[EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics

[jboppjr]

Prof Schultz, you might be interested to know that it was the American People who ratified the First Amendment which denies the government the power to restrict political speech. So the Court is respecting, not "displaying contempt", for this decision of the American People when the Court enforces the First Amendment. Jim Bopp


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: "Schultz, David A." <dschultz at hamline.edu> 
Date: 06/05/2015  12:46 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
To: law-election at uci.edu 
Subject: [EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics 

Hi All:

I found the silence deafening on this listserv regarding the June 2-3, 2015 NY Times survey finding that overall 84% of the American public believes money has too much of a role in American politics and that majorities (or near majority with Republicans) do not believe that money given to candidates is a form of protected speech.  Assuming this survey is accurate (and its results are consistent with one I had done in MN years ago) then the Roberts Court and views expressed by several on this listserv are clearly at odds and out of touch with what the majority of Americans believe.

Now of course counter-majoritarianism is not always wrong.  Unpopular speech should be permitted despite what majorities believe.  But what is going on here is not about regulating content or viewpoint or suppressing unpopular groups or oppressing discrete and insular minorities.  What we seen here is an indication of the public describing how they think the American politics process should operate and such views do deserve significant deference.  I also read the poll as rejecting what many on this listserv are asserting, i.e., conflating money as a perfect legitimate way to buy consumer with the legitimate way to allocate political power and influence.  It is also a conflating the legitimate means or process of how a democracy should operate with how it does operate, or otherwise confusing money as a medium of economic exchange with that of seeing it as a permissible means of political exchange.


No responses needed or expected to my post.  Just curiouser and curiouser about positions taken by the Court that really display contempt of the American public.

-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150605/19120ce7/attachment.html>