I think you could consider it more a limitation on how much they are permitted to spend on the media, such as commercials and the like. If all sides are treated equally I don't believe there would be any violation of first amendment rights. They can still say what they want on the stump, at meetings, at rallies, etc. They would still get news coverage, provided that coverage is equal and unbiased. Just limit their paid commercial time.
And I like the idea that all candidates are funded equally, from a public fund set up for that with voluntary donations. All donations made to a joint fund, not to a particular party. That might make it even more likely that the candidate with the best platform will be elected, not the one with the best funding.
Of course, this is all fantasy. About as likely to happen as the moon falling down. Oh, well. It's a nice dream, anyway.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
But I'm not limiting their free speech. I'm only limiting their access to a method of disseminating that speech. Any person in this country is, theoretically, allowed to say pretty much what he wants to say. He is not permitted to go around with a bull horn all day and night spouting off his beliefs. That impinges on other's rights to peace and quiet. The same principle applies her, I believe.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
There's a significant difference between a bullhorn and television air time. You would be saying that I, as a candidate, could not spend my own money to by advertising time and deliver my message. Just as McCain-Feingold limits when I, as an individual, can spend my money to express my personal view on the election. Both are wrong and should not be allowed.
Once you start the limiting, it may sound simple, but it becomes very complex. Who's limited and when and how? Public funds -- if only public funds can be used, then who qualifies to get them? It's dangerous territory, because freedoms are lost in little steps.
I understand your objections and can see some merit in them. But I can also see merit in restructuring the election process. As things stand now, the candidate who can raise the most money stands the best chance of buying the election. That requires him/her to kowtow to the people with the money; big business, the elite, etc. This makes it very difficult for a candidate who wants to impose limits on the effects of big business and the rich on politics to get funding, thereby making it more difficult for him to buy equal time on TV.
What I'm saying is, take the money out of the equation. ALL funds go into a trough, and every candidate gets an equal portion. Then limit the amount of money which can be spent on advertising. The candidate can choose to purchase a lot of TV time in non-prime time slots, or a little bit of time in the more expensive, but more lucrative slots.
As for who would qualify for this money, sure there are problems which would have to be ironed out. I don't claim to have all the answers. And I don't want to see anyone's freedoms taken away. I just want to see more equity in the election process, making it a little more possible for a non-Democrat or non-Republican to get into office. As for personal choices, you can still promote your candidate through innumerable free venues, such as writing letters to the papers, online sites, even public rallies.
Sure it's a rough proposal, and one I don't anticipate getting any serious attention from politicians. After all, passing a law along these lines would be tantamount to political suicide for many of them.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
So what do you then do about someone not the candidate who wants to buy airtime to support the candidate's position? In order avoid the "money problem", you'd have to deny that.
Which means I couldn't personally buy a TV ad during the election cycle to express my views.
So, because of perceived abuses, we restrict the rights of everyone.
I'm sorry, but that's not the way rights work. It's hard to protect them, because it means accepting things you might not necessarily like, but the alternative is opening the door to more and more limits, all, I'm sure, for the best of reasons and with pure intentions. And, in the end, we find that we've given away everything.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)