QuantumCatBox

How is the spending of money in the political arena not considered freedom of expression? Wearing a T-shirt or holding a sign is not speech, that is words coming out of my mouth, but it is me expressing my beliefs. The 1st Amendment clearly protects freedom of expression, and money is almost always needed in some form to express one's beliefs. Is it not unfair that some people have more money than me and can afford to rent a billboard to convey their political message while I can only afford a piece of posterboard? Or that I do not have enough money to take off work and attend a rally, but others do? Or that I, like your group, can afford an internet connection to engage in this thread about money in politics? What about a group that supports citizens united but doesn't have as much money to spend on resources as your group, how is that fair to them? The very fact the your group can express and convey its political message and spend freely on this message to try and persuade others is a core principle of our democracy. Your group represents and interest and you want to to put your ideas out in the marketplace of political ideas. I welcome this expression the same as I welcome all other groups that wish to do the same.

I think the amount of spending in elections is obnoxious, but I love my freedom of expression, even if I don't like a specific context that the right is expanded in, I love the right so much that I would rather see it expanded than limited. I love and cherish all my rights simply because they are rights and I value the idea of rights over privileges, no matter what the issue.

With regards to Citizens United, that Clinton ad was a joke that any informed person should know was a completely one sided emotional appeal. It even had the scary music overlayed to strike fear in the viewer. It seems a better solution is a more informed electorate capable of using information and reason to see through these silly Super PAC issue ads. Additionally, if the people do not want money influencing elections, then they should support candidates with good character who pledge not to take any outside money. The fact that this person could not currently win tells me not enough people are knowledgeable and truly want money out of politics. When the majority of people want money free campaigns they will elect those candidates that pledge to not take outside contributions and will disassociate with PACs and Super PACs

tl;dr: I'm not a fan of the massive money spent on elections, but money is how we express our beliefs and I love freedom to express.

Edit: thanks to everyone that responded to my post as I enjoyed reading the different views and perspectives of others on this issue. I am aware of the complexities of the issue and in no way believe there is "one simple trick" to please everyone. I'm sure Buzzfeed would disagree.

This response seems inaccurate, and I realize that's saying a lot given you argued the case. Nowhere in Kennedy's opinion does he expressly state that the Court applied strict scrutiny. The only mention of the word 'strict' is in reference to a Hawaii S.C. decision. Additionally, Kennedy does not articulate a compelling state interest - narrowly tailored analysis. A main complaint of Kennedy's opinion, even among supporters, was that it lacked a clearly articulated legal standard by which to adjudicate cases dealing with the right to marriage or equal protection cases dealing with sexual orientation.

The Court did confirm and clearly identify marriage as a fundamental right. But, not all aspects of all fundamentals right undergo strict scrutiny analysis. Kennedy may very well have been using intermediate scrutiny, or "strict scrutiny light." Appellate courts are already split on whether to apply intermediate or strict scrutiny to gun regulations, given that the Supreme Court did not provide an unambiguous standard in Heller and McDonald.

Your answer makes it appear as though your statement about the level of scrutiny is factual. However, I think a more honest answer would be that you believe the Court applied strict scrutiny. Surely an argument could be made in briefing that the Court applied intermediate scrutiny. While I believe weaker, one might argue the correct standard is rational basis but that animus driven laws cannot pass a rational basis test.

But a government employee can "pick and choose" by filing a claim based on either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, or the federal RFRA, which arguably gives the employee more protection. Title VII states that both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship." Federal RFRA law, applying the older Free Exercise standards, allows government employees possibly more protection than Title VII for their religious claims (circuit split)

Title VII is what allowed an IRS employee to receive an accommodation from processing tax returns for abortion clinics (Haring v. Blumenthal (1979)). That case alone would refute your comment that government employees must do all aspects of their job - regardless of their religious beliefs.

Whether we should allow these exemptions is a policy argument that can be made on both sides. But the law, as it is, does allow these exemptions.

Did your father tell you that?

Prof. Bales,

Thanks for doing the AMA. This is the first time I have heard of your organization and I have some questions regarding the methodology of your index. In looking through the Global Slavery Index website I am not able to find a definition of what constitutes "modern slavery," which is the term generally used on the site. The International Labor Organization, in their 2012 report estimated 21 million people as victims of "forced labour." I assume "modern slavery" is a broader term than "forced labour" and I was hoping you could expand on how they differ. Additionally, do you worry at all that the "modern slavery" conception may be so broad that it might improperly stigmatize countries attempting to address the problem, or overwhelm potential donors?

On the website's "methodology" section the following is written as an answer to how the index measured "prevalence":

Measuring the number of people in modern slavery is a difficult undertaking due to the hidden nature of this crime and low levels of victim identification. Since 2014, we have conducted 25 surveys with Gallup Inc.[1] through their World Poll, interviewing more than 28,000 respondents in 52 languages. This year we also conducted state-level surveys in India. When these are included, we have interviewed more than 42,000 respondents in 53 different languages. The prevalence estimates in the Index are based on data from these surveys, the results of which have been extrapolated to countries with an equivalent risk profile.

While the focus of this seems to be on languages, I am curious as to how many different countries you were able to get data from. What type of extrapolations, assumptions, and estimates are made in claiming that 167 countries have been measured? Do you have any concerns regarding bias in the estimates?

I have no doubt that measuring something like slavery is an extremely difficult task and I ask these questions from a position of methodological interest, as opposed to just blanket criticism. Thanks for reading this questions and possibly answering it.