Phil Gramm, Constitutional Crusader & Champion of Free Speech
In reference to the likely passage of a major campaign finance reform bill that will ban soft money (and thus help clean up our election process a little (and which is supported by many GOP types in congress)):
[quote]"There is an inconvenience in free speech if people are not saying what you want them to say," Mr. Gramm said. "But is it not profoundly dangerous to end their ability to speak?"<hr></blockquote>
HUH? WTF?!
Leave it to braniac here to somehow try and mangle the image a good campaign finance reform bill by introducing a line of reasoning which has absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance reform - free speech. Bad enough when dumbass citizens hide behind false constitutional arguments, but when senators resort to it... man...truly pitiful. Makes you wonder about the people who elected this schmuck.
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
[quote]"There is an inconvenience in free speech if people are not saying what you want them to say," Mr. Gramm said. "But is it not profoundly dangerous to end their ability to speak?"<hr></blockquote>
HUH? WTF?!
Leave it to braniac here to somehow try and mangle the image a good campaign finance reform bill by introducing a line of reasoning which has absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance reform - free speech. Bad enough when dumbass citizens hide behind false constitutional arguments, but when senators resort to it... man...truly pitiful. Makes you wonder about the people who elected this schmuck.
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Comments
It's a perfectly valid point, and it's the first amendment that is going to kill this legislation the minute after it gets signed into law by Shrubs, if it gets signed at all.
Do you honestly want the .gov telling you who you can give your money to and specify the increments?
And even if you like giving your personal freedoms to authoritarians, do you not see how it is in direct contrast to the principles of the constitution?
<strong>
HUH? WTF?!
Leave it to braniac here to somehow try and mangle the image a good campaign finance reform bill by introducing a line of reasoning which has absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance reform - free speech. Bad enough when dumbass citizens hide behind false constitutional arguments, but when senators resort to it... man... truly pitiful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Take it up with the ACLU. They are in accord with Gramm on this. You obviously haven't fully examined what this bill does.
This is about taking undue corporate influence out of the election process, not about stiffling anyone's speech. I'm sorry, but there is no real connection in my mind. Corporations are not people, they're not citizens. If the people who work for those corporations feel strongly about something they do as it relates to politics, then they -- as individuals -- should write their congressmen, write the president, vote their conscience, etc. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with career politicians like Gramm not wanting to lose their foothold on Capital Hill. Because without all their corporate cronies, they wouldn't be there.
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
The bill isn't just about corporations giving money to candidates, it applies to everyone that has a lot of money. So stop trying to make it sound as if the bill solely applies to corporations.
And even if corporations aren't citizens, why shouldn't they be allowed to donate? Are you for disallowing donations from the Sierra Club or MADD as well?
[quote]If the people who work for those corporations feel strongly about something they do as it relates to politics, then they -- as individuals -- should write their congressmen, write the president, vote their conscience, etc.<hr></blockquote>
Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do with their money? Who is McCain to do the same?
Congress does not have the power to enact such legislation that is so blatantly against the 1st amendment, it's as simple as that.
I think there should be limitations on corporate contributions. I'm sure the RIAA is doing some heavy lobbying/spending to make sure that they keep their stranglehold on the music industry - as an example. Of course, a lot of it has to do with who is voted in, but many politicians vacillate more than a teenage girl. And money often means being able to finance better campaigns, meaning more votes...
Nice leading question, seb.
Here's the answer: People should begin to participate in local/national politics. If people come out in force in support/opposition to something, politicians follow them since they are the ones who really keep them in office.
Since rich people are the only ones who give a crap, what's the difference?
[quote]I think there should be limitations on corporate contributions.<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps, but that's not what this particular bill is about. And even trying to place limits on corporations for not being individuals you'd have to also ban donations from any other organization: your local VFW, PETA and everyone else.
[quote]And money often means being able to finance better campaigns, meaning more votes...<hr></blockquote>
You are absolutely right... so... ?
"The bill isn't just about corporations giving money to candidates, it applies to everyone that has a lot of money. So stop trying to make it sound as if the bill solely applies to corporations."
<hr></blockquote>
You know, that's true. It probably does apply to the ultra-wealthy too. Guys like that scumbag Saudi prince, Bill Gates, pharmaceutical CEO's and others who, by giving huge sums of money to candidates, ensure their voice counts for more than yours or mine - much more. There's no getting around that.
Further, to spin that as a speech issue is ridiculous; these people are equating their ability to throw money at candidates with their ability to speak out against or in favor of some particular idea. That's just plain wrong. Money ≠ speech. Money is money and words are words...take your pick, but don't hide behind one because you're not allowed to wield the other as a political weapon.
[quote]Also from Groverat:
"And even if corporations aren't citizens, why shouldn't they be allowed to donate? Are you for disallowing donations from the Sierra Club or MADD as well?"
<hr></blockquote>
Because they have the ability to overwhelm the voice of individuals by virtue of their size, visibility and money.
Am I against Sierra Club or MADD donating millions as well? You bet your ass. I'm not saying companies should be allowed to contribute nothing, but it shouldn't be more than a few thousand dollars and the same standard should apply to Bob's Grocery & Supply as IBM. Make the standard $5000 and you take the undue influence of corporate affluence out of the picture [for the most part]. That's the whole idea, not to stiffle a particular idea or belief or right to expression.
You explain to me how Congress (and W) banning huge donations from a corporate entity prevents some member of that entity from voicing their political beliefs and from supporting their candidate and I'll concede defeat...good luck trying. Corporate wonks have the same ability to protest, picket, write editorials, vote, not vote, and attend "town hall meetings" as I do - whether their bosses can donate 1M to a campaign or not. Or does that not count?
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-963"; target="_blank">Here's what Justice Stevens had to say about it</a>:
[quote]Money is property; it is not speech.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.<hr></blockquote>
Bush's position on this is particularly lame. He disagrees with it but he's going to sign it. Huh? Talk about walking both sides of the fence. Ouch!
<strong>
Bush's position on this is particularly lame. He disagrees with it but he's going to sign it. Huh? Talk about walking both sides of the fence. Ouch!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. He should veto it but he probably won't. First the steel flip-flop and now this. I'm not too happy with him these days.
Burning flags? Protected by free speech... and so on and so forth.
I guess the definition is flexible to fit whatever definition makes sense for whatever political cause you're behind for the moment.
Donating money is speech, just like burning your draft card is speech. I'd like to see how Justice Stevens speaks on this issue across the board.
[edit]
After reading the decision and Stevens' concurring statement, specifically the part you quoted, I noticed a footnote that reads:
Unless, of course, the prohibition entirely forecloses a channel of communication, such as the use of paid petition circulators. ... The First Amendment protects appellees' right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for so doing").
He essentially invalidates his own point in his footnote, finally understanding that it is the right of the people to decide their own means.
[/edit]
Moogs:
Sure, they can picket, but does that have anything at all to do with whether or not they should be able to exercise their other constitutional rights?
You can work at Wal-Mart to make money, right? So you shouldn't be allowed to hold any other job.
You can live off of Chunky Soup and crackers, right? So you shouldn't be allowed to eat anything else.
They can picket and donate money. You can eat Chunky Soup and the delicious chocolate cake at Chili's. Freedom, baby, gotta love it.
If Bill Gates wants to give $50 billion to Gore in '04 that's his prerogative and I'll be damned if I say he shouldn't, even though I think electing Gore would be a huge mistake for US politics.
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
However, we live in a country where many politicians are inherently greedy - they see elected office as a sign of power and personal accomplishment, not as an obligation to serve. Further, when a politician receives large amounts of money from a corporation or an individual, it is understood that he is expected to cast votes and draft legislation that has as their primary beneficiary the source of the money - not the general public which he supposedly represents.
What it all boils down to is this: when you cast soft-money votes, you are acting on your own behalf first and foremost. You're covering your ass [so that come next election, that money keeps on flowing. So obviously a part of this problem is related to the way money gives certain competitors unfair advantages during election time (more press coverage, more ads, more staff, etc.). That could be a separate thread by itself.]
