They understand the rationale behind the decision, your deference to the mental loopdeloops the justices tried to justify their proposition doesn't make it correct.
In my experience, many misunderstand that
Citizens United (1) did not concern corporate personhood, (2) did not depend on the notion that "money is speech," and (3) concerned independent expenditures, not campaign contributions.
I'd love for you to justify how it passes balancing tests on these ridiculous sums of money
There's no inconsistency in saying that independent expenditures should not be restricted but contributions should be. The "balancing test" I referred to is the one employed by the Court--balancing the First Amendment interests in each case against the government's interests in each case (such as the interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption). The
amount of independent expenditures doesn't really affect that test, in my (and the Court's) view.
LOLOLOL putting money to support a candidate isn't because he wants a personal benefit? Why is he giving money?
Civic participation, dude wants the candidate to win, dude wants to register his support for the candidate publicly; there are many non-corrupt reasons to contribute money to a political campaign. Those non-corrupt reasons don't vanish at some arbitrarily defined contribution limit.
Because domain names is language construct not a physical reality. I don't know if your joking
I don't think that's a relevant distinction. The owner of a radio frequency would have the right to broadcast on--and the right to exclude others from broadcasting on--that particular frequency. The owner wouldn't own the waves traveling through the air. In that regard, the frequency is akin to a domain name. NeoGAF LLC has the right to publish content on--and the right to exclude others from publishing content on--neogaf.com. But it doesn't "own" the intertubes or the nets passing through them.
Its not "protecting" a poor person. They have nothing. Their houses and property is worth nothing (much of the time they don't own anything).
I still don't understand the sense in which you're using "protecting." If poor people are entitled to the FMV of their property upon the government seizing their property through eminent domain--and they are--then they are protected by the Takings Clause.
I've not argued for eliminated donations, just limiting them and restrictions on independent expenditures.
OK, but we were talking about what I said, which was that campaign contributions contribute to the democratic process. I suggested two ways in which that's true. Then you demanded that I account for the democratic process in other nations. Was that for nothing?
Reading this, its pointless arguing with you, you refuse to see reality. You've pretty much denied psychology and reality with that last sentence.
This isn't helpful. If you think I've "pretty much denied psychology and reality," in what way do you think so? You should at least point me to the resources on which you base your conclusion.
In point of fact, it is not the least bit controversial that even fundamental liberties can be denied to protect compelling social interests.
Government interests. Society itself has a compelling interest in protecting the speech rights of its members against infringement by the government. You're talking about when the government's interests permit the government to override those rights.
I fully support limiting the speech of some or enhancing the speech of others to promote speech diversity, which I view as a vital public interest.
And I don't think the government should have any say at all in whether one perspective has been too vigorously or too often expressed.
[W]e already have a system in which people make decisions about what speech will be amplified, e.g., media owners, executives and editors. I'd rather an elected government regulate our democracy than leave it up to the whims of a narrow ruling economic class.
We're not talking about regulating democracy. We're talking about regulating speech. I'd rather leave such regulation to those who wish to themselves engage in speaking than to those who wish only to silence others. And I don't think the "ruling economic class" that makes "decisions about what speech will be amplified" is anywhere near as narrow as you suggest. It's certainly not as narrow as the ruling political class consisting of 536 elected individuals (subject to competition only once every 2, 4, or 6 years) that you wish to entrust our speech rights to.
Man, with such a completely rigid, literal use of freedom of speech, I'd guess you are probably for calling obscenity, threats, and incitement protected as well. Maybe even throw in classified information if you're going to try to explain away everything with an argument that free speech is free speech end of discussion.
Perhaps you can stick to the present discussion rather than flailing about with red herrings? And I'd rather have a "rigid, literal use of freedom of speech" than relegate myself to basing an argument on the mysterious "spirit of free speech."
Sure free speech is not completely about government democracy, for instance I should be able to say any opinion about any corporation or artist that I want,
You misunderstand me. When I say, "free speech is not subordinate to democracy," I don't mean that "you can speak freely about anything, even non-political topics." I mean that a speaker doesn't have to justify his speech by reference to democratic ideals. He may speak freely even if his speech could be considered destructive of democratic ideals.
I'm obviously not saying the constitution requires financial limitations, but I would say any law passed which enhances the spirit of the free speech probably doesn't count as a violation of free speech.
But the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress can pass laws enhancing the spirit of free speech." It says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." "Free speech" is not a sword to be wielded by government in shutting people up, it's a shield to be used
against government when it tries to shut people up.
You know what I mean. The rich class and the group of donors that politicians listen to are both one in the same. That's why I like using the term "donor class". I don't know what term the study uses but I think donor class gets the point across really well.
I love it when people say, "You know what I mean." Usually, I
do know what you mean, and that's why I replied as I did. I only remember bits and pieces of that study you referred to, but I don't remember any discussion separating individuals into groups of donors and non-donors. If my memory is right, that study is completely irrelevant to your argument.
Not to wad into the middle of this discussion, but that's an extremely naive viewpoint. All donation to political candidates, at some level, are in some way motivated by a "return on investment." At the most basic level, the expectation that the politician in question will support the same policies you support.
I think that's a stretch. I think that, more likely, donors provide donations
because the politician supports the same policies as the donor, not as an inducement for the politician to do so. I imagine that the only "return on investment" most political donors hope for is that the donee win the election.
