New at Reason

David Weigel | July 20, 2006

Macy Hanson checks in with a certain Arizona senator's (hint: not John Kyl) crusade to muzzle political speech.

Comments

|7.20.06 @ 12:45PM|#

Can we put a muzzle on this bastard? Just askin'...

|7.20.06 @ 12:49PM|#

Reason writers need to rethink their reflexive opposition to limits on campaign spending and investments.

There is no "right" of the wealthy to buy political influence at the expense of other citizens. Allowing political power to depend on wealth or the ability to win favor from rich invividuals or corporations infringes on the freedom of the non-wealthy far more than laws that seek to limit the purchase of political influence. This isn't just by reducing our ("average" citizens) political power, but by ensuring our taxes will be taken to repay corporate campaign "donors" in a thousand ways.




A fine recent op-ed on the topic is here: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/money_notspeech.html

|7.20.06 @ 1:15PM|#

Allowing political power to depend on wealth or the ability to win favor from rich invividuals or corporations infringes on the freedom of the non-wealthy far more than laws that seek to limit the purchase of political influence. This isn't just by reducing our ("average" citizens) political power, but by ensuring our taxes will be taken to repay corporate campaign "donors" in a thousand ways.

I can't even begin to parse this, luisa, but don't rich people have the same First Amendment rights as poor people?

Warren|7.20.06 @ 1:18PM|#

luisa needs to read the first amendment. The wealthy have an absolute right to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances. Oh you don't like how the wealthy are more able to petition the Government? Well, having more ability to do stuff is pretty much what it means to be wealthy. Perhaps luisa would be happier if nobody was wealthy. The way to fight corruption is to limit the powers of the Government. If the Government lacked the authority to, subsidize your business, regulate your competition etc. there would be no financial gain to having a Senator in your pocket.

And least we forget the main point here. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. By regulating speech only the regulators are able to speak, and they speak for them that pays em.

|7.20.06 @ 1:25PM|#

luisa, your comments fail to make sense both on philosophical and pragmatic bases. In addition, you've failed to understand the underlying problem.

Philosophically, the act of earning wealth should not (as ed alludes to) result in a reduction of one's ability to exercise rights guaranteed under the first amendment.

Pragmatically, those who earn wealth have thereby demonstrated a greater ability to successfully interact with and understand the business world around them. It is likely (not certain, but likely) to follow that they will have a correspondingly greater ability to successfully interact with and understand the political world around them.

Wealth isn't necessarily a terrible measure of a person's ability to be a knowledgeable participant in the political arena.

If the gov't has an inappropriately large influence on the business world, then that is the problem to be solved, rather than reducing the ability of a successful businessman to defend his business against the gov't.

R C Dean|7.20.06 @ 1:45PM|#

Reason writers need to rethink their reflexive opposition to limits on campaign spending and investments.

Shorter response:

No, they shouldn't. Regulation of speech is always and everywhere wrong.

Dan T.|7.20.06 @ 2:27PM|#

The wealthy have an absolute right to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances. Oh you don't like how the wealthy are more able to petition the Government? Well, having more ability to do stuff is pretty much what it means to be wealthy. Perhaps luisa would be happier if nobody was wealthy. The way to fight corruption is to limit the powers of the Government. If the Government lacked the authority to, subsidize your business, regulate your competition etc. there would be no financial gain to having a Senator in your pocket.

So you defend the wealthy's right to influence the goverment, and then bemoan the results of the wealthy's influence upon the government?

Libertarianism is full of catch-22's, isn't it?

|7.20.06 @ 2:30PM|#

What is the solution to McCain and his ilk muzziling our free speech right?
Its right there in the US Constitution, right after the first amendment, the second amendment, backed up the the Declaration of Indepedence.

Does "Reason" sponsor a militia? If so, where can I join up and what's its flag?
Thanks

|7.20.06 @ 2:40PM|#

So you defend the wealthy's right to influence the goverment, and then bemoan the results of the wealthy's influence upon the government?

