Comments on: a couple of quick responses

By: jeff

jeff — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:51:12 +0000

Your blimp proposal is a pretty transparent giveaway to Big Helium. For shame. ]]>

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:16:30 +0000

I suspect the answer depends on what you mean by “more seriously”. It does seem worth noting that as free speech has been scoring wins in defending non-humans and the rich, we’ve been brutalizing whistleblowers and mulling legislation that lets the government disappear websites without judicial review. These things can’t be laid at the feet of the Supremes, of course, but I do think they’re representative of larger trends in our society to which the high court is subject. Certainly I have no reason to anticipate better results on these questions from them. ]]>

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:11:35 +0000

And it raises very few constitutional issues compared to restraints on speech, which is especially important given that SCotUS has been getting worse and worse on this issue.

By “worse and worse” you mean they’re taking the First Amendment more seriously?

]]>

By: Dan Miller

Dan Miller — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:38:49 +0000

With regard to the floors vs. ceilings debate, I think you’re underestimating the difference that would be made. The analogy to pro sports doesn’t work, for one main reason. Consider–Michael Jordan can only play for one team, and he’s much better than the second-best person. In that type of competition, the one who pays MJ the most will get a significant advantage.

But this is in no way analagous to campaign spending. Once you pass a threshold where your message can get heard by the electorate, additional money is less useful (not useless, but less useful). So increasing the number of campaigns that pass this minimum threshold will do a lot to make elections more meaningful.

I used to work for a campaign consulting firm, and you’d be amazed at how the presence of a viable challenger can turn a seemingly unwinnable district into one that’s very competitive. Increasing the number of these viable challengers, and making it so that you can be a viable challenger without having to kiss the ass of every rich person in your district or out of it, would be a huge step forward in tilting the playing field back towards the interests of ordinary people. And it raises very few constitutional issues compared to restraints on speech, which is especially important given that SCotUS has been getting worse and worse on this issue.

]]>