Anonymous

“It’s one thing to control the content of speech. That would be repression. Controlling the volume of speech (the size of the megaphone) means that a billionaire or transnational corporation (Citizens United) cannot overwhelm the speech of candidates with more appealing or better ideas.”





If you mute the volume of my speech, or limit the volume of my speech such that less people will be able to hear it than would ahve otherwise, how have you not abridged my freedom of speech? Are you saying you’re only abridging my freedom to be heard?

In another scenario, imagine a competitive political campaign for a small state-wide or large city-wide office, with a well known incumbent and a challenger that no one outside his/her family has heard of. If we are both limited to $500,000 in campaign spending, or $1,000,000, then the advantages my opponent has in name recognition, electioneering via my aides paid for with taxpayer rather than campaign funds, and more will be locked in for the incumbent. Is this wrong, or just weaker rhetoric?

Lastly, say we have a presidential election, where even the homeless are bombarded with information about each candidate. These campaigns more than any appear to well-funded enough to fully saturate voters with the targeted information each side wants them to hear. Is there any significant advantage that the party controlling more spending really has in such a race? What compels me, the voter, to support the candidate that spent the most money? In this race or any other? Even if I disagree with the ads or the opinion articles or the press releases?