Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> These must pass strict scrutiny

In my opinion, restrictions on electioneering spending do pass strict scrutiny.

> The government's interest has never been in "remedying" the problem of people speaking about politics, regardless of money

Money is all that is at issue here. Like many others, I categorically reject the notion that money is speech, and have done so for a very long time in the face of far more detailed and principled arguments to the contrary than have been presented in this thread.

> (it does have an interest in stopping bribery, but that's a different issue.)

Bribery is not a different issue -- campaign contributions, direct or not, are bribery.

> allowing associations of people

I will never consider "associations" that shield their members/owners from personal liability to be entitled to speak or do anything else without the permission of society.

The alternative to CU is not frightening. The alternative to CU is recognition of the obvious: Limited liability entities are not entitled to any rights, political campaigns should be publicly funded, and individual spending on electioneering should be strictly limited.

Notice I keep saying "electioneering", not "politics", because the conduct at issue is expenditure of money on electioneering, not speaking about or spending money on politics in general. This is just one example of the vast disconnect in evidence here.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: