Both parties are corrupt, and we are lemmings...

[RaleighDevil]

There is so much fail behind the idea that someone somewhere should decide when there is enough speech and when someone should just shut the hell up. John McCain, Mr. Prickly himself, has a lot of support on this board.

Then we have the blind English poet who had another view: "Let the winds of doctrine blow."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/response-to-tom-mann/

As I argue in The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform, progressives have come to see the First Amendment as empowering government to regulate and suppress speech in pursuit of larger social goals. But the First Amendment simply restricts the government’s power over speech. It does not say the government may limit freedom of speech if we have enough speech during an election, or to assure that we have the right kind of speech for a “rich public debate.”

 

[Junebug]

There is so much fail behind the idea that someone somewhere should decide when there is enough speech and when someone should just shut the hell up. John McCain, Mr. Prickly himself, has a lot of support on this board.

Then we have the blind English poet who had another view: "Let the winds of doctrine blow."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/response-to-tom-mann/

As I argue in The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform, progressives have come to see the First Amendment as empowering government to regulate and suppress speech in pursuit of larger social goals. But the First Amendment simply restricts the government’s power over speech. It does not say the government may limit freedom of speech if we have enough speech during an election, or to assure that we have the right kind of speech for a “rich public debate.”

The First Amendment allows reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Limiting campaign funding is no different from a law requiring people to turn down the volume of their stereos after 11 pm.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

You think that government, state and national, had nothing to do with the operation of slavery? You know better

The greedy governments of the day enforced slavery. If the power of the government had been limited to its legitimate function of protecting all people from force and fraud instead of being usurped by greedy slave owners slavery would have ended much sooner. Today greedy special interests collude with greedy a'chiks to rip the taxpayer. No amount of "public finding" will change that. Their power to force things away from innocent citizens must be limited.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

The First Amendment allows reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Limiting campaign funding is no different from a law requiring people to turn down the volume of their stereos after 11 pm.

There is no limit on what the incumbents can force you to pay for the entitlements and "stimiuli" they use to buy elections. Why put restrictions on what an honest citizen can do with their own money? There would be less incentive to buy elections if government were limited and politicians did not control trillions of other people's money.

 

[Junebug]

There would be less incentive to buy elections if government were limited and politicians did not control trillions of other people's money.

I agree with this statement. It's a non-sequitur, however, because that's not the system we live in. And the one we live in is being corrupted by campaign money.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

I agree with this statement. It's a non-sequitur, however, because that's not the system we live in. And the one we live in is being corrupted by campaign money.

If campaign money were limited, wouldn't that be a huge advantage to the incumbent?

 

[ChrisL68]

The greedy governments of the day enforced slavery. If the power of the government had been limited to its legitimate function of protecting all people from force and fraud instead of being usurped by greedy slave owners slavery would have ended much sooner. Today greedy special interests collude with greedy a'chiks to rip the taxpayer. No amount of "public finding" will change that. Their power to force things away from innocent citizens must be limited.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

And those who governed this continent endorsed the practice both before and after the formation of our country. The fact they also ended said practice is a sign of a free society, not a society that centralizes all power in one entity.

A society that centralizes all power in the government to the complete exclusion of free market principles of any kind - you really want to advocate that type of nonsense? I trust not.

You said government was never better than the private sector. "ever." Slaveholders were private sector, Billy Yank was a government worker. This is about as clear-cut as anything will ever get.

And it's not like that's the only case, unless you think somehow the private sector covered itself in glory during Love Canal or the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Or that banking panics were superior to the FDIC regime. Or that Hoover's couple of balanced budgets, which left hiring to the private sector, were better responses to the Great Depression than Roosevelt's wartime spending and trade arrangements with the Allies. Markets fail. Repeatedly. They're the best way of doing most things, especially where information and transaction costs are low, but it's not like "government is incompetent and always the enemy" reflects the state of the world.

 

[DeacMan]

I can agree with your ultimate point. Mine may have been a bit overstated. Generally we're on the same page though. Free markets are overall better than centralized power.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Our government has never controlled big business. Big business has always controlled our government. Always.

 

[94Deac]

I can agree with your ultimate point. Mine may have been a bit overstated. Generally we're on the same page though. Free markets are overall better than centralized power.

These are simply not mutually exclusive.

 

[DeacMan]

These are simply not mutually exclusive.

Generally, no. But they can be.

Soviet Union
North Korea
Cuba
Etc.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

If campaign money were limited, wouldn't that be a huge advantage to the incumbent?

The limits would apply to both sides. Can't see how an incumbent would have a greater advantage than one already has. Less actually, since the incumbent couldn't use his or her position for greater fundraising returns.

 

[Junebug]

The limits would apply to both sides. Can't see how an incumbent would have a greater advantage than one already has. Less actually, since the incumbent couldn't use his or her position for greater fundraising returns.

I can see an argument for how it would be an advantage to the incumbent--the incumbent has name recognition through the news, prior ballots, etc., and, in a world with limited funds, the challenger can't advertise sufficiently to give him adequate visibility. I don't know if that's true in the real world, but it makes sense on a conceptual level.

Still, so what? Even assuming an advantage, that's a lesser harm than the distraction, corruption, and waste caused by the present situation. Plus, couple campaign finance reform with term limits--problem solved.

 

[WFFaithful]

I can see an argument for how it would be an advantage to the incumbent--the incumbent has name recognition through the news, prior ballots, etc., and, in a world with limited funds, the challenger can't advertise sufficiently to give him adequate visibility. I don't know if that's true in the real world, but it makes sense on a conceptual level.

Still, so what? Even assuming an advantage, that's a lesser harm than the distraction, corruption, and waste caused by the present situation. Plus, couple campaign finance reform with term limits--problem solved.

We desperately need campaign finance reform.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

I can see an argument for how it would be an advantage to the incumbent--the incumbent has name recognition through the news, prior ballots, etc., and, in a world with limited funds, the challenger can't advertise sufficiently to give him adequate visibility. I don't know if that's true in the real world, but it makes sense on a conceptual level.

Still, so what? Even assuming an advantage, that's a lesser harm than the distraction, corruption, and waste caused by the present situation. Plus, couple campaign finance reform with term limits--problem solved.

Don't incumbents win much more often than challengers? It seems that they have a huge advantage. One way to defeat that is to spend more money on advertising that the incumbent. I think anyone should be able to give whatever they want to give to any candidate they wish to support. The way to limit corruption is to limit the power greedy politicians have, not to limit what an innocent citizen does with his/her paycheck.

 

[WFFaithful]

The people paying for false attack ads are innocent?

 

[RJKarl]

The limits would apply to both sides. Can't see how an incumbent would have a greater advantage than one already has. Less actually, since the incumbent couldn't use his or her position for greater fundraising returns.

There needs to be either a ban on incumbants' franking privileges during election cycles or a matching fund for the challengers.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

The people paying for false attack ads are innocent?

Lying by politicians is not yet a crime. One politician can sue another for defamation of character, I guess, if they could find some judge to listen to that one.

 

[WFFaithful]

Lying by politicians is not yet a crime. One politician can sue another for defamation of character, I guess, if they could find some judge to listen to that one.

What if I donate to a SuperPAC who knowingly runs an ad containing false information?