The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**44 AMP** · June 21, 2010, 02:01 PM

Part of the problem is the difference between lobbying and "bribing". Taking/offering bribes is against the law. Spending money to get your point of view across is not.

Technically, elected officials are under no compunction to do what those who donate to their campaigns want. Human nature being what it is, they usually do, because that encourages further contributions. But its not a bribe. One person giving them a million dollars and wanting them to do X has influence, true. But it does not have the same influence as one million people giving a dollar (or nothing) and a vote wanting the politician NOT to do X. Which one do you think is going to get listened to the most?

And, the other thing, the laws we are talking about is not just about what can be spent (or given) to a politician to get their vote. It is about what we, the people can spend to get our message out to other people! THAT is supremely important, and more important that the part directly involving politicians!

You and I, the NRA, and everybody else must be allowed to freely use our resources to conduct political speech. That's the whole issue. Those in power don't care about how much a dissenting voice spends telling them their dissent, they care about how much we can spend telling each other about it. Even when it is nothing more than purely, verifiably factual information (and maybe, especially when it is such!)

When its a law that you cannot spend your own money to print an ad saying candidate X voted for A, B, & C during his last term in office (and nothing more than that) within a given number of days prior to an election, THAT is stifling your right to free speech.

And making the rules so complex that while you are not technically prohibited from doing that, but are practically prohibited, at risk of running afoul of some tiny regulation and thereby violateing the law, that amounts to the same thing.

I won't deny that money has influence, but votes have influence too. And remember, it is votes that put the politicians in office, or not.

June 21, 2010, 02:01 PM	#64
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	Part of the problem is the difference between lobbying and "bribing". Taking/offering bribes is against the law. Spending money to get your point of view across is not. Technically, elected officials are under no compunction to do what those who donate to their campaigns want. Human nature being what it is, they usually do, because that encourages further contributions. But its not a bribe. One person giving them a million dollars and wanting them to do X has influence, true. But it does not have the same influence as one million people giving a dollar (or nothing) and a vote wanting the politician NOT to do X. Which one do you think is going to get listened to the most? And, the other thing, the laws we are talking about is not just about what can be spent (or given) to a politician to get their vote. It is about what we, the people can spend to get our message out to other people! THAT is supremely important, and more important that the part directly involving politicians! You and I, the NRA, and everybody else must be allowed to freely use our resources to conduct political speech. That's the whole issue. Those in power don't care about how much a dissenting voice spends telling them their dissent, they care about how much we can spend telling each other about it. Even when it is nothing more than purely, verifiably factual information (and maybe, especially when it is such!) When its a law that you cannot spend your own money to print an ad saying candidate X voted for A, B, & C during his last term in office (and nothing more than that) within a given number of days prior to an election, THAT is stifling your right to free speech. And making the rules so complex that while you are not technically prohibited from doing that, but are practically prohibited, at risk of running afoul of some tiny regulation and thereby violateing the law, that amounts to the same thing. I won't deny that money has influence, but votes have influence too. And remember, it is votes that put the politicians in office, or not. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.