The Almighty US Government

[Heywood]

Pamphlets and the publishing of books or views on the internet all cost money. They all employ the use of using money to multiply the size of the audience which can hear your speech. It seems you are okay with some kinds of political ads but not others. If you are okay with the publishing of pamphlets but not TV ads, I think your position is a little inconsistent......and I still think it amounts to censorship.

Well, I do know you like to commit the ad neuseum fallacy, so I won't debate the "free speech" issue any further.

I can see your point about the costs of blogs. A distinction could be made over their picayune costs of a website, even a professionally designed and maintained website, relative to dumping millions of dollars into slick 30 second TV ads.

The alternative that I can see would seem to be variations on our current system, where the wealthy and monied interests can buy elections and thus our government leaders can be bought and sold. If you're fine with that, then by all means keep our current system.

Your tweaks are not unlike the others introduced over the years that attempt to distinguish "good corruption" from "bad corruption" and figure out where those lines are. As others on this thread have noted, the distinction between a "bribe" and a "campaign contribution" is a fine one indeed.

You started out from a position that "all" political ads should be banned. Realizing such a position is ludicrous you back peddle to you want to curb the speech of rich people. You really have no problem with average Joe using his wealth to spread his political message. But if they are the Koch brothers...then you got a problem. I find it hypocritical that you mention the Koch brothers several times but never mention a liberal rich person like Soros....but whatever.

What about the people who are poorer than you. Should your ability to use your wealth to multiply the audience who hears your message be curbed as well? I mean it is simply unfair to poorer people that you have more resources to spread your message then they do.

What about people who are simply better speakers. Should their abilities to speak and convey their message be curbed so as not to disenfranchise the less articulate?

I really think you just want to censor political messages you don't want other people to hear. You think you can discern bullshit from that which isn't, but you don't give the masses the same credit. You are a typical elitist that needs to control what the masses are exposed too.