|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28185664 - 02/13/23 02:57 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: Then you've clearly not been listening to the arguments.
When I was a kid, ten dollars was very significant. Today, ten dollars is a rounding error on my credit card bill.
So, what exactly do you mean by "significant" funds, and why is a million dollars significant and ten dollars not?
Here's a list of 19 people who have put significant funding into political campaigns through unregulated expendature. Combined they are able to drown out a majority by flooding the advertising market.
Combined those 19 voices can have a louder voice than hundreds of thousands.

The limit on most individuals is $2500.
Choose your hill to die on.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of reductio ad absurdum, but it is my favorite rhetorical style. You will find that I am, in fact, on YOUR hill. I just climbed a little bit farther up, in an effort to demonstrate the ridiculous nature of your argument when taken to the (il-)logical conclusion.
Mate, if you're on this hill then cool beans, but by golly, people here do appear to be asking what the difference is between a million dollars and ten and they seem earnest.
I'm one of those people. Please explain to me how a lemonade stand set up 2.7 miles from a polling location didn't affect an election, when a potential voter could have stopped for lemonade and changed their mind as a result.
Ten dollars in the right hands can go a long way, a lot farther than a million in the right hands.
I simply don't understand how you could be concerned with money influencing elections, but at the same time wave off an entire ten dollars, or an entire fuckin local small business selling refreshments. There are significant political aspects to both of those things.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28185689 - 02/13/23 03:23 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So you've chosen the other hill.
I mean, you can ignore the difference between an individual's small scale operation such as a lemonade stand and the large-scale operations of corporations and PACs who can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements.
While a lemonade stand may have a small influence on a local level, the influence of unlimited spending by corporations and PACs on political campaigns can have a much larger impact and undermine the principles of one person, one vote by giving a disproportionate amount of influence to those with more financial resources.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28185697 - 02/13/23 03:31 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So you admit that a lemonade stand may affect politics, and in the same sentence, just...completely ignore how that can change entire elections?
Do you even realize how inconsistent you are?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28185732 - 02/13/23 04:02 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Information affects voting. The only way to stop people from unduly influencing the vote is to stop people from talking about politics altogether.
Sudly just wants to be able to choose who gets to talk about politics and how much they get to say.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28185775 - 02/13/23 04:34 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
While small local spending, such as a lemonade stand, may have some local impact, it is not comparable in scale to the influence of unlimited expenditure in political campaigns which has the potential to affect the outcome of elections on a much larger scale. The issue with unlimited expenditure is not the spending itself but the potential for that spending to result in unequal influence over the political process.
Hence, retaining current limitations like $2500 on individuals and up to $30,000 or so for corporations, but withholding unlimited expenditure through regulations.
@Enlil The argument for regulating spending on political advertisements is not about stopping people from talking about politics, but rather ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard and that the influence of money does not unduly shape political outcomes. The concern is not about who gets to talk about politics, but rather the potential for money to distort the political process.
That tens of millions of dollars from one person can unfairly distort the political process.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28185780 - 02/13/23 04:38 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
People will never have an equal opportunity to be heard, dude. You're dreaming. If Taylor Swift tweets that Trump is a racist, I promise you millions of people will read it. If you tweet the same thing, maybe dozens.
There has never been a time when everyone has the same voice. That is simply a fictional utopia in your head. The truth is that Citizens United allows groups of people to pool their money into an organization to spend money to get a message out. With or without Citizens United, the rich have always been able to spend as much as they want on political advertizing.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28185793 - 02/13/23 04:46 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You're not distinguishing a political campaigns from a celebrity.
The difference between a celebrity's tweet and unrestricted spending on political advertisements by corporations and PACS is the source of the funding and influence.
Unregulated political spending by corporations and PACs through Citizens united has a much larger impact on the political process compared to an individual tweet, no matter how influential the tweeter may be. While celebrities may have a significant platform, political spending by corporations and PACs can significantly influence elections through unlimited resources.
