Episteme:1-18 (forthcoming)

Abstract
The public sphere should be regulated so the distribution of political speech does not correlate with the distribution of income or wealth. A public sphere where people can fund any political speech from their private holdings is epistemically defective. The argument has four steps. First, if political speech is unregulated, the rich predictably contribute a disproportionate share. Second, wealth tends to correlate with substantive political perspectives. Third, greater quantities of speech by the rich can “drown out” the speech of the poor, because of citizens’ limited attention span for politics. Finally, the normative problem with all this is that it reduces the diversity of arguments and evidence citizens become familiar with, reducing the quality of their political knowledge. The clearest implication of the argument is in favour of strict contribution limits and/or public funding for formal political campaigns, but it also has implications for more informal aspects of the public sphere.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/epi.2020.42
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,795
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative.Alexander A. Guerrero - 2014 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 42 (2):135-178.
Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy.John S. Dryzek - 2001 - Political Theory 29 (5):651-669.
What is Democratic Reliability? Epistemic Theories of Democracy and the Problem of Reasonable Disagreement.Felix Gerlsbeck - 2018 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 21 (2):218-241.
The Enfranchisement Lottery.Claudio López-Guerra - 2011 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (2):211-233.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Privacy in Public: A Democratic Defense.Titus Stahl - 2020 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 7 (1):73-96.
The Public Sphere.Jostein Gripsrud (ed.) - 2010 - Sage Publications.
A Theory of the Public Sphere.Ari Adut - 2012 - Sociological Theory 30 (4):238-262.
Political Manipulation and Public Sphere as Components of the Political Communications.A. Tretyak & O. Pilipenko - 2011 - Epistemological studies in Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences 1 (21):156-160.
Milestones in the Critique of the Public Sphere: Dewey and Arendt.Codruţa Cuceu - 2011 - Journal for Communication and Culture 1 (2):99-110.
Public Reason as a Category of Public Policy Areas.A. Tretyak - 2012 - Epistemological studies in Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences 1 (22):227-231.
The Public Sphere.Amy Allen - 2012 - Political Theory 40 (6):822-829.
Habermas: Testing the Political.Estelle Ferrarese - 2015 - Thesis Eleven 130 (1):58-73.
Public Sphere of Politics and Civil Society: Features of Mutual Internalization.O. Tretyak - 2015 - Epistemological studies in Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences 5:4-9.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-10-27

Total views
4 ( #1,228,141 of 2,438,744 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #436,491 of 2,438,744 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes