New York Times Against Free Speech

Ronald Bailey | November 1, 2005

The New York Times is determined to stifle free political speech on the internet. In an editorial today, the Times' editors declare:

Now looms a wolfish assault in sheep's clothing: the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which House Republican leaders are suddenly planning to put to a vote on Wednesday so politicians can abuse the Internet as an unregulated outlet for multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. The bill, put on a fast track in the hope that nobody notices outside the political-industrial complex, would exempt the Internet from the hard-won three-year-old reform law that stopped federal officials from tapping corporations, unions and fat cats for unregulated donations in the quid pro quo marketplace.

Apparently the 1st Amendment applies only to corporations and people who actually own a newspaper, radio or TV station. We certainly wouldn't want the rabble to express their unregulated opinions about a political campaign. The Times' editorial adds a nice partisan touch when it implies that it's just the corrupt Republicans who are pushing for this legislation, when in fact it was first introduced last March by Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

What is it about "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" that the Times and other campaign finance "reformers" don't get?

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

fyodor|11.1.05 @ 1:55PM|#

|11.1.05 @ 1:57PM|#

fyodor: Exactly right.

Chris Monnier|11.1.05 @ 1:58PM|#

Take action here:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=22

if you think it'll do any good.

|11.1.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Apparently the 1st Amendment applies only to corporations and people who actually own a newspaper, radio or TV station.

Be careful what you say lest you anger the mighty pro-corporatists and their minions.

|11.1.05 @ 2:04PM|#

so politicians can abuse the Internet as an unregulated outlet for multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns.

Some call them advertising campaigns others call them free speech.

|11.1.05 @ 2:20PM|#

freedom of speech is just another term for nothing left to say.

|11.1.05 @ 2:21PM|#

The thing I don't get is this: even if you support the restrictions on newspapers, TV, magazines and such on the grounds that "the little man" can't easily get his message across on these, the Internet is different! It's not strictly true that "just about anybody can get on television," but it IS true that "just about anybody can start his own Website." So if you support campaign-finance reform on the grounds that it levels the playing field between rich and poor, there's still no reason to support restrictions on the Internet.

|11.1.05 @ 2:22PM|#

Jennifer, as a friend put it to me, being rational and intellectually honest about such things is only going to make you angry.

|11.1.05 @ 2:23PM|#

The terrifically ridiculous thing about all these campaign finance reform speech restrictions is that political speech is exactly the speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect!

These loons think you have the inalienable right to have the government pay for religious iconography bathed in urine, but you have no right to criticize your elected representitive within 30 days of an election.

|11.1.05 @ 2:28PM|#

It's not strictly true that "just about anybody can get on television," but it IS true that "just about anybody can start his own Website."

Oh, don't be so naive. Once millions can be spent on political advertising on the web, the nature of the power balance will automatically make all control of websites gravitate toward huge corporate interests. Individual bloggers, even commenters on blogs, will have to rent their keyboards from GE or Disney or Westinghouse. What are you, some kind of Republican?

|11.1.05 @ 2:29PM|#

It only makes sense that the fossil media lords are knee-jerk hostile towards the Internet. I'm sure the dinosaurs didn't think too kindly of that big, bad ol' asteroid.

|11.1.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Once millions can be spent on political advertising on the web, the nature of the power balance will automatically make all control of websites gravitate toward huge corporate interests.

...except that there's infinite space for websites on the internet.

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

|11.1.05 @ 2:37PM|#

MikeP, Mediageek and others, I'll admit I'm not entirely opposed to the theory of certain restrictions on certain aspects of campaign financing. But even so, I just can't see how any restrictions on the Internet will result in less unfairness aginst the more powerless among us. This makes no sense at all.

|11.1.05 @ 2:39PM|#

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Oh, yes. I am being absolutely and totally sarcastic.

|11.1.05 @ 2:40PM|#

I for one am shocked that a cartel member is opposing governmental action which will severely damage the climate which allows it's control to continue.

|11.1.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Let's just get rid of the Bill of Rights already. It's getting to be damn inconvenient.

Dave W.|11.1.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Fyodor:

Question, hypothetical variety: should contributors be allowed to use money to openly buy specific votes by paying a legislator using campaign contributions?

If yes: troubling? troubling only if kept secret? not troubling at all?

