"One Man, One Vote" vs "Money = Speech"

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Suppose a top neurosurgeon donates 100 hours of time to a political campaign and an unemployed day laborer also donates 100 hours. I'm inclined to say that those are fundamentally equal contributions - even though one guy ordinarily earns $10K an hour and the other is out of work or maybe makes $10 an hour.

Some might say that fairness means the neurosurgeon ought to be able to contribute $1 million ($10K times 100 hours in the above example) if he doesn't have time or the inclination to put his boots on the ground. I have trouble with that. He isn't doing brain surgery. He's doing politics. So how do we resolve that?

At some level, the resolution that makes sense to me flows from the principle "one man, one vote." Most of us support that pillar of democracy even if we quibble about other things.

We should have an equal voice in choosing our leaders and our policies and "one man, one vote" captures that pretty well and pretty fairly. Not everyone's vote is equally smart or equally informed, but we each get our equal say in the ballot box.

Our vote represents our political voice. So in a sense, "one man, one vote" also means "one man, one voice" - viz., that each person's political voice should be equal. If I can multiply my voice by buying a thousand voices to speak for me, but you don't have the wherewithal to do the same, is your political voice still equal to mine? If not, is that fair? If not, is that good for democracy? If not, should that be how we let our political process work?

 

[seminole97]

Suppose a top neurosurgeon donates 100 hours of time to a political campaign and an unemployed day laborer also donates 100 hours. I'm inclined to say that those are fundamentally equal contributions - even though one guy ordinarily earns $10K an hour and the other is out of work or maybe makes $10 an hour.

Some might say that fairness means the neurosurgeon ought to be able to contribute $1 million ($10K times 100 hours in the above example) if he doesn't have time or the inclination to put his boots on the ground. I have trouble with that. He isn't doing brain surgery. He's doing politics. So how do we resolve that?

At some level, the resolution that makes sense to me flows from the principle "one man, one vote." Most of us support that pillar of democracy even if we quibble about other things.

We should have an equal voice in choosing our leaders and our policies and "one man, one vote" captures that pretty well and pretty fairly. Not everyone's vote is equally smart or equally informed, but we each get our equal say in the ballot box.

Our vote represents our political voice. So in a sense, "one man, one vote" also means "one man, one voice" - viz., that each person's political voice should be equal. If I can multiply my voice by buying a thousand voices to speak for me, but you don't have the wherewithal to do the same, is your political voice still equal to mine? If not, is that fair? If not, is that good for democracy? If not, should that be how we let our political process work?

How is ‘political voice’ a zero sum game?

 

[JRHawk2003]

Animal Farm Democracy.

Speech for the monied interests is "More Free" than others.

 

[seminole97]

Animal Farm Democracy.

Speech for the monied interests is "More Free" than others.

It’s not any more free, but they can produce more of it.
Problem is, restricting that is, well, restricting speech.

If you tell CNN they can broadcast all the news they want, but they can’t spend more than Joe Schmoe broadcasting it, its easier to see how this is a restriction on free speech.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

At some level, the resolution that makes sense to me flows from the principle "one man, one vote." Most of us support that pillar of democracy even if we quibble about other things.

The SC doesn't support that pillar when they say extreme political gerrymandering doesn't violate it. That's how you get a 50/50 state like NC with an 11-3 GOP advantage in the House.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The SC doesn't support that pillar when they say extreme political gerrymandering doesn't violate it. That's how you get a 50/50 state like NC with an 11-3 GOP advantage in the House.

Well, yes. This Supreme Court is pretty much a replay of the Dred Scott Court.

Those of us who came of age a half century ago, give or take, have this naive belief that the Supreme Court is a defender of justice, equality, and fairness. Sadly, for most of US history that simply hasn't been true.

Here's a nice easy read for anyone who wants a quick overview.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How is ‘political voice’ a zero sum game?

