Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money is "Free Speech" ~ Gallup

[mzmolly]

GALLUP

The poll is discouraging unless one reads between the lines. For example, while Americans are fine with equating financial contributions as speech, they are also STRONGLY in favor of limiting the amount a corporation or an individual can contribute to a campaign.

By 52% to 41%, Americans say placing limits on contributions is paramount for them. ... More specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% (of Americans) think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.

I think the way Democrats can tackle this issue is by legally defining campaign ads as campaign/political contributions. And, from a PR standpoint calling such ads "backdoor contributions".

What says you? Is this a good way to go? Or am I overlooking something that would prevent this from being effective?

:shrug:

[WCGreen]

1. t's not about contributions to a campaign...

It's about contributions to third party attack ads...

[mzmolly]

2. That's my point. We have to legally define these ads as a political contribution to a campaign

or party. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

24. We can't if they are not coordinated with the candidate. The decision effectively said so. n/t

[mzmolly]

25. Do you havea link to the part of the decision you're speaking

about? Thanks in advance. I'm going to try and find it in the meantime. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

27. Here:

"The Buckley Court explained that the potential for quid pro quo corruption distinguished direct contributions to candidates from independent expenditures. The Court emphasized that “the independent expenditure ceiling … fails to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process,” id. , at 47–48, because “he absence of prearrangement and coordination . . . alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate,” id. , at 47. Buckley invalidated §608(e)’s restrictions on independent expenditures, with only one Justice dissenting. See Federal Election Comm’n v. National Conservative Political Action Comm. , 470 U. S. 480 , n. 3 (1985) (NCPAC) ." (my emphasis)

Kennedy's majority opinion

[mzmolly]

29. Thanks so much.

:hi:

It seems this portion of the ruling asserts the notion that one will not be corrupted if there isn't a prearranged strategy on spending between a candidate and a corporation?

To put it bluntly, my ass!

[Unvanguard]

31. Yes; they adopt a very narrow conception of "corruption" to make that work

and the dissent rightly attacks them for it.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Previous polls have shown Americans overwhelmingly support public financing.

And I expect if you polled Americans on the question of "Should corporations be considered people?", I expect the answer would be a resounding "no".

[mzmolly]

4. I agree. But the ruling specified that Corporations are entitled to free speech

and that spending was a way to exercise this freedom. My question was not about public financing. If you have a poll showing most Americans are in favor, please do start a discussion on this particular subject. That said, public financing alone, would not address this issue.

[doc03]

5. I don't think so I saw a poll in a local paper today

and over 70% opposed the POTUS ruling.

[mzmolly]

7. I think it depends upon how the question is asked.

This poll appears to break it down. Though I hope we'll get more info on the specifics as it will help Dems address the issue guided by public sentiment.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

6. OH PLEASE, this is nothing more then the cooperations coming out of the closet

The cooperations have been the 4th branch of Government in this country as long as I have been alive.
IT IS ABOUT TIME THEY CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET !!!!!

[mzmolly]

8. So you're happy because corporations will have unfettered influence?

:shrug:

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

13. NO, just realistic that it is nothing new

now it is time for laws that make disclosure.
and we could end things like PAC's

[mzmolly]

14. Disclosure will not prevent

corporations from abusing the system.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

20. it wont, but it is nothing new

IT MAY BE Senator Patty Murry from Boeing, or John Kyle and From Heath care Conglomerate number II, Maria Cantwell from Microsoft, or senator to be Tiger Woods from Nike, THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

It maybe time to take advantage, get some progressive reform, from the current hoopla but nothing really changed.

[barb162]

9. Why aren't these nuimbers near 100% for every question?

It's disturbing they aren't.

[depakid]

10. Anyone believes what Gallup is selling here is incredibly naive

Then again, Gallup will tell people that 3/4's of Americans think that angels are watching over them every day- and suckers will believe that, too.

(an actual "poll" btw).

Bottom line: outfits like Gallup have an agenda- and they set out to influence public opinion NOT reflect it.

Their history is replete with instances of this.

[mzmolly]

12. I think their title is spin, but the nuts and bolts indicating the fact that people support limits,

can give Dems a road map for addressing the issue.

[HBravo]

11. It will be interesting to see what the 527's will be now. nt

[ProudDad]

15. An Amendment clarifying that corporations are NOT persons

under the law, that they never have been and that all of this judicial activism is based on bullshit is all we need.

All people who are not millionaires should be able to join up on that idea!

[mzmolly]

18. I like that idea best. Though persons or not, do they have free speech?

:hi:

[ProudDad]

19. NO!!!

No "free speech" for corpos...

People who work in them, yes, corporations - NO...

[JDPriestly]

16. People want campaign ads to be unrestricted as to content, but

they want campaign contributions and the funds individuals and companies and unions can spend on campaign ads to be limited.

And by the way, I try to take the on-line Gallup Polls. The choices are very limited. You are often choosing the best of a bad selection.

[mzmolly]

17. Exactly! Well said! And there are no limitiations in terms of dollars, at present.

:hi:

[ibegurpard]

21. this is simply explained by people not knowing what they're talking about

If they strongly support limiting the amount of money both individuals, corporations, and unions can give then they don't really know what they're talking about when they agree that money is free speech.
Just have to frame it correctly.

[mzmolly]

22. Good point.

I think the two positions are a bit contrary. You can't limit free speech.

[Unvanguard]

28. I don't think that's true. I agree with both statements too.

Speech can qualify as "speech" protected by the First Amendment while still being justifiably regulated for a compelling government interest.

[anonymous171]

23. Full public funding of elections. We can pay with our votes. nt

[Kablooie]

26. How the hell can you call it FREE when you have to PAY FOR IT? It's BOUGHT speech.

[mzmolly]

30. LOL

I like that assertion. :hi: