2020 Presidential Election

[Alatar]

That's obscene.

[Cerin]

Yes. In the U.S. we call it 'free speech.' Bloomberg has said he is willing to spend $550 million (I'm not sure if that's just to get the nomination, or includes the general election).

[elengil]

All the free speech you can afford. Just like justice and health.

[Sunsilver]

...and, of course, the military: https://www.thenation.com/article/tom-d ... you-think/

With the recent assassination of General Soleimani causing Iraq to threaten the U.S., no doubt this is going to increase yet again.

[Túrin Turambar]

It's still only one poll, though.

Current aggregation on Wikipedia

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I will eat my hat if Bloomberg wins (buys) the nomination.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

Do you even have a hat?

[River]

If he doesn't maybe he'll buy one just to eat it.

[Inanna]

I think V would look great in a Pratchett like hat.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do own some hats, though Beth is more of a hat person than I am.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

I think V would look great in a Pratchett like hat.

Indeed.

[narya]

Think of them as adding fiber to your diet. Especially the knit ones.

[yovargas]

Heck, I'd eat V's hat if Bloomberg wins more than maaaybe a couple states.

[Frelga]

I would like to agree but I remember when we thought the same thing about Trump.

Does Bloomberg have any business in Moscow?

[Griffon64]

Yes. In the U.S. we call it 'free speech.' Bloomberg has said he is willing to spend $550 million (I'm not sure if that's just to get the nomination, or includes the general election).

Yeah, so I also had Alatar's reaction initially and so I had to have this conversation with an actual American yesterday. As someone who grew up in a different political & values system I get surprised by the US way of doing things sometimes, but since I live in the country, I live by its value system, and I change if there is a conflict. Indeed, the First Amendment makes no moral judgement over amplifying one's voice with money, it just guarantees free speech without controlling the mode of the speech or equalizing it in any way. That's just how the US runs its democracy. Instead, the burden is on American citizens to not be hoodwinked if the statements blasted at them via all that money are untrue, to not let the voices of the rich drown out the voices of the vast, vast majority, to not equate money with competence or knowledge or good intent, to listen and consider all points of view since the government will silence none, and so forth. It is a pretty brutal, you get what you deserve system. The government doesn't coddle.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My digestive system is counting on enough Americans not getting hoodwinked by Bloomberg's money. Although I suppose if need be I could purchase a nice soy-based hat.

[River]

If he were less of an egoist he could be funding Democratic senatorial candidates.

[Cerin]

Indeed, the First Amendment makes no moral judgement over amplifying one's voice with money, it just guarantees free speech without controlling the mode of the speech or equalizing it in any way.

Imo, this is not a very meaningful or accurate representation of what the Constitution says about free speech. Here is the text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

To say that the First Amendment makes no moral judgement over amplifying one's voice with money implies that it mentions the idea of amplifying one's voice with money while withholding moral judgment. In fact, it says nothing about amplifying one's voice with money. In speaking of Bloomberg's expenditures, we aren't, imo, principally talking about freedom of speech. We're talking about how we will run elections. The Constitution does have something to say about that:

In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

Limits on spending in elections would, imo, fall under the idea of 'manner of holding elections' and that is something that can be regulated; and in fact we have a long history in this country of attempting to legislatively control the use and corrupting influence of money in elections. Unfortunately, the idea of campaign finance was cleverly presented recently in the courts as a free speech issue, and so now we have an ever more insane system that allows rich people and moneyed interests to have an inordinate amount of influence over elections, essentially thwarting the idea of everyone in a democracy having an equal say. It is not 'just how the U.S. runs it's democracy.' It's an example of how the Constitution can be manipulated and contorted to bizarre ends. Most nations manage to hold elections in a sane manner that recognizes the need to control the influence of money, but that's another area in which we haven't managed to join the civilized world.

[elengil]

Most nations manage to hold elections in a sane manner that recognizes the need to control the influence of money, but that's another area in which we haven't managed to join the civilized world.

So true.
Top it off with the gerrymandering and the voter registration purges and we've almost lost any semblance of being a democracy in terms of a government by the people.

[yovargas]

Limits on spending in elections would, imo, fall under the idea of 'manner of holding elections' and that is something that can be regulated; and in fact we have a long history in this country of attempting to legislatively control the use and corrupting influence of money in elections.

Do you know if this particular clause has been interpreted that way by the courts, or is this your interpretation?