So the scene is already arranged for a very dirty campaign with lots of shady money in it, money whose donors will be sure to rub it into the faces of their respective chosen puppets, and to remind them of it later and ask for big favors. It's like betting on horses and hoping for return. Of course it has always been like that, but now it'll be brought to unseen heights (lows?) That's the nice price that'll have to be paid for this sacred cow that's the Freedom of Speech that always serves as a mantra and an excuse for everything. Well, at least according to the SCOTUS and all those happy wealthy chaps sitting in their offices and rubbing their hands in delight in wait of the big circus. And meanwhile, the common folk will still be living in the sweet delusion that they're having a "Democracy".
As noted the last time we talked about this, however, this is having the added benefit of voters hearing more voices and more points of view. When you broaden speech rights for all, you introduce more voices into the campaign. If it were not for Super PACs, Newt and Santorum would be out right now, and Paul would be somewhat hamstrung. Instead, we have a protracted battle where the voters are hearing viewpoints from and in favor of four viewpoints as opposed to the one or two we're used to. There is no downside to this whatsoever.
All indications are that this will continue in the general. Instead of being limited to hearing from small groups only consisting of those who can afford to donate directly, we'll see a wealth of spending and, thus, advertising from a variety of different groups on both sides of the aisle talking about the issues that matter to them and the issues that they feel should matter to you. No longer will the candidates or the media alone be able to dictate the discussion, but rather private citizens have an increased opportunity to push their narratives, and the rest of us have the opportunity to discuss them.
We need to stop being scared of Super PACs and expanded speech. The GOP primary is proving the pro-speech people right, and is proving the anti-speech people wrong in its impact - we're benefiting heavily from the new and different voices in the political process.
As an aside, it's interesting that this is resulting in so much more speech. When the limits on direct contributions eventually disappear (their incompatibility with the concept of free speech means it's an eventual given) we may run into a situation where those millions go directly to the campaigns, thus reducing the amount of speech in the sphere. This is not to say that we should favor artificial limits on speech for this outcome, but it's an interesting thought.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 16:43 (UTC)As noted the last time we talked about this, however, this is having the added benefit of voters hearing more voices and more points of view. When you broaden speech rights for all, you introduce more voices into the campaign. If it were not for Super PACs, Newt and Santorum would be out right now, and Paul would be somewhat hamstrung. Instead, we have a protracted battle where the voters are hearing viewpoints from and in favor of four viewpoints as opposed to the one or two we're used to. There is no downside to this whatsoever.
All indications are that this will continue in the general. Instead of being limited to hearing from small groups only consisting of those who can afford to donate directly, we'll see a wealth of spending and, thus, advertising from a variety of different groups on both sides of the aisle talking about the issues that matter to them and the issues that they feel should matter to you. No longer will the candidates or the media alone be able to dictate the discussion, but rather private citizens have an increased opportunity to push their narratives, and the rest of us have the opportunity to discuss them.
We need to stop being scared of Super PACs and expanded speech. The GOP primary is proving the pro-speech people right, and is proving the anti-speech people wrong in its impact - we're benefiting heavily from the new and different voices in the political process.
As an aside, it's interesting that this is resulting in so much more speech. When the limits on direct contributions eventually disappear (their incompatibility with the concept of free speech means it's an eventual given) we may run into a situation where those millions go directly to the campaigns, thus reducing the amount of speech in the sphere. This is not to say that we should favor artificial limits on speech for this outcome, but it's an interesting thought.