I think the difference between North Korea and post-CU US is not a matter of scale, but of fundamental principles. A totalitarian government that controls the media can use public funds to further their goals, but in the US we are limited to private funds. Clearly that is a limiting factor, since there is no person or private organization who has access to the resources that the government has. Secondly, such a government also controls speech by restricting dissenting speech. Even the Koch brothers can’t do that. So, I don’t think the argument that CU brings us closer to North Korea on the spectrum holds up. In fact, you can construct a different spectrum, one that measures government restriction of political expression, and argue that CU moves us farther from North Korea, as Dr. J has argued.

But to the extent that disproportionate political speech is a problem, let me propose another way to deal with it: voter unions. If you can convince enough people that political spending is a problem (and if you can’t, there you have it), you ought to be able to organize those people into a group and agree to the following conditions:

The group will publish a list of candidates who agree to meet certain campaign finance requirements (and then follow up to make sure they do). The requirements are agreed to by the group and might include limits on fundraising (Buddy Roemer style), complete disassociation and denunciation of all SuperPACs, as well as whatever other conditions you feel are necessary. It could even involve a fund-sharing system of some sort. The members of the group are then strongly encouraged to vote for someone on the list (or no one, if no one is on the list). I’d start with all of the people who donated to the Colbert SuperPAC, which clearly demonstrated that there would be support for this sort of effort. If you can get only 5% of voters to agree, that’s a large voting block candidates can’t afford to lose.

You can call it collective bargaining, democracy style. And it demonstrates that disproportionate influence cannot coexist with a dedicated and responsible electorate.

If you think advertising doesn’t convince people to do anything, then Citizens United doesn’t matter.

You’re right, Zephyr, Robert made a good point there, and I agree with it. I don’t think people are impervious to advertising, but neither do I think advertising inevitably or even usually carries the day. Presidents running for a second term tend to win or lose on the strength of the economy. It takes a very unusual ad to convince someone who’s jobless that he’s actually fat and happy.

US TV advertising is $70 billion per year. Even if it were all on the market, that alone is beyond the Koches’ budget. And that doesn’t include news and other content. Then there’s online media, not just the $30 billion or so of advertising, but blogs and twitter and youtube and so on. To buy a monopoly you’ll need to figure out how to take over all that. Then don’t forget newspapers and magazines and billboards and movies and radio. Meanwhile the FTC, the FCC and private entities will get wise to what you’re doing and try to stop you, so it will get even more expensive.

However, there was or is a monopoly on media in many countries. I don’t have a list in front of me, but I will wager these monopolies are held exactly 0% of the time by private groups and 100% of the time by governments. It’s very clear where the bigger threat lies.

I will further wager that the first step of any government media takeover is to convince people that public welfare demands regulation of content. You’re on the right track if you can get responsible citizens like Mr. Levine to express horror that political opinions are getting aired “with no constraints on what is said.”

Bingo.

Now we have two hypothetical situations representing the ends of the spectrum regarding media distribution in a political race. On one end, we have a situation where a single group completely controls the media. Think NKorea or China. On the other end, we have a situation where the media time and channels are perfectly distributed amongst different candidates regarding TV, Internet, print media to all areas that are part of the voting process.

Now obviously, in the first situation where one group controls the media, anyone running against them is going to be impossibly overwhelmed and never going to get elected. The second version, while being totally fair from the standpoint of hearing opinions, require an extremely unlikely amount of micromanagement and will be impossible to pull off, and likely will be in violation of the 1st amendment in its execution. Where we are is somewhere in the middle, but after CU, shifting hard to the single media dominator side of things.

With enough money it is possible to set a monopoly on media. If that happens, just like in any other monopoly, consumers are left with fewer choices and the idea of a free market collapses. Except now instead of a free market, we are talking about the democratic process, and the consumers are obviously voters. CU allows the very real possibility of a media monopoly during an election cycle. Obama is a prodigious fundraiser, and I think this won’t happen this election cycle. But down the road and not too far off, more and more groups like the Koch brothers and their kind will see that it does in fact happen. And because we made the foolish and incorrect assumption that $$ = free speech because I can use money to get my message out, we are going to have just such a monopoly of the media, and whoever controls it is going to decide who are leaders are and the rest of the country is simply going to be unable to do anything about it.

Yes, of course advertising is effective or else people and corporations would not pay for it. However, your argument implies that advertisement is a form of coercion–that there needs to be restrictions on efforts to “convince” people because they might be involuntarily convinced. I think the following two facts are not mutually exclusive:

1. Advertisement can be persuasive.
2. People are responsible for their choices.

If it were not so, all advertisement should be banned because it all coerces us for the benefit of some corporation or other party and prevents us from choosing a preferable alternative. But it doesn’t, so it’s not. Political advertisement is no different in that respect. That implies also that the same truth-in-advertisement rules should apply. Obviously, fraud is not protected by the first amendment.

