Concrete logical contradiction in "money is speech" doctrine

To see the contradiction in “money is speech” all we have to do is follow the money to its logical conclusion. But I’d submit upfront that allowing coercion of attention through money generally leads to the same result. The difference is subtle but incredibly powerful. Notice there is a difference between a contractor (someone who directs their own attention and negotiates for it) and an employee who is paid to have their attention subverted.

So lets lay out a scenario that follows the money is speech doctrine to its logical drown us out conclusion:

Fast forward some years and the US has one remaining media company and it is owned by a single person, a foreign national. This is not widely known information because that company won’t cover it. The public still thinks there are hundreds of media firms. Even if the public wanted to know, it would find that it was restricted by a new body of law that holds that money is private speech and in effect knowledge about the sole remaining media company is classified. Write about it and that information gets erased and you get a gag order and a warrant for your arrest and a trial in a secret court.

When that owner wants a new law or wants one changed or wants government to do something he simply temporarily gives some politicians some money and they give that money right back to him through his media company. He sponsors legislators and the laws he wants with 1:1 precision. He doesn’t have much trouble with Supreme Court Justices because he selects the Presidents, determines if they will stay in office and places conditions on Justice selection before he allows a would be President to run for office. Under money-is-private-speech he is also allowed to give Justices money directly. He has done this on many occasions. He has also ensured that Justices have been getting regular pay cuts and he selects Justices from modest means to make sure his money translates into results.

No surprise that there is a bunch of secret law that protects him, and gives him forums to spell out the imperatives of money in private out of view of the public when a decision in money’s favor needs to be made. In this system money is the ruler, money is law, money has created a hereditary dictator a king with subjects. The strategic placement of money is ultimately just a nuance, the one with the most gold makes the rules in this system. But as we know from history the qualities that would allow one to acquire the most gold, generally psychopathy, shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a legislative or rule creation process. When money is speech, there is no speech only censorship. This is where it leads without exception.

In the present day US we now have interlocking media boards and a media directly based, even for politics, on sponsorship and patronage. This means we have a monolithic media in majority that is totally corrupt. Since these are for-profit corporations it means this for-profit structure interlocking boards has one centralized leader or leadership. Yes they do loss leaders and steam blowers to keep up appearances, people like Keith Olbermann, John Stewart and the Bill Maher but these are no more than money’s court jesters. In every real decision their goal is to make sure you are a low paid powerless employee even in you dreams and even in you own home at you kitchen table.

When a candidate speak against the phony journalists these firms employ they are speaking against that amalgamation’s leader and that power. When a candidate is pro tariff and is protectionists they are speaking against the logic that pits everyday people against each other and for the logic that pits capital against capital for the benefit of everyday people. The chief aim of a useful state and possibly most of its business is a political economy aim and doing what it takes to keep money from translating into political power because that will always lead to dictatorship, the murder of you volition, the loss of your useful life, your life becomes worse than a prison it becomes a prison work camp a concentration camp. Under a dictator you lie is generally forfeit at birth.

Even on the way to this dictatorship of money you encounter a situation where you can’t just live your life, you will always have to take orders from those with more money and you can never do anything about that differential because no matter what you do you actions must always be aimed at enriching them, you self proclaimed betters at a faster rate than yourself or your actions are unlawful. They believe they own the plantation you were born into and that you are their property.

Lets start with a ton of false presuppositions and come to a conclusion…

You ought to write fiction.

Well, you kinda do…

No false presuppositions there. From my perspective to argue that money is speech one kind of has to be a psychopath, criminal, idiot or a mix of these. Brilliant as say Nozick was the arguments in opposition to power sharing are ultimately idiotic and they are just pandering to what we know in our gut is wrong and as wrong as wrong gets. Odds are that at least some of the SC justices that came to the conclusion that they did on Citizens United were either bribed or their whole lives were a testament to bribery.

We once had the Tillman Act which prohibited any corporate contributions to politicians. This was the right approach. Unfortunately Tillman pushed the act because he thought liberal slanting corporations would use lobbyists to support black people. On these grounds its was thrown out. But the pure idiot doctrines include corporate rights (even against other corporations) and money (bribery/censorship) is speech. I am sympathetic to the notion that we do not want government meddling with speech in anyway, but in order to have speech and not be drown out we need to have forums where we can be heard. We can’t do that if money is used to drown our voices out and dilute and eliminate our rights.

