This is an absolutely vicious attack on free speech.
The right to free speech is simply the right to not be forcefully coerced, as applied to the realm of speech.
But what if I'm trying to advocate to citizens rather than to my congresscritter?
That's fine for direct campaign contributions, not so much for 3rd party messaging which is where a lot of the current mess lies.
The Constitution guarantees the right to petition the government. It says nothing about the "freedom" to deliver those petitions in briefcases full of cash (slight hyperbole, but you get the idea).
Personally, I'd be willing to live with Citizens United if (a) the less debatable parts of election rigging were struck (i.e. gerrymandering, closed primaries, and private campaign finance) and (b) the rule against direct coordination between "independent" producers and campaigns they assist were extended to a ban on hiring anyone who had worked on a campaign for at least five years.
As it stands, people who have been deeply enmeshed with a campaign, who know all the players, and who know the strategy cold, can "quit", go to work for an "unrelated" PAC, and proceed to produce media that "happens" to mesh with the "unrelated" campaign.
It's bullshit, floor to ceiling. Truly independent political speech is one thing. The current reality is something else.
So I guess we're not going to discuss this like adults?
Like I wrote, I am no fan of money in politics, but if there is money in politics, there is always going to be a way to use that money to the advantage of someone else, by means other than "literally handing a check to a person with regulatory power over your commercial interests" - the only way to prevent that is take money entirely out of politics, but that does affect free speech.
Truly independent political speech is one thing. The current reality is something else.
Agreed. Now, how to you get one without the other without impacting one's right to free expression?
The law is that you can't hand a candidate a check bigger than $2,500, nor can a corporation hand the candidate any such check. Citizens United does nothing to change that (because the Congress derives its power to ban that from its control over the candidate, not the donor).
What was at issue in Citizens United was precisely the question of advocacy on your own dime.
That is the _entire point_ of this whole movement (i.e., the one Lessig is helping push).
So, yeah, you're missing the point.
Money is a big deal in politics because money means advertisements and advertisements mean mindshare and mindshare means votes. All you have to do is bypass that.
Those two statements are contradictory. Even if they weren't, "a better internet, and a more engaged public" doesn't automatically mean that people get to hear your message.
We need a better inter-networked commons.
Money is speech. No money, then you have no distribution for speech. It has always been this way. Now party bosses cannot dictate every primary.
All rights must be balanced against each other when they come into conflict. Free Speech Laws vs. Election Campaigning Laws. Can't have both. How/Where does one draw the line?
I'm OK with better elections.
Can you succinctly name a right that never needs balancing against another?