If no: how do you draw a line between vote buying and non-vote buying contributions?

|11.1.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Hmmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with this.

|11.1.05 @ 3:06PM|#

Why can't a politician buy my vote? Isn't it mine to sell?

|11.1.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Et tu Jen?

Come on girl, the 1st Ammendment for all that is holy! It is the 1st one! It is almost as important as the 2nd one.

|11.1.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Kwais--

Yes, I know. Did you catch the part where I said I oppose this?

kwais - Huh?

|11.1.05 @ 3:20PM|#

But even so, I just can't see how any restrictions on the Internet will result in less unfairness aginst the more powerless among us.

It won't.

This makes no sense at all.

And this is why. The older I get, the more I start to think that those who hold office in DC have a fundamental disconnect from reality.

Dave W.|11.1.05 @ 3:22PM|#

Why can't a politician buy my vote? Isn't it mine to sell?

The question is whether the politician's vote (in the legislature, for making laws or appropriations, I mean) is hers to sell.

|11.1.05 @ 3:24PM|#

Something about Jennifer not being opposed to restrictions of free speech.

Having reread Jen's post, and mine, perhaps mine was an over reaction. And a bit silly.

|11.1.05 @ 3:29PM|#

Having reread Jen's post, and mine, perhaps mine was an over reaction. And a bit silly.

That's fine, dear. Now go lie down and have yourself a nice drink or two.

|11.1.05 @ 3:33PM|#

As long as the vote buying is transparent I have no problem with it.

|11.1.05 @ 3:53PM|#

I don't think the internet should be treated differently from the rest of the market place. But then, I don't think there should be spending limits and regulations on political campaign speech to begin with.

Right.. so we hold the line here, and treat it differently... if that's what it takes.

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 3:55PM|#

go ... and have yourself a nice drink or two.

Yeah, allready done enough of that. Thanks.

|11.1.05 @ 3:56PM|#

so we hold the line here, and treat it differently... if that's what it takes.

Amen

fyodor|11.1.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Dave W,

I'd probably prohibit direct quid pro quo transactions. But I'd do so knowing that it's easy to get around and that's life. Utopia is not an option. Part of the whole problem with trying to stamp out all potential corruption is that there's always going to be ways around whatever laws you pass. At least in a free society. Sure, you can make it harder, and maybe that has some effect. But meanwhile, you're trampling on people's speech rights, just to make corruption more inconvenient. Not a good trade-off. Beware making laws just because current law does not "go far enough." As for the quid pro quo, I can understand and appreciate the argument that a politician has a right to take money for his vote because it's a voluntary transaction. At the same time, I guess I would suspend my libertarian orthodoxy when it comes to the conduct of government officials. Call it a violation of contract and a special case. And any time you can't prove a direct quid pro quo, then at least the transaction has taken on a facet of indirectness. Again, indirect deals can and will be made. But y'know, the only sure fire way to eliminate ALL crime is to kill everyone! :-)

|11.1.05 @ 4:27PM|#

I realize this might seem like a stupid question, but why do people equate donating money with freedom of speech? I'm not a fan of campaign finance "reform," but it seems to me that these two activities are only indirectly related. In many ways, political donations are financial transactions -- I'm essentially paying some individual or organization for a service: to lobby on my behalf for issues/people/products that I support. Why is this any different than paying an advertising agency or public relations firm for their lobbying expertise? It's not as though laws that govern donations keep me from personally voicing my opinions; they just make it harder for me to foist that responsibility onto others. And while I believe that the marketplace should be free, I also recognize that there are many kinds of transactions of this kind that are, in fact, regulated.

|11.1.05 @ 4:52PM|#

It's not as though laws that govern donations keep me from personally voicing my opinions; they just make it harder for me to foist that responsibility onto others.

'Foist'. Nicely loaded term there.

I'd rephrase your second clause thusly:

they just make it harder for me to leverage my particular comparative advantages by trading my productive earnings for someone else's higher quality opinion-voicing services.

|11.1.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Fair enough, although perhaps not higher quality. Just because you don't do it yourself doesn't mean that others do it better -- e.g. mowing the lawn.

|11.1.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Fair enough, although perhaps not higher quality. Just because you don't do it yourself doesn't mean that others do it better -- e.g. mowing the lawn.

True. But that's why I mentioned comparative advantages.