You start with “suppose in 2035…”

Why? In order for any of your arguement to make one more ounce of sense, I have to start from your totally made up premise? No thanks.

1 Like

I don’t think one can do better than fiction for trying to illustrate some things. But you’re right that doesn’t belong so I took it out.

I can start a new media company with a few clicks.

I don’t buy it.

Speech isn’t expensive enough for anyone to be able buy an monopoly on it.

But there is a problem with infotainment media that passes itself off as news. Under the older FCC rules media firms had to do fire walled news as a condition of retaining their license. Breach the firewall and lose the license, because they knew of the sponsor conflict. Now news media has to be paid off for someone to be elected. If evidence gets (somehow widespread) that the journalists that were supposedly shot are still alive, expect the courts to say that is ok because news is infotainment, just as the did in they case of the Fox anchors who were fired over trying to expose Monsanto’s rBST bs.

So yes, we are developing SAFE and the dark net but TV still drives elections to a large extent. Under Nixon we had the Powell memo, under Harding literally the slogan take the government out of business and put the business back in government. But we really need to get the business out government as that is worse than government in business by far.

Needing government’s permission to speak is the problem, not the solution…

The reason there are monolithic news organizations is because the government regulated them and set them up in such a manner…

In the beginning just about anybody could start a radio station and broadcast… That’s the way it should be… Otherwise the folks that have licenses will keep urging the government to keep upping the bar until no competition can come in.

1 Like

Needing government permission to speak is the problem and it better not sanction a system where people get drown out. So in a sense we see that the idea that money is speech is a distraction. But this business that some get to buy a louder voice, I don’t think so. We need to be able to sort ideas based on their merits not based on shouting with money or using money to turn of up the volume.

I get the idea of that the state trying to censor my personal options for the use of money/trade is generally completely unacceptable. Its unacceptable to me that it can tell me that I can’t buy raw organic colostrum (because that would challenge vaccine and pharma profits) or that I shouldn’t be able to buy grass because I might imbibe it and the state doesn’t like the state of consciousness that results or that I must purchase and use a vaccine that I question the safety and efficacy of and where I don’t want to further enrich vaccine companies when I think a lot of the money should go to other approaches. I like the vaccine idea about as much as being drafted into wars I disagree with.

But its a different issue when we are trying to not elect a puppet and the same people who wound up the puppet are paying to make sure I don’t have choices that aren’t their puppets and using their in place puppets to gerrymander and rig voting machines. I can’t think of a more negative use of money and it deserves to be confiscated or taxed away when its possessor uses it that way. I also don’t think we wait around to decide if billionaires want to abuse money this way we simply bar the avenues that allow it.

Representatives are supposed to be puppets to their constituents. That is more or less what “representative” means.

The fact that some constituencies have more at stake or have a bigger agenda than others is what it is. Squeaky wheels are going to get the oil no matter how you permit them to squeak. If you ban one form of squeak you will get a different one just as nefarious because people with agendas push for their agenda through whatever means is most expedient. Those that have a million dollars to lose are going to squeak a lot louder than those who have one dollar to lose… Even if there are a million one dollar losers vs one one million dollar loser, the guy losing a million dollars is going to be tons louder…

Speech translates into money and money translates into speech. It is what it is. It work how it work. You can try to make it work differently but 1, you are probably going to use government to do such things, and governments tend to work for those with power, not the other way around… and 2 you are going to just shove the corruption into another direction… Water flows downhill no matter what rules you pass about it…

A representative has an obligation to put the interests of their constituents first. And that would be all of their constituents even the ones that opposed them in the election and also future constituents. If they are an honorable representative and the only kind that should be allowed to continue in office for any period of time they will always vote their conscience when it comes to how best to do that. While their power is delegated from the people they are both representative or delegatee and steward.

But that bit about money is a cop out. What you are describing works like this:
Billionaire: You’re my agent, I put you in office, I financed/sponsored/bribed every media platform you ever appeared on, I have collateral on you including compromising pictures that you provided as I specified. I own you and your office as I am the one that elected you. During your entire term you will do everything I say and never deviate. You are my proxy, I have elected myself. My wealth is my qualification. You will also consider the interests of my friends and never cross them.
Puppet: Yes sir.