But, when you cast a vote because thousands of citizens have written you to advocate a certain position they feel is being ignored, because you've addressed organized protestors during your press conferences, because you've debated the merits of both sides - you are acting on the behalf of your constituency -- the majority -- first and foremost. Doesn't mean you always make the right choice, but at least you're making it under the right context.
One hypothetical question is, if MS has 200,000 employees and donates 10M to a candidate's campaign fund...meanwhile the rest of Washington has 2,000,000 people, and they as a whole only donated 5M to the other candidate (who loses the election because he cannot afford to buy enough TV ad space, etc.), do you honestly feel it's ethical to call MS the primary constituent simply because they gave more money and their guy won? Survival of the richest?
You can even make the same argument if those 2 million people vote for the same guy (but don't get his support during the term because MS gave "until it hurt"). Basically, if you think it's OK to take MS' money and cast their votes in return, you're representing MS and not the state of Washington. I know it's an over-simplified example, but presumably you get what I'm saying here.
We can play semantic games all day long and argue what constitues valid expression and what doesn't, but the bottom line is, soft money allows politicians to be bought. The motive behind soft-money votes is greed, plain and simple. That's wrong IMO and stopping that should take precedent over any spinster's objections [including Phil Gramm, who could benefit from a hooked on Phonics tape, being that he's so keen on constitutional liberties like free speech]. And if you are adamant that someone or some group giving a politician millions of dollars is OK and is legitimate expression, fine but I then say to hell with that particular form of expression. The negatives effects it has on our system outweight the positive effects by a wide margin.
No one in their right mind is worried that a ban on soft money is logically going to be [extended as] a ban on debates, protests or any of the traditional forms of political expression. It's not even a remote possibility.
[Message edited SEVERAL TIMES by: Moogs ? ]
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
There is no constitutional means by which the congress is allowed to tell a person how much they can give to another person of their own free will.
I don't care about corrupt this and slush fund that, it doesn't matter.
It is my right, as a citizen of this nation, to give every penny I have to Joe Politick or to give Joe Politick nothing, whether or not I have only one penny or I have several trillion pennies.
[quote]but your argument doesn't fit in with the reality of our times. Sure, in a Utopian society giving a candidate money would be no different from any other expression of political support, because people in said society wouldn't value money more than other, more abstract principles like fair representation.<hr></blockquote>
*phew*
It's a good thing we don't have to be in Utopian settings to exercise our basic freedoms.
The people are represented fairly. The people are inactive, lazy and unmotivated to make change in their own political districts, so why not let those who actually *are* interested do what they think is right?
This is a representative democracy, after all, and rich people count just as much as poor people and vice versa.
[quote]However, we live in a country where many politicians are inherently greedy - they see elected office as a sign of power and personal accomplishment, not as an obligation to serve.<hr></blockquote>
Agreed... not seeing what it has to do with real-world legislation, but I'm following you...
[quote]Further, when a politician receives large amounts of money from a corporation or an individual, it is understood that he is expected to cast votes and draft legislation that has as their primary beneficiary the source of the money - not the general public which he supposedly represents.<hr></blockquote>
And guess what, if the people he represents would get off their asses and vote their minds then he would have some incentive to vote one way or the other.
If they are acting in a destructive manner (in your mind, apparently, voting for rich people == voting against poor people (what a nice, black&white world you live in)), then there are elections every 2-4 years to oust the sorry bastard.
That is, of course, if anyone is paying attention.
[quote]What it all boils down to is this: when you cast soft-money votes, you are acting on your own behalf first and foremost. You're covering your ass [so that come next election, that money keeps on flowing.<hr></blockquote>
Take that paragraph and do the following:
1) Replace "soft-money" with "constituent-mandated".
2) Replace the last word "money" with "votes".
Oh no! We've got the stop the strong-arm bully tactics of the general populace, using their votes to pressure poor politicians!
Politicians cater to voters because voters keep them in office. If the majority of people vote them in for a platform bought by big business, then isn't that the consensus? Isn't that, then, what the people want?