Individual tweets and political speech still allow for a diversity of perspectives to be heard without the need for unlimited expenditure on political advertising.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28185800 - 02/13/23 04:48 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Taylor Swift is ONE PERSON. She has more influence than you. It isn't because she spends more money, either. There will always be people who wield an unfair amount of influence. Get used to that idea.
Rich people could always spend as much money as they want on political advertising. Citizen's united didn't change that.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi



Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 27,994
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28185812 - 02/13/23 04:55 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Relatively poor(er) people can organize and be relatively loud too. Louder than a million bux. Grass roots and all that.
ie. Ron Paul ~'08
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28185813 - 02/13/23 04:55 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The influence of a celebrity like Taylor Swift comes from their personal popularity and platform, not just their wealth. Unlimited spending by corporations on political advertisements, as allowed by Citizen's United, gives them a significantly greater level of influence compared to individuals, even wealthy ones. This can lead to imbalanced political power, undemocratic outcomes and a departure from one person one vote.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: The Blind Ass]
#28185832 - 02/13/23 05:03 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Blind Ass said: Relatively poor(er) people can organize and be relatively loud too. Louder than a million bux. Grass roots and all that.
ie. Ron Paul ~'08
And it takes 10,000 or so people with small dollar donations to gather a million bucks, whereas otherwise one wealthy corporation could spend to buy the equivalent influence on its own.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28185839 - 02/13/23 05:07 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
The Blind Ass said: Relatively poor(er) people can organize and be relatively loud too. Louder than a million bux. Grass roots and all that.
ie. Ron Paul ~'08
And it takes 10,000 or so people with small dollar donations to gather a million bucks, whereas otherwise one wealthy corporation could spend to buy the equivalent influence on its own.
Exactly. How are they supposed to do that without forming an entity? Just trust one dude to hold the money? Citizens United makes it so that 10,000 people can pool their money in a legally responsible corporation to spend that money in furtherance of the common goal.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28185888 - 02/13/23 05:25 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: While small local spending, such as a lemonade stand, may have some local impact, it is not comparable in scale to the influence of unlimited expenditure in political campaigns which has the potential to affect the outcome of elections on a much larger scale. The issue with unlimited expenditure is not the spending itself but the potential for that spending to result in unequal influence over the political process.
Hence, retaining current limitations like $2500 on individuals and up to $30,000 or so for corporations, but withholding unlimited expenditure through regulations.
I see, you're okay with discrimination, but only when you discriminate against people that can't afford 2500$.
Quote:
sudly said: The influence of a celebrity like Taylor Swift comes from their personal popularity and platform, not just their wealth. Unlimited spending by corporations on political advertisements, as allowed by Citizen's United, gives them a significantly greater level of influence compared to individuals, even wealthy ones. This can lead to imbalanced political power, undemocratic outcomes and a departure from one person one vote.
So...if, for example, a corporation was to pay Tswift a bunch of money to popularize something completely unrelated, something completely non-political. Say, Have her yell "Now we're cooking with GAS!" right before playing the first chords on stage...And then everyone suddenly starts saying "now we're cooking with gas", which is of course entirely non-political and has absolutely no relation to the gas industry trying to get people to ignore the health risks of having a gas stove...
Where along that line did we go from personal influence to corporate influence? And where did we become political, and not a cool catchphrase?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28185903 - 02/13/23 05:30 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Not to mention the underlying fact that Taylor Swift, as talented as she is, is as popular and successful as she is because of corporate expenditures in the first place. Whether it's Swift or Tucker Carlson, or a news anchor, there are people with very long-reaching influence who are spokespersons for corporations.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28186077 - 02/13/23 07:26 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
sudly said: While small local spending, such as a lemonade stand, may have some local impact, it is not comparable in scale to the influence of unlimited expenditure in political campaigns which has the potential to affect the outcome of elections on a much larger scale. The issue with unlimited expenditure is not the spending itself but the potential for that spending to result in unequal influence over the political process.
