The world of political advertising, even at election time, isn't a zero-sum game yet. Their adverts don't shut out others'. Not yet, at least. And that's just airtime on cable and broadcast networks.
There are print media. Electronic media. Billboards. Even more robocalls. Sandwich boards. Pamphleting.
Let's do your argument the other way around. If nobody was allowed to spend more than $1 on campaigning, we'd have to assume all the air time would be bought up. On the other hand, that $1 doesn't get you a blipvert. What you need is for people to consolidate their little dabs of cash in a single organization, a corporation of some sort. Without that, even a sandwich board would be impossible and put you over the limit. You'd be left to precisely speech--unamplified, not mass-produced.
Then, suddenly, money = speech and corporations = people. Not that it matters.
"Sometime principles" are certainly "sometime" but seldom principles.
It's the same with principles restricting "party-correlated" activity by religious organizations--activity that isn't partisan in and of itself, but is partisan because the organization pushes ideas, images, issues or phrases that are closely associated with one candidate or party. If it's a conservative church, it's evil and the church's status needs to be revoked. If it's a liberal church, wonderful, and there's suddenly outrage over limiting early voting because black churches are important GOTV vehicles, esp. after having a sermon that emphasizes some "non-partisan" but "party-correlated" issue. I like honestly over image. "Yes, I like this because it helps my side get power, keep power, and wield power, period. My party, right or wrong." At least then we can argue over reality instead of quarreling over fiction. It's like having a discussion over a cloud--moisture content, altitude, temperature, convection current, shear ... will it snow, rain, or pass over with no precipitation. Versus the alternative: Is it a bunny or a kitty?
But campaign financing is a tricky business. We're all aghast at great spending by (R) that nets them a victory--they bought their votes; we chortle when great spending by (D) nets us a victory, and more money meant more support, so of course we won. What's forgotten, tuned out, too large to pass our perceptual filter and not large enough to trigger massive cognitive dissonance are those numerous cases where the loser outspent the victor by a wide margin. "Outspent, but still outvoted." Being out-shouted can tip the balance; but often enough political speech is like any other speech, utterly ignored if it doesn't fit the listener's perceptual bias. For example, the bit about "outspent but still outvoted." Oft said, rarely heard.
It's also a hard sell when the (D) presidential candidate in the last two cycles didn't even want matching campaign funds. Why? Because, he, the Constitutional lawyer and defender of the Democratic Party, explicitly argued with support from the Party faithful that the lack of money would limit his speech.
Hmmm ... I'm apparently feeling curmudeonly today, judging from my last few posts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
