If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is?
For the same reason that Bob is allowed to purchase a pistol, but isn't allowed to organise with Joe and Frank and buy a functional tank with a 120mm cannon.
In the same way your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to walk over (like literally step on top of) other people.
Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations.
Size matters. Organisation matters. Joe saying something is his free speech. Joe buying ads to say something is free speech. 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. An association of people isn't a human. In many languages there are even specific terms for "physical person" and "juridical person" (like a company, association, grouping, etc.). It doesn't get human rights.
And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that. Otherwise you can have extremely rich people simply innundating everyone with their views, skewing people's opinions and getting the results they want instead.
>If Bob has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, and Joe has free speech to run ads about how bad Issue X is, why shouldn't Bob and Joe be allowed to combine their money, find others with similar opinions and run ads about how bad Issue X is?
Nothing per se. However if Bob and Joe are "running ads about how bad Issue X is," I'd like to know (or at least be able to find out) that it's Bob and Joe and not Steve and Larry who are financing such ads.
While no one has mentioned it here yet, it seems to me that "dark money"[0] is a significant issue.
I am not very knowledgeable about freedom of speech laws in the US, but is it limited to individuals, or is it very broad, including organizations, coalitions and partnerships of multiple people as well?
richwater|1 year ago
sofixa|1 year ago
In the same way your freedom of movement doesn't allow you to walk over (like literally step on top of) other people.
Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations.
Size matters. Organisation matters. Joe saying something is his free speech. Joe buying ads to say something is free speech. 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact. An association of people isn't a human. In many languages there are even specific terms for "physical person" and "juridical person" (like a company, association, grouping, etc.). It doesn't get human rights.
And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that. Otherwise you can have extremely rich people simply innundating everyone with their views, skewing people's opinions and getting the results they want instead.
nobody9999|1 year ago
Nothing per se. However if Bob and Joe are "running ads about how bad Issue X is," I'd like to know (or at least be able to find out) that it's Bob and Joe and not Steve and Larry who are financing such ads.
While no one has mentioned it here yet, it seems to me that "dark money"[0] is a significant issue.
[0] https://campaignlegal.org/update/pacs-super-pacs-dark-money-...
neeleshs|1 year ago
ttyprintk|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]