Constitutional Amendments Say No

[peristaltor]

Some time ago, I asked the forum in the Friday Lulz tradition to imagine a world where money was excluded from the political arena. Few bit, most of those dismissed, probably for the same reason that people don't sit around dreaming of what the sky would look like green instead of blue.

Ah, it turns out (through NPR, of all places) that others

Comments

[kayjayuu]

So how do people get elected in this Brave New World?

[peristaltor]

Differently, one would assume.

[a_new_machine]

Probably via publicly financed elections.

[squidb0i]

DING DING DING
A winner.

[montecristo]

So...every idea has equal merit, to be funded equally out of taxes, disproportionately collected from different individuals, no matter how popular or unpopular the ideas or candidacy is? Remember, you can't even determine the popularity without first holding an election or allowing people to voluntarilly purchase it in a market first. You are arguing for omniscient philosopher kings.

[squidb0i]

No, but every idea should have an equal playing field.
If it gets shot down, it doesn't advance. Basic marketplace of ideas.

And more importantly, money is not speech and should be removed from politics.

More money = more speech. You are arguing for oligarchy.

As for the last bit about philosopher kings..

[montecristo]

No, but every idea should have an equal playing field.

So not every idea has equal merit but should nevertheless have "an equal playing field." The first question that comes to mind is why. Why should ideas having no equality of merit be arbitrarilly given "an equal playing field." What entitles ideas to this "equal playing field," if not merit?

The second question that comes to mind is who. Just who, exactly, is to provide this "equal playing field?" I would note that if you say "everyone," I would point out that taxes are collected disproportionately and the money will be spent disproportionally, so exactly how is that "fair." You are preaching disequality before the law and unfairness to actual human beings in support of "fairness" to ideas, a concept that mind boggling in the attempt to concretize it

[squidb0i]

"So not every idea has equal merit but should nevertheless have "an equal playing field." "

Yes, so that it can start without artificial disadvantage and rise or fall on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas.
Are you suggesting we rule out certain ideas by fiat?

Via ublic elections funded with public money gathered from EEEEEEK taxes.

"Ideas are propagated by advertisement utilizing physical media."

Paid for by money. More money in the current system = more speech.
In short Oligarchy.

Removing the ability of large concentrations of wealth to buy influence short circuits this process.

Interesting how often supposed minarchists defend Oligarchy.

[montecristo]

Yes, so that it can start without artificial disadvantage and rise or fall on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas.

You cannot invoke the inherent merits of any idea after you have handicapped some ideas relative to others. This is like saying that the "tyranny" of the superior athlete should not be allowed to determine the outcome of the race, so you handicap him, and then, after the race is run, claim that "the better athlete won on his own merit." Do you not understand what it is for which you are actually calling? You want to interfere with the free market, for example by imposing a tax only on the best selling burger on the market, and then claim that the "free market" determined which is the better burger. Such an idea is inherently self-contradictory.

Via ublic elections funded with public money gathered from EEEEEEK taxes.

So, any candidate, no matter what his qualifications or chance of winning is to have his potential campaign financed with public funds? If you say yes to this proposition, then you are essentially

[peristaltor]

Maybe. I would favor radio and telly stations to carry actual debates and forums concerning the candidates without being able to charge for their services, rather than allow any candidate to pay for ads. If the stations don't like it, they can forfeit their FCC licenses.

And we really should start to recognize that cable is a public service as well.

[montecristo]

Oh yes, brilliant idea. Why not give the power to restrict and govern speech to the king, who will of course, license all comers impartially. What's to prevent your king from using the FCC to stifle debate (it certainly has). A forced "equallity" is just as much injustice as a forced disequality.

[peristaltor]

Ads should not be considered speech. They are commercial endorsements, similar to bribes. Sadly, they have the same affect on campaigns.

Though your moniker is montecristo, it appears your usepic is from The Three Musketeers. If so, this would be the picture of a King's personal defender chosen by someone hostile to nobility.

More delicious irony!

[jerseycajun]

I am struggling with great difficulty to see the interpretive room to disqualify ads or endorsements as bribes and 'not-speech', especially given that society readily includes much greater abstractions of expression under the banner of speech. Agree or not, an ad is a message, with a point of view, using actual words no less, and as such saying it's 'not speech' is somewhat akin to saying a Pit Bull isn't a dog. It easily falls under the least abstract or least difficult to understand definition of speech possible, while falling under only a much more strained definition of bribery.

[peristaltor]

The message of the ad itself is speech. I have no problem with that. The medium of ads in general have a formative effect on the sponsored.

For example, when Toyota came under press scrutiny for problems with the cruise control system in some of its cars, it retaliated against ABC by having its dealers reduce their ad spending to the network affiliates "because of what they consider unfair coverage of Toyota safety problems by ABC News

[jerseycajun]

If your solution to the political angle is to ban political ads, then I presume your solution to the corporate one is to ban advertising.. full stop? Publicly fund the networks, cable television, and any other significant media outlet?

Because there's so much less of a chance that conflict of interest will arise when the fourth estate is funded by the political estate? How far are you planning to go with this idea, in the end?

[peristaltor]

This is not a polar situation of one verses the other.

I think there is a vast chasm of opportunity to be explored between the current commercial ad model of funding and the taxpayer funded model that used to be PBS's model.

Thanks to technology, one can collect funds for deployment in so many different ways it boggles the imagination, yet few if any of these ways have been explored (except in podcasting, perhaps).

I am saying the current situation is held hostage by tradition and competing business models.