Most citizens are not interested enough or sophisticated enough to delve into the data presented in political advertising to find out what’s valid and what isn’t.

And they’re more likely to figure out what’s valid without the ads? That’s not my own experience; I find it more helpful to see the various sides presented, even in the tone of ranting hysteria campaign literature tends to favor.

I should add: nor is there any credible claim that the rich are violating the constitutional rights of the majority by buying political advertisements. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for any disproportionate political influence that the rich have is for the non-rich to not vote for politicians that give the rich disproportionate influence.

I accept that my view is unorthodox, but it’s not that complicated to understand. My view is that no one’s interest should be put above another’s, as Washington said, and that the way you prevent that is by not voting for people who do that, as Madison said. There are some complications when the oppressed are in the minority, since the privileged can hold the majority and keep them oppressed. Then, the Constitution and the Supreme Court comes into play as a check against the tyranny of the majority. But, that’s not the case here since the rich clearly aren’t in the majority.

It’s actually remarkable that people can try to use quotes from the founding fathers to justify outrage against CU, considering that CU overturned laws that didn’t exist at the time, and as far as I can understand no such rules were proposed (I’d like to see them, if you know of any). You can argue that they *would* have supported them if they had seen the advances in mass communication that would occur, but that’s highly speculative, especially in light of things they have said that they would need to contradict, such as the Federalist Papers #57 which I quoted from (and would be interested to hear an answer to, at some point).

That created an opportunity, or perhaps more like a requirement, for citizens to hold more stable forms of wealth, so they were buying up things like clothes and food. Prices were skyrocketing, Washington couldn’t fund the army, and he was scapegoating these “speculators” for their lack of patriotism.

I’m not sure what bearing this has on CU, other than reminding us that citizens and politicians will generally act less civic-mindedly than we might wish.

I don’t see how it’s possible for you to agree with the quote yet continue to believe that CU is somehow exempt from being part of that problem. Either I don’t understand your thinking or your ability to rationalize is impressive. I suspect the latter.

You are right that spending money, by itself, is not speech. When the government restricts what I can spend money on, it is restricting my freedom, but it is not necessarily violating any specific right guaranteed by the constitution. However, when it allows some type of purchase, but not the same type of purchase for the purpose of distributing a political message, then the distinction between a legal and illegal purchase is only defined by the content of the message associated with the purchase. That implies that there must be a criteria to decide what speech is OK in that context, and which speech is not, and the existence of such a criteria is a violation of freedom of speech. My understanding is that the frequently cited exceptions to this rule (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, defamation, etc.) require that (a) the speech is false, and (b) there is direct damage to another person as a result of the false information. The message of political groups, as a whole, certainly can’t all be classified as false and damaging, so this restriction would be a unique restriction of on a type of speech that may include true and constructive messages. Or, if there is another restriction of speech that is not false and destructive, I’d like to know it.

At least that’s the way I see it. I appreciate your point of view, though.

With regards to Adam Smith, I agree also with his concern, and especially with his proposed solution, as you quoted: “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution.”

His solution is not to restrict the actions of some, but to put responsibility onto the people, through their representatives, to exercise “suspicious attention.”

And there is nothing impeding the electorate from voting against those who don’t represent their interests on those matters. So, your response doesn’t answer my question: is it exploitation if the so-called exploited are complicit?

The James Madison quote was made to define a republic, as opposed to an aristocracy. It says nothing of whether he would be in favor of campaign spending restrictions. In fact, such an interpretation conflicts with the entire point of his federalist papers #57 that I quoted from in my first comment, which makes clear that he sees no restriction necessary or desirable other than that every person gets a vote.

As for the George Washington quote, I agree completely. I’d hope that citizens would stand up against undue influence and exercise their obligation to vote out influence peddlers, corrupt politicians, and anyone else unfit for the job. I see nothing in CU that impedes them from doing so.

I’m also skeptical of the influence theory, that the electorate is so easily swayed by the media. TMV, for example, is a crucible of concerned citizens lobbying each other on all sorts of topics. In the several years I’ve been reading, I don’t think I’ve seen a single person change their mind on a single topic. Is your experience vastly different?

“They’ll vote their interests while convincing themselves they’re voting their conscience. Exactly like you, me, and all the incumbent politicians you’d probably prefer to have in charge.”

I’m not sure their conscience is involved; I’m certainly not sure it’s involved as mine, and probably yours, is.

As far as incumbent politicians, there are a number of them I’d prefer be replaced, but as I have little money to effect that replacement, all I can do is grumble. That includes grumbling about those who do have enough money and seem willing to use as much as it takes to get their candidates elected.