Libertarianism is full of catch-22's, isn't it?

No, we bemoan the general populations's inability to differentiate between symptom and disease.

Re-read the Warren's post. The symptom is corruption, the disease is the government's power. The way to fight the disease is not with ineffective band-aids that pretend to treat the symptom. The way to fight the disease is to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENTS POWER. When the disease is gone, the symptom will disappear.

Limiting the government's power is not a libertarian catch-22. It's the solution to these "campaign finance problems" people have been complaining about for years. With no effect.

|7.20.06 @ 2:53PM|#

If the government can do only a few things, then why waste your money on trying to influence it? If the government can do virtually anything, then why spend your money on anything other than on trying to influence it?

VM|7.20.06 @ 2:53PM|#

"what's its flag?"

GADSDEN

|7.20.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Luisa's post represents exactly the unprincipled thinking that leads to the trashing of liberties.
Luisa, you have a very skewed, biased and misinformed idea of what "free speech" is. It isn't just the freedom to spread any idea you want -- but to use any resources available to spread those ideas. That the wealthy have more "access" to particular types of resources -- i.e. prime-time TV ads, high circulation magazines, etc., radio -- doesn't diminish the importance of protecting those rights.

Allowing political power to depend on wealth or the ability to win favor from rich invividuals or corporations infringes on the freedom of the non-wealthy ...

Notice your use of the word "allowing." This is the school of thought that the government hands out privileges and favors, instead of doing its job of protecting our natural rights.

... infringes on the freedom of the nonwealthy ...

And what "freedom" is that? Cite it.

Allowing political power to depend on wealth ...

If the left really cared about the unholy alliance between money and politics, then it would quickly be an advocate for limited government, the repeal of draconian business regulations, the rolling back of high rates of taxation, the cessation of the endless assaults on private property rights and civil liberties.
But no government is big enough for the Luisas of the world. Instead, they persistently advocate for a system that trounces on property and individual rights via regulation and the mass redistribution of wealth, while screaming in self-righteous hysteria whenever the victims fight back with their own paid-for words.
That's sick.

|7.20.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Ladies and gentlemen..... if I may.... I think I can handle DanT.�s remark with a little more eloquence than thus far afforded.

Uh, DanT.....go fuck yourself.

O.K...you can now continue your regularly scheduled conversation.

|7.20.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Luisa's post represents exactly the unprincipled thinking that leads to the trashing of liberties.
Luisa, you have a very skewed, biased and misinformed idea of what "free speech" is. It isn't just the freedom to spread any idea you want -- but to use any resources available to spread those ideas. That the wealthy have more "access" to particular types of resources -- i.e. prime-time TV ads, high circulation magazines, etc., radio, the ability to give large sums of cash to political parties and campaigns -- doesn't diminish the importance of protecting those rights.

Allowing political power to depend on wealth or the ability to win favor from rich invividuals or corporations infringes on the freedom of the non-wealthy ...

Notice your use of the word "allowing." This is the school of thought that the government hands out privileges and favors, instead of doing its job of protecting our natural rights.

... infringes on the freedom of the nonwealthy ...

And what "freedom" is that? Cite it.

Allowing political power to depend on wealth ...

If the left really cared about the unholy alliance between money and politics, then it would quickly be an advocate for limited government, the repeal of draconian business regulations, the rolling back of high rates of taxation, the cessation of the endless assaults on private property rights and civil liberties.
But no government is big enough for the Luisas of the world. Instead, they persistently advocate for a system that trounces on property and individual rights via regulation and the mass redistribution of wealth, while screaming in self-righteous hysteria whenever the victims fight back with their own paid-for words.
That's sick.

|7.20.06 @ 3:08PM|#

VM,

I have the Culpeper Minutemen Flag on the front of my car (Florida is a rear tag-only state). I got it in response to 9/11--glaring at the terrorists and preemptively glaring at our government (to a lesser extent) in so doing. I get some weird reactions to it--doubtlessly, some people think having a Revolutionary War flag on your car means you're in a militia or something. Which, of course, I'm not. Nor am I "right of Attila the Hun", which was one of the remarks I heard about it--I don't even know what that means.

VM|7.20.06 @ 4:11PM|#

PL (hereafter: original PL = "Ajax Major" and PL2 = "Ajax Minor")

cool!

when my best friend's sister got married, his future brother in law (imagine the worst combinations of N. England euro-loving liberal with sissy characteristics) had him take down the Gadsden flag, lest it upset his relatives (and give the impression of equal right wing leanings)

strange world.

If only we knew a good attorney. Maybe one with military experience. sheesh. But where to find such a tough warrior. hrumph. :)

|7.20.06 @ 4:25PM|#

Wow. Me and PL 2.0 are now Greek demigods/heroes. Cool. Telamonian Aias wouldn't have been my first choice, but. . .what the heck! Bring me my axe of enforcement over the wine dark sea! Incidentally, if you (collectively speaking) aren't a fan (yet) of The Iliad and The Odyssey, try E. V. Rieu's prose translations--easier to read than the usual verse versions and quite entertaining. That's where I got the Aias vs. Ajax spelling from, incidentally. smacky can post this all in the original Greek for us when she makes an appearance :)

VM, that's a really sad story. How on earth does someone who still calls himself an American repudiate the symbols and ideals of the Revolution? Sure, slavery was bad. So was limited suffrage. But aren't we throwing out the baby with the bathwater? This is yet another reason why the left tends to offend me more than the right (though the right is catching up, yes it is)--gettin' all postmodern and revisionist to the point where important ideas and principles are lost. Bad idea.

|7.20.06 @ 5:09PM|#

Reason writers need to rethink their reflexive opposition to limits on campaign spending and investments.

There is no "right" of the wealthy to buy political influence at the expense of other citizens. Allowing political power to depend on wealth or the ability to win favor from rich invividuals or corporations infringes on the freedom of the non-wealthy far more than laws that seek to limit the purchase of political influence. This isn't just by reducing our ("average" citizens) political power, but by ensuring our taxes will be taken to repay corporate campaign "donors" in a thousand ways.

Let's just declare a War on Money. It worked so well with Drugs, Poverty, and Terror. Yes, I can see it now. Make it illegal to be rich.

|7.20.06 @ 5:11PM|#

if luisa did not exist, we would have to invent her.

|7.20.06 @ 5:36PM|#

There is no "right" of the wealthy to buy political influence at the expense of other citizens.

You are correct. It is illegal for the wealthy to bribe government officials.

However, if you use your money in order to fund advertisment promoting a certain political or social goal, that is not "buying political influence". That is the free exercise of your basic right to freedom of speech.

|7.20.06 @ 6:59PM|#

its "one person, one vote"
Not, "one dollar, one vote"
Having said that, McCain is way off base/outta line/out of his mind.
Until we can prune the State to a nub, Id as soon not have malefactors of great wealth buying legislation.
In a minimalist, small step way, things like the "Read the EFFIN BILL YOU EFFIN MORON Act, and the attendant Write the Bill act, are a step in the right direction.
As is making State & Federal bribery for either party a capital offense. And Im agin the death penalty, big time, but once in a while, a fella gotta compromise.....

Robert|7.20.06 @ 10:06PM|#

"The way to fight the disease is to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENTS POWER."

Yeah, but how do you do THAT?

|7.21.06 @ 11:55AM|#

This seems to be another case of libertarian principle running counter to reality.

The government is ALWAYS going to have some sort of regulatory power, no matter how large or small, because the people will demand it. If y'all see even the remotest possibility of removing every single government regulation, THEN I'll jump on board against campaign finance reform. Until then, politicians will be bought and sold as always. Removing one government power at a time, here and there, is not a viable solution to this corruption.