. (I think we draw the poverty line too low these days, actually. For most people in most parts of the country, $40-50k for a married couple is pretty poor.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For most people in most parts of the country, $40-50k for a married couple is pretty poor.)
No. That is not poor.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
If speech = $
and lobbyists are allowed to talk to government officials
why is it illegal for lobbyists to use $ to demonstrate their point?

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
1) Supporting legislation that may or may not benefit you is not the same as paying for votes.

I agree.

quote:

3)DK, the question is how do you define Fair. You seem to think its a set $--$1000 per person. Liberal thinkers believe its a % of income over subsistence level living. Below that level they are doing the best they can by not attacking society to survive.

I may be reading you wrong. In which case I humbly apologize in advance.

But if I'm not reading you wrong, I just want to say I categorically reject the idea that such people are doing "the best they can" simply by not attacking society to survive.

Also...

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
For most people in most parts of the country, $40-50k for a married couple is pretty poor.)
No. That is not poor.
What he said.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
It depends on the situation. If you have college debt, or something similar, that level of income can be very limiting.

Maybe "for most people" isn't really accurate.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you have college debt, or something similar, that level of income can be very limiting.

Limiting != poor.

And in such cases, I'd say that it's the debt that's crippling them, not the modest income.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
When debt becomes as ubiquitous as it is in the American middle class, I think you have to see it as the default state.

It's so different from place to place. Sometimes I think the poverty line should be adjusted geographically by cost of living.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
It's so different from place to place. Sometimes I think the poverty line should be adjusted geographically by cost of living.

Absolutely. Back home, $100k will still buy you a couple thousand square feet of house. Here in Tally, I'd be lucky to get a townhouse or converted aparetment. I searched Miami real quick and didn't see any listings until about $120k. And that's just one bill in one state.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
At least in Canada, I think they do have separate poverty lines depending on geographical region, the primary split being on size of city. That said, a couple would need about six or seven children depending on their bracket to reach the poverty line with 40-50k.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/tables/table-tableau-18-eng.cfm

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2