Lessig has in the past advocated for a variety of solutions that don't involve restricting speech, or organization. One option is to give each voter a $50 voucher that they can give to whatever political organization they wish. This retains all the of the functions of politics that we see today, but restores the dependence of politicians on the people, rather than the few who give most of the political money today.
I dunno how much it cost exactly but I'm sure that making and distributing "Hillary: The Movie" cost a lot more than 50 bucks. Limiting individuals to that total is a restriction on their speech.
Now, maybe that's a restriction that we want to impose but it's disingenuous to say it's not a restriction.
Re:MayDay PAC
by aptwebapps on Friday July 04, 2014 @11:46PM
(#7990958)
It's not a limit, it's supplemental. You can still put your own money into whatever you want. (I'm just talking about the voucher idea here).
I'm less concerned about campaign finance reform in general as communications tools get better; producing a great viral video is something a person with "no money" can do and contribute to a campaign, whereas running $10mm of TV ads requires...$10mm.
Re:MayDay PAC
by aptwebapps on Saturday July 05, 2014 @12:20AM
(#7991019)
There's something in that but I think we're a long way off from money not being effective.
The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no different than Sierra Club or any other advocacy organization: they just support causes the internet hive-mind doesn't like.
Also, if you limit PAC's, then you suddenly give rich individuals tremendously more power: they're now the only ones that can bring large amounts of money to bear on supporting a candidate. That is, unless you straight up destroy the first amendment by telling even individuals that they can't make this or that movie or political ad.