So elections are more important than free speech?

Darn, I disagree. It's the first amendment for good reason. I want to like someone who will really do something about this but I think this solution is a rabbit hole.

Free speech is the most basic protection individuals have for asserting their rights. Elections follow. As much as I'd love to see political corruption reduced, I think those things are already in the proper order of importance in the constitution.

Maybe we can try out his amendment for a few years, but it would be nice to have some further open and public discussion about what might happen with that new amendment in place.

What happens, for example, if a foreign company starts supporting a US political candidate? Would a US company be allowed to invest in said foreign company, or buy their products? Would we start censoring the internet for unlawful political advertisements?

Money isn't speech. You can say whatever you want. You're just not entitled to a platform in which to do it.

When you start telling people that they can't build their own platforms, you're getting to a place where "you can say whatever you want" becomes a pretty empty principle.

You've already said this 2-3x elsewhere in this thread and people gave you thoughtful replies there. I agree mostly with the counter arguments you received.

Do you not see how difficult it is to identify what money is being spent in support of political campaigns and what money is not? Or, do you trust people who are corrupting politics to properly label how they are spending money as either a) on politics or b) not on politics? If not, who will figure it out and how? What if a foreign company starts advertising online? Do we censor that? Do we forbid US companies from investing in them which is a form of indirect support?

The whole reason I posted the above was to raise awareness that simply ending citizens united is not a whole solution unto itself. It may just drive the money underground and make it harder to track. We need a real public, open discussion about this, giving proper thought to everyone's ideas, or we'll never move forward

I do normally agree with your posts but this seems ... distressingly principled, if you like :)

If we adhere to the idea that "money is speech" (Buckley v Valeo) and resist all attempts at suppressing speech, how do we avoid an eventual slide into plutocracy when upwards of 90% of all elections these days are won by the candidate who spends the most money?

How do you think elections get won?

They get won by getting the most votes. And how do they get the most votes? Well, by persuading the most people (of those who bother to vote) that your position on the issues is the one that will work the best for them. Getting that message out takes money. And how do you get the money? Well, by persuading the people who give money to politicians that your position on the issues is the one that will work the best for them.

"The most money" and "the most votes" are not completely unrelated, and they're not related only by "money lets you yell the loudest at easily-influenced voters". Campaigns attract money for the same reason they attract votes; it's not surprising to see a large correlation.

I don't know what I think about campaign finance reform. On the one hand I have the obvious concerns about money buying influence. On the other hand, money tried real real hard to buy the 2012 election and failed comically.

Meanwhile, the free speech issues involved in regulating campaign spending, while admittedly very inconvenient for all of us, are real, and no appeal to plutocracy extinguishes them.

Certainly: the approach Sanders seems to take to this problem, of literally amending the Constitution to neuter to First Amendment and then delegating to Congress --- yes, this Congress --- an unlimited power to regulate political speech, is not OK with me.

There are lots of reforms I want to see happen at the federal level. Sentencing reform, accountability for prosecutors, financial markets regulation, health care, school funding, health care, drug decriminalization, and health care are all I think good targets for top down federal regulation. Campaign finance, I think, might be a better thing for states to grapple with first.

You're right that there isn't a lot of evidence about whether money influences elections. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether money influences elections. What is more important is whether elected officials believe money is influential in elections, and I think this is trivially true.

What are your fears if "The Democracy is for People Amendment" passed? Are you worried that the congress would limit political spending too much? Or are you worried that the amendment doesn't specifically separate political spending from political speech well enough?

It doesn't separate political spending from political speech at all.

I read this as specifically giving congress the authority to set limits on raising and spending money. I don't see any language granting them to ability to restrict political speech.

SECTION 1.To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

[0] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-re...

The only thing it authorizes is limits on "the raising and spending of money ... to influence elections", it doesn't address speech as distinct from raising and spending money at all. So it seems to separate them quite distinctly.