If I am the best political speaker in the country, good enough to earn me $100/day, but my mowing lawns is good enough to earn me $200/day, then if I want to maximize the political speech I generate, I ought to spend my time mowing lawns.

fyodor|11.1.05 @ 5:32PM|#

why do people equate donating money with freedom of speech?

Setting aside that we have problems with the government telling us what to do with our money in general (that regulations exist don't make them okay), the reason this is a "speech" issue is that the government is specifically specifying (sorry, couldn't help it) that the monetary transaction in question is to be limited because it contributes to a political campaign. If you were spending the money on something else, it would be outside the realm of this law. As others before me have said, it's like saying you can't buy a printing press (or perhaps, how much one could spend on a printing press or printing press activities). The "money does not equal speech" argument would have to claim that prohibiting people from buying printing presses merely prohibits a monetary exchange. Still, it's quite clear that the purpose of the prohibition is to limit access to the means to speech.

|11.1.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Seems to me that a politician isn't supposed to sell his or her vote because technically it's the vote of his or her constituents. I on the other hand have no constituency so the only ethical dilemma is a personal one.

I don't vote because I think either side will fuck things up differently but equally. But if they were willing to pay me for the trouble I'd vote for the highest bidder. Some asshole is going to win anyway so I might as well put a little cash in my pocket. Might help me stomach the process.

Can you imagine how much fun that would be? It would be like the phone company wars of the 90s when you could make a quick buck switching back and forth between Sprint and MCI.

OK Repubs what have you got? $500 bucks? The Dems are offering me $600 and Stones Tickets. $550 and front row at Toby Keith? Ooh. So sorry.

|11.1.05 @ 5:46PM|#

I realize this might seem like a stupid question, but why do people equate donating money with freedom of speech?

Because it involves donating money to organizations (campaigns) that promulgate a message. Of course, the campaign financing issue is even broader than that, since the...*searches for a nicer term, gives up*...assholes driving these "reforms" don't even limit matters to monetary donations, but want to regulate any polical speech, as seen here. And they're partway there already.

|11.1.05 @ 6:06PM|#

Agreeing that the government has no business regulating any of this, it still seems to me that this is not a first amendment issue. First, it isn't clear to me that the *purpose* of regulating donations is to "limit access to the means of speech." It possible that it's the byproduct, but I'm not sure that it's the primary objective.

And it seems to me that the first amendment guarantees only that you have a relatively unfettered opportunity to speak your mind -- not that you have access to the most ideal means of accomplishing that task. Just because the government limits your access to the printing press doesn't mean that there is no medium available for you to voice your concerns.

Government efforts to regulate donations could be framed in terms of monopolization. The government isn't limiting donations *because* they are made to political interests, but rather because unlimited donations would allow a few to effectively control the political process -- creating a monopoly (or oligopoly).

|11.1.05 @ 6:09PM|#

But, Eric, virtually everything promulgates a message. Every individual. Every company. Every government. Every organization. Why are we treating one kind of individual or organization differently?

|11.1.05 @ 6:24PM|#

The government isn't limiting donations *because* they are made to political interests, but rather because unlimited donations would allow a few to effectively control the political process -- creating a monopoly (or oligopoly).

I've always questioned the presumption behind these laws that more money equates to more votes -- even, if not especially, as the money amounts get gigantic.

If you're not saying what people want to hear, why would saying it more gain you a single marginal vote? See Kerry, John.

The little contender, on the other hand, is the person the voter will never hear if these restrictions on political donations for speech run to their logical end.

In other words, there is a value relationship between dollars spent on political speech and votes. As with all well-behaved goods and services, the first dollar buys more marginal votes than the millionth dollar.

Restrictions like this almost by definition hurt the smaller player more than the larger player.

|11.1.05 @ 6:30PM|#

And it seems to me that the first amendment guarantees only that you have a relatively unfettered opportunity to speak your mind -- not that you have access to the most ideal means of accomplishing that task. Just because the government limits your access to the printing press

The very point of that clause of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from limiting your access to and use of speech. Any discussion of "Ideal means" is a red herring. No one here's asked for subsidy of political speech, just that it not be suppressed by cutting off private funds.

But, Eric, virtually everything promulgates a message. Every individual. Every company. Every government. Every organization. Why are we treating one kind of individual or organization differently?