Hence, retaining current limitations like $2500 on individuals and up to $30,000 or so for corporations, but withholding unlimited expenditure through regulations.
I see, you're okay with discrimination, but only when you discriminate against people that can't afford 2500$.
How in God's name did you get discrimination from advocating a donation limit for individuals and corporations..
2500 is the maximum allowable donation for an individual.
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
sudly said: The influence of a celebrity like Taylor Swift comes from their personal popularity and platform, not just their wealth. Unlimited spending by corporations on political advertisements, as allowed by Citizen's United, gives them a significantly greater level of influence compared to individuals, even wealthy ones. This can lead to imbalanced political power, undemocratic outcomes and a departure from one person one vote.
So...if, for example, a corporation was to pay Tswift a bunch of money to popularize something completely unrelated, something completely non-political. Say, Have her yell "Now we're cooking with GAS!" right before playing the first chords on stage...And then everyone suddenly starts saying "now we're cooking with gas", which is of course entirely non-political and has absolutely no relation to the gas industry trying to get people to ignore the health risks of having a gas stove...
Where along that line did we go from personal influence to corporate influence? And where did we become political, and not a cool catchphrase?
If it's not for a political campaign that'd be okay.
Things become political when they start spending money on political campaigns.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Enlil]
#28186081 - 02/13/23 07:30 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Not to mention the underlying fact that Taylor Swift, as talented as she is, is as popular and successful as she is because of corporate expenditures in the first place. Whether it's Swift or Tucker Carlson, or a news anchor, there are people with very long-reaching influence who are spokespersons for corporations.
The success and popularity of celebrities like Taylor Swift, news anchors, and commentators can be attributed to corporate investments, but the impact of unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns is far more significant and has the potential to distort the outcome of elections. Unlike the former's influence, which is based on personal popularity and platform, the latter's influence is driven by wealth, leading to imbalanced political power. The problem with Citizen's United and unlimited expenditure is the unequal influence it grants over the political process, undermining the democratic principle of one person, one vote.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,782
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28186144 - 02/13/23 08:07 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Popularity and platform are intrinsic to politics. The charisma factor, for sure. Many actors have reached the top of political hierarchy. Many powerful and skillfull politicians can't get the votes strictly due to being perceived unlikable....ala Hillary
Why do candidates co op "patriotic" songs? Same thing.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (02/13/23 08:07 PM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,847
Last seen: 1 hour, 24 minutes
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28186164 - 02/13/23 08:21 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Things become political when they start spending money on political campaigns.
Oh, so if a corporation spends ten million on a political CANDIDATE, that's cool, as long as they don't spend it on that candidate's CAMPAIGN.
Vote Biden = Good
Vote Biden for President = Bad
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: Kryptos]
#28186224 - 02/13/23 08:53 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
sudly said: Things become political when they start spending money on political campaigns.
Oh, so if a corporation spends ten million on a political CANDIDATE, that's cool, as long as they don't spend it on that candidate's CAMPAIGN.
Vote Biden = Good
Vote Biden for President = Bad
A corporation can't spend tens of millions on a political candidate.
There are limits on the amount of money that individuals and corporations can contribute directly to a political candidate.
The FEC set limits on individual contributions to candidates which in 2023 currently stand at $3,300 per election for individuals and $5,000 for PACs.
Such limits were put in place to prevent corruption and ensure the democratic process is not influenced by a small number of wealthy individuals or corporations. The Citizen's United ruling in 2010 did allow for unlimited independent expenditures on political campaigns by corporations and unions, which can have a significant impact on the outcome of elections.
There are limits on how much you can give a candidate, while there are no limits for political campaigns.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Citizens United allows for unlimited independent expenditure. [Re: sudly]
#28186229 - 02/13/23 08:56 PM (1 year, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thank God for free speech.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|