Any candidate I’m interested in wants to avoid the plutocracy we’re headed for, just as I do – that includes the conservatives and independents as well as the progressives I normally prefer. This whole money quagmire may just be the one factor that can finally end the partisanship morass we’ve fallen into.

I think I understand the theory that restricting advertising makes this problem better, but I’m far from convinced of it. In fact I’d argue the other way: politicians get away with selling out the public because the public isn’t paying much attention. Less government control over the media will tend to mean more sunlight cast on politicians’ pandering. So I simply don’t believe you have a solution, and I’m frightened of the cost.

How on earth are you holding in your skull the belief that politicians have some level of accountability at the same time you’re citing oil-tax-break sellouts?

“Smith also warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants “…in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention”

Sound familiar? CU is a great tool for allowing the abuse of the general good by a few.

We could draw a similar conclusion with the financial sector. They basically threw a Great Depression triggering event at this country, using the same methods they did in the 1920′s, and were only recently available to them once again via them having repealed the laws that forbade them to do it again. This was bi-partisan, and it shows the influence small groups with unlimited cash influence can have. We had protections put in place to protect us from these shenanigans, and they did. They were removed, and we got screwed again. The fact the conditions that allowed it to happen have not been addressed 4 years later is a testament to the lobbying power of the financial sector. We are not more protected from those degenerate Wall St. gamblers now than we were under Bush. And maybe we can afford to bail them out again when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, and maybe we can’t. That is the exploitation I am talking about.

“Is the paltry consideration of
a little dirty pelf for a few
to be placed in competition with
the essential rights and liberties of the rest, and of millions yet unborn?”

“Shall a few designing men
for their own aggrandizement,
and to gratify their own avarice,
overset the goodly fabric we
have been rearing at the expense
of so much time, blood, and treasure?”

From the beginning I have said that CU conflated spending with speech. In different ways, I have said several times: when I speak my lips move; when I spend money my wallet moves. They are not the same.

My definition of influence peddling? Purchasing influence through the donation of sufficient cash to place yourself above others. One example: a wealthy, energy related donor gave $985,000 to Romney’s Super PAC. A week later he was appointed as an energy policy advisor to the candidate.

Note: there are other types of influence peddling, e.g. extortion, to which I make no reference here.

It’s possible that we disagree, but that’s how I see this issue.

As James Madison explained it, the way that we avoid the wealthy exploiting the non-wealthy is by giving them one vote, just like everyone else. Do you consider them to be in a position to exploit because they have a louder voice? Are the non-wealthy therefore forced to hear and agree? Can an action be exploitative if it requires the person who is exploited to be complicit, without any negative consequence for not being complicit? I think the answer is no, but I’d be interested to hear your argument.

Can you define what you mean by influence peddling, and how you see CU contributing to it? Even influence peddling is mitigated by a responsible electorate (as they should vote out those who sell their influence). But, I agree it is not the same as free speech (as free speech does not imply the right to an unwilling audience), so I would not be opposed to additional restrictions, but I don’t see how that relates to CU.

The uber wealthy have a long history, indeed all of recorded history, of taking advantage of the masses and exploiting them if they are in a position to do so. We have put in place over the years restraints on them in this regard. We have to walk a line with it, because we go too far and we will in fact be hampering our own growth through stifling laws, but at this time we are no where near that. Indeed the people with the money can now buy up the politicians because we have made speech equal to money in a big way, instantly devaluing the voices of those unable to donate massive amounts of cash to political causes. Once the right people have been elected any safeguards in place can be removed, and we the people will be that much more vulnerable to a group of people that have historically been willing to destroy the public welfare for their own ends.

Something must be done so that money plays less of a role in determining who is elected. If we don’t, our government and therefore the people, will be at the mercy of those who they are supposed to protect us against.

And they’re doing it out of the goodness of their hearts to insure that America elects the best and brightest representatives who will do what’s best for the nation as a whole.

Of course they won’t, TO. They’ll vote their interests while convincing themselves they’re voting their conscience. Exactly like you, me, and all the incumbent politicians you’d probably prefer to have in charge.

In relation to the last argument, the money Obama raised and spent on his campaign was through his own organization and he vetted and was responsible for the messages that emerged. With the plethora of Super PACs now sprouting all over the landscape, extremely wealthy people can issue their own messages as they attempt to influence elections, often anonymously and with no constraints on what is said or how much money is donated.

This, ironically, is an argument for lifting campaign finance laws that restrict donations and push the money into independent organizations.

Attempts to restrict spending have, in the end, only moved the money around. Law going back more than a 1/4 century (to Buckley vs. Valeo in 1973) has established that spending money on political ads is free speech. Even if you could wave away the Citizens United ruling, the money would still be spent on ads for the same causes.