Exactly right. How can we treat political free speech differently?

|11.1.05 @ 6:38PM|#

MikeP,

You're right. Coke spent a shitload on advertising for Coke2 with 50% less sugar. The product tanked because no one wanted Coke with 50% sugar. They wanted Coke with 100% sugar or Coke with no sugar and no number of media impressions was going to convince them otherwise.

The people who want to limit campaign advertising are the same people that think advertising tricks people into buying products they don't want or need. They think they are the only ones smart enough to think for themselves.

I�d be interested to see a study that examined the reverse effect of campaign advertising. How much do Democratic ads motivate Republicans to go to the polls and vice versa?

fyodor|11.1.05 @ 6:40PM|#

The government isn't limiting donations *because* they are made to political interests, but rather because unlimited donations would allow a few to effectively control the political process -- creating a monopoly (or oligopoly).

Larry, I just cannot see how the second half of your sentence (after the comma) qualifies the first half the way you presume it to. Of course noble intentions were cited for campaign reform. But in order to effect those noble intentions of leveling the playing field, etc. (and please note I'm leaving aside the issue of whether the stated noble intentions are the true intentions), the law regulates money spent on political interests. The law goes through your initial clause to get to the latter clause! When I said, "the monetary transaction in question is to be limited because it contributes to a political campaign," I didn't mean that was the government's end goal. I meant that that was how the law identifies what money is to be regulated! To say the government can limit money spent on a printing press because there are other means to express oneself is akin to saying that the government can tell you how to exercise your right, in which case it's not a right at all.

Now, if the government tells you that you can't run a printing press that runs on toxic fumes, that's different because the reason for the restriction has nothing to do with it being a printing press. But campaign finance law has the purpose of controlling speech, or at least the money spent on it, which directly controls how you can exercise your (now severely limited) right to free speech.

All that said, as long as the law is content neutral, there's going to be some ambiguity to it. But that's why campaign finance laws have been had a slew of mixed results in court, allowing regulations on giving money to others' campaigns yet striking down regulations on spending on your own campaign, giving us Ross Perot, et al....

|11.1.05 @ 7:04PM|#

"No one here's asked for subsidy of political speech, just that it not be suppressed by cutting off private funds."

What's the difference? Regardless of whether the government limits my access, or the market prices me out (i.e. I can't afford air-time on NBC), I still don't have access. For the little guy, the distinction between public and private is meaningless. I either have one large organization (the state) controlling things, or another large organization (Wal-Mart) doing so.

"Exactly right. How can we treat political free speech differently?"

My point is that nothing in this country is free, especially financial transactions. Since all financial transactions are controlled to some extent, then why should donations be any different. If the government is allowed to control what I can buy, when I can buy it, and where I can buy it, then I see no reason why they can't control *donations* to so-called political individuals or organizations. If donations are simply another kind of business transaction (I pay for a certain kind of political product), then I see no reason why they can't be controlled like everything else. (Not that I like this state of affairs, mind you, but state control is the name of the game nowadays.)

|11.1.05 @ 7:15PM|#

I realize this might seem like a stupid question, but why do people equate donating money with freedom of speech? I'm not a fan of campaign finance "reform," but it seems to me that these two activities are only indirectly related.

Larry,

I'm a little late to the forum here, but I'll throw in my two cents. Simple: money buys speech. To be more specific, the campaign finance laws are more than just how many dollars I give to candidate 'x', directly and out in the open. Those laws can be applied- often by other interested groups trying to 'suppress' speech by another interested group, by declaring that a certain broadcast of speech is a defacto 'contribution' to said candidate.

I put up a website, called www.ILoveGWBush.com and say, sing the praises of GWB in a blog, articles, etc. etc. That costs money. Even though GWB isn't involved, another interested party might claim that my efforts result in a kind of 'campaign contribution' to GWB, and therefore are disallowed.

Happened right here in Seattle. A talk show host (conservative) was attacked for making an in-kind contribution to a local initiative through his on-air comments. Whether you agree or disagree with the host, the initiative, both, neither, the point is that this 'campaign finance' abomination becomes a tool for interested parties to use against eachother to... shut speech down.

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 7:18PM|#

And it seems to me that the first amendment guarantees only that you have a relatively unfettered opportunity to speak your mind --

Larry:

Great... then I choose to speak my mind on billboards, all over town, 3 days before the election. Doh! Campaign finance reform violation. How's that NOT a freedom of speech issue?

