How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?

[Kuciwalker]

No, because the second one doesn't involve spending money.

Sure it does! It's an in-kind donation. The IRS disagrees with you.

And why is buying influence bad only when done with money?

[giblets]

Sure it does! It's an in-kind donation. The IRS disagrees with you.

And why is buying influence bad only when done with money?

That sort of "in-kind donation" doesn't give corporations undue influence in the political process.

[Kuciwalker]

That sort of "in-kind donation" doesn't give corporations undue influence in the political process.

Oh, so what really gets you is that certain groups of people have "undue" influence and so you want to curtail their speech.

Frankly, I think Democrats have undue influence in the political process and think we should censor them.

[giblets]

Oh, so what really gets you is that certain groups of people have "undue" influence and so you want to curtail their speech.

Frankly, I think Democrats have undue influence in the political process and think we should censor them.

Aren't they already "censored" if the campaign donations they can receive are limited? By your rules, anyway, where money = speech?

[Kuciwalker]

I mean specifically Democrats.

[Kuciwalker]

Aren't they already "censored" if the campaign donations they can receive are limited? By your rules, anyway, where money = speech?

My rules say that speech = speech. You're the one that wants to ban books critical of political candidates.

[giblets]

My rules say that speech = speech. You're the one that wants to ban books critical of political candidates.

When has a book been banned because of campaign finance reform?

[Wiglaf]

Aren't they already "censored" if the campaign donations they can receive are limited? By your rules, anyway, where money = speech?

This is why you needed to grasp the difference between direct financial contributions and speech earlier.

You can thank Citizens United for precluding congress from ever banning political books.

[regexcellent]

When has a book been banned because of campaign finance reform?

A book wasn't but a movie was. Consider: Most publishers are corporate-owned. Most books are published by corporate-owned publishers, including books written about political candidates. Suppose I write a book about how Obama is a lying, scheming, conniving bastard and publish it through HarperCollins. HarperCollins is owned by News Corporation. Suddenly News Corporation is making an illegal campaign contribution to Obama's rivals.

I may be getting the precise mechanism wrong; it could be that promotion of the book would be illegal; I don't remember. Point is, the law allows for banning of books in roughly this manner, as was discussed in the oral arguments of Citizens United, which I highly recommend you read.

[Kuciwalker]

When has a book been banned because of campaign finance reform?

Citizens United was a film, to be sure, but in the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court the solicitor general admitted that the relevant law also gave the government the power to ban books. And it's not like banning films is any better.

[regexcellent]

Which is why it's amazing that ANY of the justices voted to uphold it.

[Kuciwalker]

s/amazing/terrifying/

[regexcellent]

Heh, nice use of a regex

But yes, it is terrifying.

[Wiglaf]

It is even more terrifying that the President of the United States used a wildly mistaken interpretation of the ruling to publicly bash the court and the decision, right to the justices' faces, in front of a national television audience and both houses of Congress.

[Wiglaf]

Even Toobin lies about the decision. A lot. Almost compulsively.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jeffrey-toobin-rewrites-supreme-court-history-and-his-own_645093.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I really have no idea what the liberal fixation is with distorting Citizens United.