Should Government limit spending on pol. speech?

[SerScot]

This is a great 4 person debate on intellegencesquared.org:


intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1141-individuals-and-organizations-have-a-constitutional-right-to-unlimited-spending-on-their-own-political-speech

I fall on the money is speech side. Empowering government to limit political spending seems, to me, to strongly favor incumbants.
Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, Today, 10:49 AM.

[Fist and Faith]

I'll speak for the politically naïve and ignorant. I think the number of terms you can be in any office should be limited, and those that are already limited should be more limited. You should only be able to be POTUS for one term. That way, there's no concern for this strongly favoring incumbents. And it means he can spend all of his four years doing his job, instead of three and change doing his job, and the rest campaigning for the next election. And he can do the right thing without worrying about it hurting his chances of getting elected next time.

[Avatar]

2 and change Fist. Maybe.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I was trying to be generous. But yeah.

[SerScot]

I've seen people argue the presidency should be one six year term. It might work.

[Cail]

I've seen people argue the presidency should be one six year term. It might work.

I would be all for this.

[Ananda]

I fall on the money is speech side.

SerScot, I understand what you say in terms of incumbent politicians having more access to success, but do you think that the current us system where unlimited money can be pushed into the political system is actually good for your people? If it is just about the incumbent politicians, would limiting them in other ways be a better approach than to allow your government to be sold to the highest bidder?

My husband likes to watch Daily Show sometimes (we watched an episode on PLex last night before the germany/brasil game) and there were two politicians they talked about, both having 22 or so terms of service!! lifelong professional politicians, I guess. Seemed wrong. One was that guy from the bronx or something with the front butt picture and can't remember who the other guy was.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I have had the idea before of giving an individual person 12 years maximum as some combination of Member of House, Member of Senate, Vice President, or President. After your 12 years are over you are out forever and you are permanently banned from lobbying newer politicians, whether you approach them or they approach you.

I don't like the idea of allowing people or corporations to spend as much money as they want promoting their free speech because this will lead to drowning out the voices of those who don't have as much money but I wouldn't try to stop it, either--freedom of speech is freedom of speech even if I don't like what is being said.

[Cozarkian]

I'll speak for the politically naïve and ignorant. I think the number of terms you can be in any office should be limited, and those that are already limited should be more limited.

The problem with severe term limits is the transfer of power from elected officials to non-elected persons. There is no training course for becoming an elected official, you learn the job on the job. When there are more experienced members you can rely upon them to help you learn the ropes. If those members are gone, then you have to rely upon staff members, who stick around much longer, and lobbyists, who are frequently former legislatures and are always serving special interests.

We also don't want to have terms that are too long (like a six-year presidency), because then you may be stuck with a representative who is really bad at their job with no way to kick them out early (since sucking isn't an impeachable offense). The two-term cycle is the compromise. Think of it as electing an official for 8 years with a chance to change your mind half way through.

In fact, that is an idea I would like to explore. Instead of having a new, open election after a first term, what if he just held a referendum on the incumbent? So, for example, in 2016 we elect a new President. In March 2020, we would hold a referendum election on a second term. If the incumbent gets 50% of the vote, they keep the job. If 50% of the people want to replace the incumbent, then the Presidency is put on the November general election ballot and the incumbent is ineligible to run, having already been voted out.

[Cozarkian]

I don't like the idea of allowing people or corporations to spend as much money as they want promoting their free speech because this will lead to drowning out the voices of those who don't have as much money but I wouldn't try to stop it, either--freedom of speech is freedom of speech even if I don't like what is being said.

My thought is not to limit the ability to donate, but to hamper the ability to receive. Freedom of speech should allow me to donate anonymously to a political candidate, but freedom of the press should require the candidate to disclose personal expenditures, donations that are accepted and from what source. Then let's slap that information on the ballot, which would look like:


<Candidate Name>
<Job Title>
This candidate spent $$ of personal wealth in this campaign.
This candidate accepted $$ from political donors.
This candidate accepted $$ from anonymous political donors.

Notice, that ballot does not contain a designation for political party.

[Avatar]

Instead of having a new, open election after a first term, what if he just held a referendum on the incumbent?

That actually sounds like a great idea. Of course, I'm a big fan of referendums, and think they get used too infrequently.

(Here, our Pres is allowed two 5 year terms. However the party can effectively "fire" him if they want to, in which case the VP takes over until an election is held.)

--A

[Vraith]

I don't like the idea of allowing people or corporations to spend as much money as they want promoting their free speech because this will lead to drowning out the voices of those who don't have as much money but I wouldn't try to stop it, either--freedom of speech is freedom of speech even if I don't like what is being said.

I have a problem with the money=speech frame/definition.

And I have some problem with the drowning out of voices issue.

But the biggest problem I have is the purchasing of power.

And that's what is happening. The wealth isn't buying ads and speech.
It is buying politicians and legislation.
Money=speech is a nice equivalence for some.
The more accurate identity equation of reality is money=corruption.
[[though that's only partially commutative, IMHO. Money=corruption is sometimes true, but corruption=money is true slightly more often...
Going a bit further afield, most of this "speech" is really closer to what Plato would call "false rhetoric." Money=speech=lies=corruption.]]

[SerScot]

Everyone should listen to the debate. Both sides make good points.

[Avatar]

But the biggest problem I have is the purchasing of power.

Amen.

--A

[SerScot]

The affirmative makes the point that no speech is possible without money. That the debate itself couldn't take place without the moneynfor the mikes, building, and radio broadcast time. It's not tjat money=speech it is that money fancilites speech and if government is allowed to have the power to control how much money is used fo facilitate political speech who's speech will then be aboe to be amplified most effectively, those within government.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

[Suppose you support x and you get it put on a ballot then you have a budget of $1 million to reach voters to drum up support for x. You buy some radio ads, print up some flyers, make the local TV/news radio circuit, possibly even rent a high school auditorium for a town hall meeting. Yes, this is your money equating to your speech.

Now suppose that I have $100 million and I support "not x"--I want everyone to vote "no" to your proposal. I can print up better flyers, hire a swarm of paid canvassers to deliver them door-to-door, rent billboards in the area, make the same TV/news radio circuit, rent out three different auditoriums for my town hall meetings, and I buy ad time on every radio station in the area (including the AM stations, the Top 40 Only stations, and the Spanish stations). I can overwhelmingly outbid you in every way and the likely outcome is that my speech drowns yours out.

So...the question becomes: how much Free Speech can you afford? Is that the sort of system we really want?

The broader question is this: is the inevitable outcome of capitalism in a democratic society the fact that political offices are for sale to the highest bidder? If so, shouldn't we rebrand ourselves as a monacracy? (I just made that word up right now)

If money = speech then, according to the fundamental axioms of mathematics, speech = money. Is not my vote my speech in a democratic system? Based on this, I should be able to convert my speech--my vote--into money. In other words, I should be able to sell my vote to the person who is offering me the most money for it! I wonder how much I should ask for my vote in the upcoming Presidential election in 2016?

I will also offer my services to come up with convincing arguments why someone should vote a certain way, for a mutually agreed upon "political consultant" fee, of course.