You'll have to explain that to me. It doesn't seem to follow from what you quoted and I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Finance85]

Suppose a top neurosurgeon donates 100 hours of time to a political campaign and an unemployed day laborer also donates 100 hours. I'm inclined to say that those are fundamentally equal contributions - even though one guy ordinarily earns $10K an hour and the other is out of work or maybe makes $10 an hour.

Some might say that fairness means the neurosurgeon ought to be able to contribute $1 million ($10K times 100 hours in the above example) if he doesn't have time or the inclination to put his boots on the ground. I have trouble with that. He isn't doing brain surgery. He's doing politics. So how do we resolve that?

At some level, the resolution that makes sense to me flows from the principle "one man, one vote." Most of us support that pillar of democracy even if we quibble about other things.

We should have an equal voice in choosing our leaders and our policies and "one man, one vote" captures that pretty well and pretty fairly. Not everyone's vote is equally smart or equally informed, but we each get our equal say in the ballot box.

Our vote represents our political voice. So in a sense, "one man, one vote" also means "one man, one voice" - viz., that each person's political voice should be equal. If I can multiply my voice by buying a thousand voices to speak for me, but you don't have the wherewithal to do the same, is your political voice still equal to mine? If not, is that fair? If not, is that good for democracy? If not, should that be how we let our political process work?

How do you deal with "taxation without representation"? Doesn't that imply everyone should pay equal taxes, if not amount, at least percentage?

 

[seminole97]

You'll have to explain that to me. It doesn't seem to follow from what you quoted and I have no idea what you mean.

I was reading it into this:

Some might say that fairness means the neurosurgeon ought to be able to contribute $1 million ($10K times 100 hours in the above example) if he doesn't have time or the inclination to put his boots on the ground. I have trouble with that.

My point was that his spending $1 million spreading his message doesn’t stop someone else from spending $1 or $1 billion on getting their message out. Freedom of speech isn’t a zero sum game.

On reread I notice the use of the word “fairness”, and I don’t think I caught that distinction the first time.

There is no guarantee of ‘fairness in speech’, we have ‘freedom of speech’.

I think ‘fairness in speech’ would require a zero sum game. How else can you assure an equal voice to all (a concept separate from freedom of speech, but I would think requisite to ‘fairness of speech’)?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How do you deal with "taxation without representation"? Doesn't that imply everyone should pay equal taxes, if not amount, at least percentage?

No, it doesn't imply that.

 

[Finance85]

No, it doesn't imply that.

Why doesn't it imply that?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I was reading it into this:

Some might say that fairness means the neurosurgeon ought to be able to contribute $1 million ($10K times 100 hours in the above example) if he doesn't have time or the inclination to put his boots on the ground. I have trouble with that.

My point was that his spending $1 million spreading his message doesn’t stop someone else from spending $1 or $1 billion on getting their message out. Freedom of speech isn’t a zero sum game.

On reread I notice the use of the word “fairness”, and I don’t think I caught that distinction the first time.

There is no guarantee of ‘fairness in speech’, we have ‘freedom of speech’.

I think ‘fairness in speech’ would require a zero sum game. How else can you assure an equal voice to all (a concept separate from freedom of speech, but I would think requisite to ‘fairness of speech’)?

I still don't understand the "zero sum game" part.

As for the rest, maybe this will work better. Imagine we are each given a chance to speak, but I get to speak for an hour while you only get 5 minutes. Now if I choose to speak more and you choose to speak less, that's on us. But if someone else is doing the allocating, that sounds unfair, doesn't it?

The rules affect our freedom to speak.

Suppose to fix that unfairness, we agree that each of us should have an hour. Sounds fair, right? But suppose I get my hour during prime time but your hour starts at 3:15 AM. Still not really fair, is it?

Again, the rules affect our freedom to speak.

You say that fairness isn't guaranteed. Sure "fairness" is not mentioned in 1A, while "freedom" is. But we are talking here about a functioning democracy, not just words. If the "rules" make it hard for some to speak while making it easy for others to speak, I think that raises a flag - and it's probably something we should try to fix.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why doesn't it imply that?