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 7:21PM|#

But, Eric, virtually everything promulgates a message. Every individual. Every company. Every government. Every organization. Why are we treating one kind of individual or organization differently?

Larry:

I think you just unwittingly made the argument against campaign finance reform.

Paul

But if they were willing to pay me for the trouble I'd vote for the highest bidder. Some asshole is going to win anyway so I might as well put a little cash in my pocket. Might help me stomach the process.

ralphus:

Setting aside the ethical question of "Should we permit vote-buying?", I worry about how it'd play out in practice.

Voter turnout would doubtless go up, but since nobody is voting their conscience, that's not necessarily a net good. Then there's the question of how you verify voting claims. "You can have $600 and Stones tickets... as soon as you provide a copy of your ballot." Good-bye secret ballot.

Finally, there's the question of Where does all this money come from? For the first few cycles, it'll come from the political parties. That's kind of amusing, because I can just imagine wealthy capitalists donating to the Libertarian Party for the express purpose of redistributing their wealth to the poor.

I can't shake the feeling, though, that someone in Congress will get the bright idea to get the funds from the Treasury.

|11.1.05 @ 7:28PM|#

The people who want to limit campaign advertising are the same people that think advertising tricks people into buying products they don't want or need. They think they are the only ones smart enough to think for themselves.

In my opinion, there are three basic groups interested in campaign finance 'reform'. 1: a few 'progressives' who have been horribly confused by money, economies, politics and speech, but who at least have a kind of 'good intentions' about 'cleaning' up politics. Verdict: they're naive. 2: The media. Because they're 'exempt' from the campaign finance restrictions, they become the real powerbrokers in the political message. If I, as a regular citizen can no longer say what I want, when I want and how I want about a political candidate, only the media can- they therefore control the message. 3: Incumbents. Incumbents LOVE restrictions on what can be said, when and who. They've got a permanent campaign and photo-op stump. They can call a press conference-cum-campaign stop anytime they want- because they're already elected and as such, are 'doing the work of the people'. (it was hard to say that without gagging).

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 7:30PM|#

Fyodor,

My basic point is that there is no such thing as "the political." What I would like to do is to treat the so-called "political" arena like a market. There are no "political" individuals or organizations -- there are simply individuals and organizations. (The reason I want to bracket this term is because I'm not sure that the term "political" means anything. I'm not sure that there is anything substantively different between giving my money to MoveOn.org or to Wal-Mart. How is one group "political" and the other isn't?)

If we take this as our starting point, whether a transaction is "political" or not is completely irrelevant. In the case of donations, money changes hands. It is a simple financial transaction -- A gives money to B. Since this is a financial transaction, it could ostensibly be handled in the same way that other financial transactions are handled, without recourse to the first amendment. In the same way that the government controls the way I buy alcohol, it stands to reason that it should be able to control my political consumption.

Again, I'm not saying that I like this, but I don't see why these transactions could not be regulated.

|11.1.05 @ 7:37PM|#

Paul,

I'm not arguing for campaign finance reform. I started off this discussion by observing that people typically see the campaign finance issue as a first amendment issue. I was simply proposing an alternative to this position by asking whether donations to political individuals or organizations could be treated as a *financial transaction* and regulated in the same way that business transactions are regulated every day in the marketplace. I think that the distinction between "political" groups and other kinds of groups is an arbitrary one and misleading.

|11.1.05 @ 7:54PM|#

In the same way that the government controls the way I buy alcohol, it stands to reason that it should be able to control my political consumption.

Larry, you're branching out a bit, here which forces into a discussion probably too broad for this forum. The problem is, once you say "we're regulating these transactions" they must be codified into law. Words have to be used and, as most of us agree "words mean things", or, as Mr. Scalia once said "words have a discernable meaning".

Yes, the government controls when and where (usually) you can by liquor. However, liquor is fantastically simpler to define than a 'campaign contribution'.

If the government had simply passed a law saying "can't give money to candidates over x amount y days before an election"- you might not find so much opposition. (who am I kidding, of course you would) and that's the point. I'll give the money to the DNC and they'll produce ads for John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. Right? Wrong. The wankers putting the law together knew right away that that's exactly what would happen. So the law got more complicated. These same wankers tried to find out and declare any avenue of speech resulting from dollars spent which could be construed as directly benefitting a particular candidate as illegal. And, furthermore, if we can't trace the dollars, we'll just stop the speech, because... wait for it... speech costs money, so if someone's talkin, someone spent some money... somewhere.