[quote]So obviously a part of this problem is related to the way money gives certain competitors unfair advantages during election time<hr></blockquote>
What the hell is an "unfair" advantage?
Kennedy was prettier than Nixon during the '60 debates on television, should there be anti-handsome legislation?
[quote]But, when you cast a vote because thousands of citizens have written you to advocate a certain position they feel is being ignored, because you've addressed organized protestors during your press conferences, because you've debated the merits of both sides - you are acting on the behalf of your constituency -- the majority -- first and foremost. Doesn't mean you always make the right choice, but at least you're making it under the right context.<hr></blockquote>
Very true. Amen, I agree 100%.
[quote]One hypothetical question is, if MS has 200,000 employees and donates 10M to a candidate's campaign fund...meanwhile the rest of Washington has 2,000,000 people, and they as a whole only donated 5M to the other candidate (who loses the election because he cannot afford to buy enough TV ad space, etc.), do you honestly feel it's ethical to call MS the primary constituent simply because they gave more money and their guy won? Survival of the richest?<hr></blockquote>
I'm no math major, but 2,000,000 votes is a lot more than 200,000.
If only M$ people vote for the guy at 200,000 and he wins then I'm afraid the big problem in Washington is voter apathy. Or maybe the M$-backed candidate represented the majority view.
[quote]I know it's an over-simplified example, but presumably you get what I'm saying here.<hr></blockquote>
I get what you're saying, but it's inherently flawed.
If M$ buys an election and puts someone in who hurts the people the people SHOULD vote him/her out the next chance they get. If they don't, then the democratic process tells us that is what they want.
[quote]We can play semantic games all day long and argue what constitues valid expression and what doesn't, but the bottom line is, soft money allows politicians to be bought.<hr></blockquote>
Taking soft-money away will do absolutely nothing to combat how corrupt politics are. That's a very War on Drugs mentality.
"Let's throw the high-school joint smoker in jail! We win the war on drugs!"
[quote]The motive behind soft-money votes is greed, plain and simple.<hr></blockquote>
What's wrong with greed?
I will finish later, class time...
<strong>The government CANNOT prohibit such actions, it's that clear and simple. It *will* be struck down by the Supreme Court, with or without Stevens' two-faced approach to the issue.
There is no constitutional means by which the congress is allowed to tell a person how much they can give to another person of their own free will.
I don't care about corrupt this and slush fund that, it doesn't matter.
It is my right, as a citizen of this nation, to give every penny I have to Joe Politick or to give Joe Politick nothing, whether or not I have only one penny or I have several trillion pennies.</strong><hr></blockquote>???
There are already limits on contributions you can make to a politician. In fact, this bill doubles the amount of money you can give.
I doubt the opponents of this will even make an issue out of that. They'll focus on the limits on advertising.
In the UK for example, there is a 6 week election campaign, which seems to work fine, allowing a far more level playing field with less tainting of peoples' voice by special interests, and at the same time allowing a selection of candidates from a far wider spectrum of society, (comparing the UK House of Commons to the US Senate & Congress).
Perhaps the persistently pathetic turn-out figures that have become de rigeur in U.S. elections are a reflection amongst the electorate that democracy is not working as it should/could and people don't feel that they are being represented adequately because of the weighting in favor of corporate influence.
Exactly!
Thank you, SamJo, for that perfectly rational and very applicable point.
[quote]Perhaps the persistently pathetic turn-out figures that have become de rigeur in U.S. elections are a reflection amongst the electorate that democracy is not working as it should/could and people don't feel that they are being represented adequately because of the weighting in favor of corporate influence.<hr></blockquote>
It's a circular thing. The more people feel like they aren't important the less they participate and the less they participate the less important they really are.
To go even farther, the real problem is a lack of real choices. What the hell is the difference between our two main parties? What's there to make a decision from besides a loyalty that you get from your family?
BRussell:
Caught me in a bit of hyperbole, but the point still stands. Especially the keyword "prohibit".
Yep. Well said.