I think the burden is on you to explain why you think it does.

That said, our reps vote on taxes, so I don't think we have taxation without representation. Unless maybe the taxes are so outrageous that you can say some don't have effective representation. And maybe that's a case that can be made.

Even so, I don't see the connection with my speech example that you responded to.

 

[seminole97]

I still don't understand the "zero sum game" part.

As for the rest, maybe this will work better. Imagine we are each given a chance to speak, but I get to speak for an hour while you only get 5 minutes. Now if I choose to speak more and you choose to speak less, that's on us. But if someone else is doing the allocating, that sounds unfair, doesn't it?

That’s… a zero sum game.
The idea that there is only 65 minutes of speech allowed, and thereby divvied fairly or unfairly between us.

But I’m free to speak more than 1 hour and you’re free to speak more than 5 minutes.
People are free to listen to either one of us, or neither.

You say that fairness isn't guaranteed. Sure "fairness" is not mentioned in 1A, while "freedom" is. But we are talking here about a functioning democracy, not just words.

I’m interested in a Republic that protects my freedoms.
Democracy is a decision making process, in which we placed barriers to protect our freedoms.

If the "rules" make it hard for some to speak while making it easy for others to speak, I think that raises a flag - and it's probably something we should try to fix.

What “rule” makes it hard for some to speak?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What “rule” makes it hard for some to speak?

Citizens United didn't help.

 

[seminole97]

Citizens United didn't help.

It removed an arbitrary limitation meant to protect politicians from free speech around elections.
It didn’t create any limitations.

The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.

 

[artradley]

How do you deal with "taxation without representation"? Doesn't that imply everyone should pay equal taxes, if not amount, at least percentage?

???

No, not at all.

 

[Bonerfarts]

The surgeon’s free time is just as valuable as the laborers. If the surgeon was taking extensive time off of work, then it would be different.

 

[seminole97]

How do you deal with "taxation without representation"? Doesn't that imply everyone should pay equal taxes, if not amount, at least percentage?

The Constitution originally forbid Congress from enacting unequal taxes on individuals.

16th amendment removed that limitation.

 

[artradley]

The Constitution originally forbid Congress from enacting unequal taxes on individuals.

16th amendment removed that limitation.

Uh…what?

 

[seminole97]

Uh…what?

The original text of the Constitution forbid unequal, direct taxes on individuals.
The income tax was intended from the outset to be unequally applied, so the 16th amendment empowered Congress to tax income, and removed the limitation on unequal taxation of individuals.

16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Article I, Section 9, clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

[artradley]

The original text of the Constitution forbid unequal, direct taxes on individuals.
The income tax was intended from the outset to be unequally applied, so the 16th amendment empowered Congress to tax income, and removed the limitation on unequal taxation of individuals.

16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Article I, Section 9, clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

That was saying it had to be proportional to each state.

 

[seminole97]

That was saying it had to be proportional to each state.

Article I, Section 9, clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A direct tax, in proportion to the census, would be the same per person.
The 16th amendment removed that consideration, and further made explicit the taxation could be disproportional to the States to preclude any challenge along those lines.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The Constitution originally forbid Congress from enacting unequal taxes on individuals.

16th amendment removed that limitation.

And your point is...?

 

[seminole97]

And your point is...?

I was explaining to Finance85 that that was the original deal, but the deal has been altered.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Article I, Section 9, clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A direct tax, in proportion to the census, would be the same per person.
The 16th amendment removed that consideration, and further made explicit the taxation could be disproportional to the States to preclude any challenge along those lines.

No doubt there are court decisions on that. Perhaps they support your position. However, the language you quoted doesn't seem to require "the same per person."

My reading is that when the states pony up money to pay the federal bills each state's share would be in proportion to the census.