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 8:36PM|#

"Once millions can be spent on political advertising on the web, the nature of the power balance will automatically make all control of websites gravitate toward huge corporate interests.

...except that there's infinite space for websites on the internet.

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not."

yeah it is sarcasim...other then that or he never left 1996...which was the last time i ever heard anyone seriously say that.

the funny thing is i still hear referances to the "digital divide" once in awhile.

paul,

"I don't think the internet should be treated differently from the rest of the market place. But then, I don't think there should be spending limits and regulations on political campaign speech to begin with.

Right.. so we hold the line here, and treat it differently... if that's what it takes."

nah I would rather that the US federal government try to regulate political speach on the internet...that would be a very funny 18 months :)

|11.1.05 @ 8:39PM|#

""I don't think the internet should be treated differently from the rest of the market place. But then, I don't think there should be spending limits and regulations on political campaign speech to begin with.

Right.. so we hold the line here, and treat it differently... if that's what it takes."

nah I would rather that the US federal government try to regulate political speach on the internet...that would be a very funny 18 months :)"

oh and i forgot...think of all the cool software that would come out becouse of it.

|11.2.05 @ 9:41AM|#

Did you ever wonder if your determination to play dumb is one of the reasons you never get anywhere with your politics?

Yeah, this is about ordinary people buying blogger software and writing their own opinions. Nothing else going on here. La la la la la la la la I can't hear you.

Grow up.

Dave W.|11.2.05 @ 9:58AM|#

But meanwhile, you're trampling on people's speech rights, just to make corruption more inconvenient. Not a good trade-off.

Thanks for the considered answer, Fyo. This morning I find that Canada's headlines deal once again with the sponship scandal they have going up here, for at least as long I as I have been here.

It is interesting to ponder that your scheme would classify this kind of thing as unavoidable and generally legal. I will not agree or disagree, but it is interesting to think whether Canada would be better off under a legalization (of this kind of lobbying) regime.

There have been 2 nice things about the scandal IMO: (1) less proactive CDN federal gov't (echoing my happy 90s in the US); and (2) ppl constantly see the veniality of their leaders in the headlines.

|11.2.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Did you ever notice how people who conclude their arguments with "grow up" very rarely have a point to make?

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 10:40AM|#

Larry,

My response is similar I think to Paul's. It's the government that is saying what you cannot contribute this money for. What you cannot contribute it for is a political campaign. For you to say that it's just monetary transactions and that I'm placing some kind of contrived artifice on it by calling it political ignores that the government is making it plainly clear what you cannot spend on, ie a political campaign. If that's not political, what in the world is??

Thought experiment. A law is passed making it illegal to spend any money on any sort of political campaign or political message. Still not an infringement on free speech? Not likely, I agree (I hope!), and my point is not one of "slippery slope." My point is how would this differ from current campaign finance laws other than in degree? Plainly, to tell someone they cannot spend money as they wish on expressing themselves is limiting and therefore infringing on their right to free speech.

You also bring up the point that different people have different monetary access to speech already. But just because the world is inherently unequal in many ways does not change that it is an infringement on one's rights for the government to add its own (coercive) restrictions. Another thought experiment. A law is passed to criminalize the published use of words of more than three syllables in order to even the playing field of articulateness. Not an infringment on free speech? Note that I am not arguing with your "money is not speech" argument here, but rather with your point that state regulation on money for speech is not an infringement of rights because there is already unequal access to money for speech.

Dave W.|11.2.05 @ 10:40AM|#

Yeah, Joe is the exception to a lot of rules. Glad to see his tummy is bett'r.

|11.2.05 @ 11:21AM|#

I meant, in said argument. ;)

|11.2.05 @ 2:54PM|#

"No one here's asked for subsidy of political speech, just that it not be suppressed by cutting off private funds."

What's the difference?

You know what? I'm genuinely sick of debating the point "there's a difference between stopping someone from doing something and helping them to do something" with anyone.

Also, Larry, if you really think targeted governments restrictions on spending intended for speech does not involve considerations of free speech...well, good for you.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements