Democratic Underground - Please don't put words in my mouth

You're claiming that as long as you can afford the cost, the First Amendment guarantees you a forum to exercise your free speech. People with unlimited resources can saturate the media with their messages. People without resources have to settle for their soapbox in the park. Am I understanding you correctly? In your opinion, was this the original intent of the First Amendment?

I claimed no such thing. The First Amendment does not guarantee you a forum under any circumstances. It guarantees you freedom from government interference or restraint, most especially where political speech is concerned. And yes, people with more money can afford to disseminate more messages than people with less money, just as was the case from the day the Constitution was ratified and ever since. You may not be happy with that, but the Framers were certainly aware of it, and it is not a First Amendment issue. The original intent of the First Amendment was most certainly not to ensure that every single voice and opinion got equal weight, time and access.

The ruling changes EVERYTHING or else it wouldn't be such a big deal. Now candidates have unlimited advertising potential bankrolled by private corporate concerns in direct opposition and at the expense of the public interest. What was once regulated by albeit weak election financing laws has now been deregulated completely.

What you seem to be saying is "Now candidates that I don't like have unlimited advertising potential bankrolled by private corporate concerns in direct opposition and at the expense of the public interest." Well, some people do like those candidates. Are those people more gullible and easily fooled than you? Would we all be better served by less political information rather than more? How much is the correct amount and who gets to decide?

Here's the thing...other people are allowed to base their voting decisions on what you or I might regard as "corporate", "right-wing" or "racist" propaganda, just as we are allowed to base our voting decisions on what they (just as strongly) believe is "socialist", "left-wing" or "politically correct" propaganda. That's the "free" part in "It's a free country".

If you think deregulating the banking industry was a good idea, I can see why you'd love deregulating election financing. IMO, it's potentially a bigger disaster in the making.

More putting words in my mouth to try to make your argument seem stronger. Did I say anywhere that I thought deregulating the banking industry was a good idea? Or that I love deregulating election financing? Even if this decision does end up having a detrimental effect on politics in this country, that is not the concern of the Supreme Court. Their concern is (or at least should be) to render a decision in accordance with Constitutional principles, without regard for the social or political consequences. When Brown or Miranda or Mapp were decided, critics of those decisions claimed (not without some justification) that they would cause enormous inconvenience and upheaval. Should they have been decided otherwise on that basis?

Reply #5: Please don't put words in my mouth [View All]