So, if Virginia had 10x the population of Delaware, then Virginia's share of the federal bill would be 10x Delaware's share. How VA and DE would go about collecting those funds internally would be up to them.

I'm just guessing from the language, of course. It would be interesting to learn how they actually handled that. Anyone know?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I was explaining to Finance85 that that was the original deal, but the deal has been altered.

Ah. Thanks. I was worried that you might have been arguing that the original wording should apply. Like some on our Supreme Court seem to want to do on various topics.

 

[seminole97]

No doubt there are court decisions on that. Perhaps they support your position. However, the language you quoted doesn't seem to require "the same per person."

Put your focus instead on the word "capitation".

1
: a direct uniform tax imposed on each head or person :

2
: a uniform per capita payment or fee

 

[artradley]

Article I, Section 9, clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A direct tax, in proportion to the census, would be the same per person.

No.

Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[seminole97]

No.

Where are you getting this stuff?

What do you think a uniform tax on each person would be?
Would it be unequal?

 

[artradley]

What do you think a uniform tax on each person would be?
Would it be unequal?

Interpretation: The Sixteenth Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Sixteenth Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The Taxing Clause in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the broad “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Article I also provides (twice) that a “direct” tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. This means that if a tax is a “direct” tax, a state with one-tenth of the national population must bear one-tenth of the total liability. It doesn’t matter whether one state has lots of whatever is being taxed (such as valuable land) and another state has very little—the states have to bear the burden according to population. That requirement makes direct taxation cumbersome, and often impossible.


Again, where are you getting this stuff?

 

[seminole97]

Interpretation: The Sixteenth Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Sixteenth Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The Taxing Clause in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the broad “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Article I also provides (twice) that a “direct” tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. This means that if a tax is a “direct” tax, a state with one-tenth of the national population must bear one-tenth of the total liability. It doesn’t matter whether one state has lots of whatever is being taxed (such as valuable land) and another state has very little—the states have to bear the burden according to population. That requirement makes direct taxation cumbersome, and often impossible.


Again, where are you getting this stuff?

I'm failing to see your point.
You're posting a link supporting my explanation.

That parts of the Constitution that would be at odds with the intent of the progressive income tax were modified.

from your link:

Thus, whether a tax is direct or indirect has mattered—a lot. So what is a “direct tax”? At a minimum, it includes “capitations” (specifically mentioned in the Constitution and generally understood to be lump-sum head taxes—each person pays the same)

So the 16th amendment removed the part about apportionment by States (so NY State can't argue to the Supreme Court that they bear a disproportionate share of federal income taxes relative to say, Arkansas), and it also removed the restriction in Section 9 (which I point out above) about falling equally upon people.

 

[artradley]

I'm failing to see your point.
You're posting a link supporting my explanation.

That parts of the Constitution that would be at odds with the intent of the progressive income tax were modified.

from your link:

Thus, whether a tax is direct or indirect has mattered—a lot. So what is a “direct tax”? At a minimum, it includes “capitations” (specifically mentioned in the Constitution and generally understood to be lump-sum head taxes—each person pays the same)

So the 16th amendment removed the part about apportionment by States (so NY State can't argue to the Supreme Court that they bear a disproportionate share of federal income taxes relative to say, Arkansas), and it also removed the restriction in Section 9 (which I point out above) about falling equally upon people.

JFC. You can lead a horse to water…

“This means that if a tax is a “direct” tax, a state with one-tenth of the national population must bear one-tenth of the total liability.”

Please. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[seminole97]

JFC. You can lead a horse to water…

“This means that if a tax is a “direct” tax, a state with one-tenth of the national population must bear one-tenth of the total liability.”

Please. Where are you getting this stuff?

That’s in reference to section 8.

That is addressed by this the bolded part of the 16th amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Why are you ignoring what is in section 9?

That is addressed by this bolded part of the 16th amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

What ‘stuff’ are you referencing? Can you quote it, because you’re not being clear.