And almost the entire Republican side of the Congress and the Republican side of the Senate is filled with these fools who’d sell their grandmother for some money and attention and they are proxies for a just as worthless set of extractive thieving billionaires and their even more odious entourage of inheritance. Their businesses weren’t run on any better principles than their subversion of government. Any government with these people in charge is just an engine of crime. Organized crime is more honorable. Thomas Jefferson called it the worst form of government possible. Want to hand these money first fools nukes?

So there is a huge difference. One form of government must be smited and the better form exists if for no other reason to keep the former from arising.

Or, “I employ 1000 people in your district and bring 50 million dollars worth of revenue into your district every year… I might not be as successful at doing that if …”

Things that matter tend to matter because they matter. If people are willing to put big money towards a particular cause, that is proof of stake. They don’t buy government because it is a cool collectable. They buy government because Government is extremely dangerous to nearly everyone’s livelihood if they are allowed to run willly nilly by people who have no stake in anything.

That business about give me a tax break because I employ x number of people. Oh hell no, that would be a felony in my book with an automatic minimum sentence. That is more tit for tat black mail bribery type BS. And they use it on the front end negotiation before they even move in to constantly send the public sector in a downward spiral to the bottom. It means the local rate payors end up paying taxes to Amazon for jobs that don’t pay a living wage. Amazon should face the same minimum rate in every jurisdiction across the country and if it doesn’t like it, it can leave the country and pay an import tariff on good it tries to bring back in even if it keeps its headquartes here. If it moves its head quarters it can pay a much hight rate.

As for the last bit, no that is absolutely not the case. And its not even the case in principle. A billionare or trillionaire can buy government easier than we can by a beer. In my opinion even an attempt should mean they forefeit their wealth and do time.

It isn’t just about tax breaks.

A lot of cities are now throwing down their own employment rules. Resulting in companies having different rules in different places – having to invest in new payroll software that is able to do reporting on a things that nobody else needs or wants. Often one company that could get by with one payroll now has to have 4 or 5 different payrolls because there is no one size fits all… As a result, they often need 4 people to do the job that was once done buy one.

Or a local government can just say You must pay your employees 40% more than your competitor who operates down the block, but in the next county. Sometimes you may be able to compete – But in many cases not. Game over for your business – Not because you didn’t make a quality product – But because government is dangerous and ignorant.

Goverment can decree whatever they want without getting input from anybody effected. A bunch of hippies could go and ask that Soap be banned from a produce cleaning process because it has a big chemical name and sounds dangerous. If nobody shows up to inform the government otherwise. Willy nilly stuff could be banned that could lead to production of quality products being difficult or impossible.

Governments are dangerous, especially when they are uninformed. Informing them is expensive.

1 Like

Point taken. They do need consistent fair rules that give everyone in the economy a strong chance at the pursuit of happiness. Capriciousness is thugishness.

And yet I really think we need the old rules on taxation in particular. Get you first million of personal income from your business every year and go ahead and put in your bank account. But if you try to divest your business of the next billion of personal income then then we know the motive is likely stupid speculation that hurts everyone and expect to pay 90% and possibly trigger an audit. Don’t pay and go to jail not so much for greed but for the irresponsible use of money that puts others at risk.

Personally I don’t think people like Irvine or even Muskv should be paying any taxes because we know the state won’t put the money to anything like as good of a use. The state under progressive taxation policy knows this too and allows them to keep controll of it through equitable loopholes for the benefit of all. But Bernie Madoff would have to clean up or go broke under a working tax system. The best thing about tax is it can be used to help people make responsible choices with the power of money. But it requires good people in government and good laws.

We went 60 years with no real crashes but changes made during Regan and Clinton are using tax code to encourage speculation and deficits, it wasn’t the welfare system making the bubbles and using government debt to bail out the wealthy gamblers. Thom Hartman has a book called the Crash of 2016 that details this.

Middle class lives matter but the economic royalists don’t want a middle class the see it as a threat. Its where their anti democratic rhetoric comes from. That is why if we can survive the next crash we have to slam the door on them like Jefferson wanted all those years ago. I look forward to a future where almost everyone is in a well off middle class. We may or may not have the poor in a relative sense but even they will be very far off from poverty. And this nonsense that the middle class is a threat to legitimate wealth will be abolished.