On Defining Freedom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I still fail to see how anyone can make the case that it is perfectly OK for an individual to have free speech but then do not think its OK for a group of individuals to have free speech.

---

And yet we keep having these debates about unions. :bored:

Usually the distinction is between unions organizing (free speech/freedom of action) vs. unions changing the legislative environment to prohibit the freedom of assembly/speech/commerce of non-unions and anyone opposed to them (union coercion).

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__...a/Puppet_5.jpg

Is that meant to be amusing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

How can one voice speak for the disparate individuals that make up a group? In the case of a corporation, not everything espoused by the leadership is in the best interest of the entire group.

---

Um what the hell do the workers have to do with anything? I'm talking about the owners of the business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Participating in an election means you are participating in consensus. Corporate workers do not elect their leadership. Corporate workers have in no way given their leadership consent to speak on worker's individual beliefs.

---

And why would they have such input? The owners and shareholders do this. I don't tell my boss's boss's boss's boss how to speak for me (cause they dont). Our arrangement is I do work they want done and they pay me with money and other benefits that we have both agreed too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

How can one voice speak for the disparate individuals that make up a group? In the case of a corporation, not everything espoused by the leadership is in the best interest of the entire group.

---

Not everything espoused by any organization is agreed-to by the whole group. Most union members don't support all the political positions taken by their union on things like abortion or taxes, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the union itself.

Wow, started a response but you guys are really beyond hope if you don't understand what I said. Consensus, consent, and then what you are trying to gum things up with. We need a middle finger emoticon because that's what you are getting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Um what the hell do the workers have to do with anything? I'm talking about the owners of the business.

---

You said free speech applies to groups as well as individuals. Most people agree with that concept of speech. When voluntary group members pick a spokesperson or representative (a union, shareholders, political parties), that's consensus by consent (Being's post). It's just as bad to force/coerce people to join a group, as it is to force/coerce groups from organizing. What makes it problematic is that organized groups (unions, corporate boards, political parties....PACs or super PACs) can exert their money and power to suppress others' voices, and affect the legislative process (Dread's post).

Surely you see how that's playing out in our political process, and when "political speech" can become a different animal, a chimera? A few examples:

Multiple millions from one billionaire feeding Gingrich's super PAC to keep him in the race :rolleyes:
The RNC deciding which candidates can participate in Republican national debates, based on fund-raising minimums or poll results that didn't include all the names
Lobbyists and 501-c groups (like ALEC) who buy access, and ghost-write legislation to favor their donors' agenda
Unions getting non-competitive bidding or limiting non-union participation
Politicians trying to change voter ID laws that exclude the poor, elderly, or college students (or ESL minorities)
Top six banks/investment firm CEOs having 'closed-door special audience' to Treasury and Fed officials when designing crisis monetary policy....




All of that's anti-thetical to "one person, one vote". Is it a functional Representative Democracy if just two political parties have all the money/power, and those parties can be bought by wealthy/powerful special interest groups, to run-campaign-install legislators to do their bidding?

It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People" :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Wow, started a response but you guys are really beyond hope if you don't understand what I said. Consensus, consent, and then what you are trying to gum things up with. We need a middle finger emoticon because that's what you are getting.

---

Everyone understands what you said, but they don't agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

All of that's anti-thetical to "one person, one vote". Is it a functional Representative Democracy if just two political parties have all the money/power, and those parties can be bought by wealthy/powerful special interest groups, to run-campaign-install legislators to do their bidding?

It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People" :bulb:

---

I think what's being missed here is the ownership structure of corporations. Shareholders are the ones who make these choices. Almost every company I own stock in has shareholder initiatives on their ballots to change how these corporations practice free speech. The measures are overwhelmingly designed to submit corporations to political pressure and interest-group bullying. Most won't pass, but there is a line-of-authority here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I think what's being missed here is the ownership structure of corporations. Shareholders are the ones who make these choices. Almost every company I own stock in has shareholder initiatives on their ballots to change how these corporations practice free speech. The measures are overwhelmingly designed to submit corporations to political pressure and interest-group bullying. Most won't pass, but there is a line-of-authority here.

---

Shareholders can also be subverted, depending on how the rules have been written. The Board can decide what is political speech, and how corporate funds are allocated to political parties (or lobbyist groups), without requiring shareholders' votes. It can take a full term or more to expel those board members, and only after a proxy vote has been extended to all shareholders. Read the fine print -- the shareholders that don't return their proxy agree to have the board cast their vote.

It depends on how the stock is titled for trading and/or tax purposes, whether you'll get a proxy vote form, or your votes are cast by the representing institution. It's just an anecdote, but my mother fought this kind of thing for decades with GM. She eventually resorted to having all her shares taken out of "trading name" consolidation, simply to cast her personal votes. Talk about a bombardment of corporate prospectus booklets, and other group shareholders sending 'literature' from secondary 'advisory' groups. What a nightmare.

Individual free speech can be undermined by political speech or corporate speech, when the only "valuable" speech has the most dollar signs behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You said free speech applies to groups as well as individuals. Most people agree with that concept of speech. When voluntary group members pick a spokesperson or representative (a union, shareholders, political parties), that's consensus by consent (Being's post). It's just as bad to force/coerce people to join a group, as it is to force/coerce groups from organizing. What makes it problematic is that organized groups (unions, corporate boards, political parties....PACs or super PACs) can exert their money and power to suppress others' voices, and affect the legislative process (Dread's post).

Surely you see how that's playing out in our political process, and when "political speech" can become a different animal, a chimera? A few examples:

Multiple millions from one billionaire feeding Gingrich's super PAC to keep him in the race :rolleyes:
The RNC deciding which candidates can participate in Republican national debates, based on fund-raising minimums or poll results that didn't include all the names
Lobbyists and 501-c groups (like ALEC) who buy access, and ghost-write legislation to favor their donors' agenda
Unions getting non-competitive bidding or limiting non-union participation
Politicians trying to change voter ID laws that exclude the poor, elderly, or college students (or ESL minorities)
Top six banks/investment firm CEOs having 'closed-door special audience' to Treasury and Fed officials when designing crisis monetary policy....




All of that's anti-thetical to "one person, one vote". Is it a functional Representative Democracy if just two political parties have all the money/power, and those parties can be bought by wealthy/powerful special interest groups, to run-campaign-install legislators to do their bidding?

It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People" :bulb:

---

So we should restrict freedom of speech because you don't like the outcome of certain types of political speech. Oh ok that makes sense. I mean I'm sure the founding fathers were mostly concerned with the ability to say curse words in public. Political speech surely was the last thing they wanted the 1st amendment to protect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's strange when people who claim to value The Individual, and generally criticize anything collective, can say "Corporations Are People" :bulb:

---

I think there's stark difference between corporations being recognized as associations of individuals, and as such should be allowed to make political donations and exercise free speech, and the very kitsch slogan, "Corporations are people." Should we likewise place limitations on the speech of large news conglomerates because they happen to be corporations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I think there's stark difference between corporations being recognized as associations of individuals, and as such should be allowed to make political donations and exercise free speech, and the very kitsch slogan, "Corporations are people." Should we likewise place limitations on the speech of large news conglomerates because they happen to be corporations?

---

I'm not sure that distinction is valid. Corporations are not designed to express political will. They are designed to make money and are formed with the express intent of doing so. Their bylaws, modes of operations, and actions are for this purpose, yet we're all pretending like these are vehicles for collective will. They're not. That's not how they were designed and that's not what they do. Investors in Company X through a mutual fund are not being thoroughly consulted on Company X's political position. The random trader that holds a stock for the two weeks it takes to make profit isn't carefully scrutinizing Company X's stance on abortion. These are not entities set up to represent the political opinions of their shareholders, so they don't, Yet, if we look how we're treating them, that's the happy fiction we're presenting. They're being treating like 10 people in a room who happen to agree on political issues. That's obviously not the case. There's a dynamic going on that is really not captured by corporations as "associations of individuals".

As for news conglomerates, their opinions are expressed, not by the CEO or spokesman of the conglomerate, but by individuals in that organization. In that the company gives those individuals a platform does not mean that it necessarily endorses the views expressed, nor that the shareholders agree with those views. If we were to treat corporations differently than individuals in regards to political speech (or even ban outright corporate involvement), news organizations could still present the opinions of individuals.

How about we ban unions and all interest groups from political speech? If the NAACP gives money to a political candidate, jail time for the executives! If the AARP spends money promoting a law beneficial to old people, jail time for the executives!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tontoe

I'm not sure that distinction is valid. Corporations are not designed to express political will. They are designed to make money and are formed with the express intent of doing so. Their bylaws, modes of operations, and actions are for this purpose, yet we're all pretending like these are vehicles for collective will. They're not. That's not how they were designed and that's not what they do. Investors in Company X through a mutual fund are not being thoroughly consulted on Company X's political position. The random trader that holds a stock for the two weeks it takes to make profit isn't carefully scrutinizing Company X's stance on abortion. These are not entities set up to represent the political opinions of their shareholders, so they don't, Yet, if we look how we're treating them, that's the happy fiction we're presenting. They're being treating like 10 people in a room who happen to agree on political issues. That's obviously not the case. There's a dynamic going on that is really not captured by corporations as "associations of individuals".

---

I'm afraid you're mistakenly attributing the commonly accepted and understood definition of a corporation for a universal one. While corporations often are created with the express and stated purpose of making money for their shareholders, they are not limited to this. In fact, corporations certainly can be designed and organized to express a political will and purpose. Nothing says a corporation needs to be designed to make money, (in fact, nonprofit organizations can and do form corporations) and nowhere does it say that a corporation's, "bylaws, modes of operations, and actions," have to be confined to making a profit. Many corporations are not publicly traded, and don't answer to traders who purchase mutual funds, investors, or shareholders in the traditional sense. To give you a better idea just the extent with which disparate groups can form corporations, and to illustrate just one of the many possible reasons behind their incorporation, corporations can be created for legally purchasing and sharing silencers for firearms.

Quote:

---

As for news conglomerates, their opinions are expressed, not by the CEO or spokesman of the conglomerate, but by individuals in that organization. In that the company gives those individuals a platform does not mean that it necessarily endorses the views expressed, nor that the shareholders agree with those views. If we were to treat corporations differently than individuals in regards to political speech (or even ban outright corporate involvement), news organizations could still present the opinions of individuals.

---

This seems like a distinction without much of a meaningful difference to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm afraid you're mistakenly attributing the commonly accepted and understood definition of a corporation for a universal one. While corporations often are created with the express and stated purpose of making money for their shareholders, they are not limited to this. In fact, corporations certainly can be designed and organized to express a political will. Nothing says a corporation needs to be designed to make money, (in fact, nonprofit organizations can and do form corporations) and nowhere does it say that a corporation's, "bylaws, modes of operations, and actions," have to be confined to making a profit for their shareholders. Many corporations are not publicly traded, and don't answer to buyers of mutual funds, investors, or shareholders in the traditional sense. Hell, corporations can be created for legally purchasing and sharing silencers for firearms.

---

They certainly can, but, if we're going to use the term "corporation", you're going to have to defend businesses as well as corporations formed for other purposes. That being said, my point still holds. Corporations create a group dynamic that dilutes actual representation. Now, unlike Loki's strawman above, I don't think this means we should outright ban corporate speech, but I do believe this makes corporate speech a lesser form of individual speech, rather than its aggregate, and should be treated accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

This seems like a distinction without much of a meaningful difference to me.

---

Practically, you're right. Fox News goes on being Fox News. MSNBC goes on being MSNBC. I mentioned it to show that one can limit corporate speech and still allow for media and the like by viewing them as platforms rather than entities that speak for themselves.

You haven't shown what the practical difference between corporations and interest groups is, especially when the latter are frequently incorporated. We live in a country with millions of people. One voice simply does not matter. How meaningful is the very idea of free speech if it doesn't apply to large groupings that could actually influence policy?

I also fail to see how corporations "dilute actual representation", probably because everything you've written is a series of empty assertions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tontoe

They certainly can, but, if we're going to use the term "corporation", you're going to have to defend businesses as well as corporations formed for other purposes. That being said, my point still holds. Corporations create a group dynamic that dilutes actual representation. Now, unlike Loki's strawman above, I don't think this means we should outright ban corporate speech, but I do believe this makes corporate speech a lesser form of individual speech, rather than its aggregate, and should be treated accordingly.

---

I have no problems defending the same rights for businesses that choose to incorporate. The first amendment makes no reference of a specific person, group, or organization that are the sole benefactors of its protection, and I would imagine it does so for good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I have no problems defending the same rights for businesses that choose to incorporate. The first amendment makes no reference of a specific person, group, or organization that are the sole benefactors of its protection, and I would imagine it does so for good reason.

---

It also doesn't mention that fruit bats, moldy bread, and brighter-than-average rocks don't receive these same rights, yet we can all assume they don't receive protections. I suspect we're exceeding my deep in legal scholarship, but I also would imagine that the founders did not anticipate multinational corporations funding nationwide campaigns deserved free speech protection. Goldman Sachs did not exist in 1789.

The courts seem to feel (with good basis) that the founders explicitly didn't want to start segmenting different levels of groups who would be relegated to "lessor" levels of speech. The valued this even above giving slaves voting rights.

But I really don't see the distinction you're drawing regarding corporations versus any other group. Saying that "corporations create a group dynamic that dilutes actual representation" assumes that corporations are meant to represent any person who is affiliated with that corporation, even if that affiliation is marginal.

If you stretch the logic a bit, it's almost like saying parents who hire a nanny should lose free speech rights just because they employ a nanny. The employment of the nanny (and his/her lack of say in the free speech of the parents) doesn't negate the free-speech rights of the parents.

Not really, if you stretch the logic your parents still have their free speech rights, as individuals, but not as Parents ltd. Everyone working for, managing, or owning a company still has his individual free speech as well, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tontoe

It also doesn't mention that fruit bats, moldy bread, and brighter-than-average rocks don't receive these same rights, yet we can all assume they don't receive protections.

---

Surely you can see a difference between a corporation which is founded, organized, and run by people, and inanimate objects. Why should an individual have the freedom of speech, but a group of individuals be limited?

Quote:

---

I suspect we're exceeding my deep in legal scholarship, but I also would imagine that the founders did not anticipate multinational corporations funding nationwide campaigns deserved free speech protection. Goldman Sachs did not exist in 1789.

---

Why does it matter how many nations a company operates in? How does that effect the underlying principal that individuals should have the right to organize, and that those organizations should have the right to say, publish, and disseminate information freely?

I wouldn't mind an analysis of/commentary on the following letter:

http://www.rense.com/general92/ans.htm


This quote from that letter has been popping up in various discussions about corporations:

Quote:

---

In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of its government and the probity of its citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of its people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe.

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

---

Can't help but feel as if something is being lost in "translation" here

Jefferson had a terrible understanding of economics, and had a utopian ideal of the small farmer. He wanted the entire United States to be composed of these small farmers, while destroying the manufacturing and banking sectors.

Curious, I hope he's not really Cain's hero as his signature suggests :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I wouldn't mind an analysis of/commentary on the following letter:

http://www.rense.com/general92/ans.htm


This quote from that letter has been popping up in various discussions about corporations:



Can't help but feel as if something is being lost in "translation" here

---

I don't think we are looking at a binary set of options here. A corporation can have the right to speak and spend freely while not defying the laws of a nation, no? It is very much a false dichotomy to say that either corporations are limited in the speech they can use or they will inevitably be at the throat of government.

Of course, the perverse incentives that exist for entities to subvert governments and craft legislation that benefits them is the real issue at hand. The larger and more intrusive the government, the greater the incentive to abuse that authority.

Exactly. Not to mention I'm sure there are things that major corporations have advocated for/against, which people here support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

The courts seem to feel (with good basis) that the founders explicitly didn't want to start segmenting different levels of groups who would be relegated to "lessor" levels of speech. The valued this even above giving slaves voting rights.

But I really don't see the distinction you're drawing regarding corporations versus any other group. Saying that "corporations create a group dynamic that dilutes actual representation" assumes that corporations are meant to represent any person who is affiliated with that corporation, even if that affiliation is marginal.

If you stretch the logic a bit, it's almost like saying parents who hire a nanny should lose free speech rights just because they employ a nanny. The employment of the nanny (and his/her lack of say in the free speech of the parents) doesn't negate the free-speech rights of the parents.

---

I'm not drawing a distinction between corporations and groups, I'm drawing a distinction between groups and individuals. Enoch's argument (and feel free to mention if I've mischaracterized it) is that corporations are free associations of individuals. If we would give individuals free speech, then there is not reason why we wouldn't give the same rights to groups of these individuals. I'm saying that this mischaracterizes all but the simplest of groups. Groups, including corporations, create their own dynamic. They are not people in aggregate, but their own beast. Many groups, businesses being the most prominent, do not actually represent individuals in a meaningful way. We can't just scale up individual rights and pretend like that covers all permutations of individuals organizing. Going back to one of my earlier examples, many stock holders are not aware of the political positions of the companies they invest in. Nor, frankly, should they be. Business is a money making enterprise, not a political one, yet the donation made by a corporation is treated as if it were representative of the beliefs of individuals. That's not what businesses are, that's not what they claim to be, but that's how we treat them.

As for your nanny example, I do think you take that too far. I'm not attacking the free speech rights of individuals running businesses, rather the idea that those businesses deserve free speech rights on par with individuals. If the parents want to utilize their free speech as individuals, they are entitled to the fullest protection of the law. If said parents are CEOs will thousands of stockholders and want to claim to represent their political beliefs in aggregate, I am extremely skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Surely you can see a difference between a corporation which is founded, organized, and run by people, and inanimate objects. Why should an individual have the freedom of speech, but a group of individuals be limited?

Why does it matter how many nations a company operates in? How does that effect the underlying principal that individuals should have the right to organize, and that those organizations should have the right to say, publish, and disseminate information freely?

---

See above re your individual rights = group rights argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tontoe

Going back to one of my earlier examples, many stock holders are not aware of the political positions of the companies they invest in. Nor, frankly, should they be. Business is a money making enterprise, not a political one, yet the donation made by a corporation is treated as if it were representative of the beliefs of individuals. That's not what businesses are, that's not what they claim to be, but that's how we treat them.

---

So, is it fair to say that you're of the opinion that it is perfectly fine for a business to hire an independent lobbyist, pay that lobbyist for their services, and then let that single lobbyist do their dirty work as a free agent that is not necessarily representing the opinions, views, and positions of their employer? This to you seems like a better solution than simply allowing the first amendment to apply to corporations? Or should individuals/corporations have no say in legislation that directly impacts them?

Doesn't this seem like a needlessly complex rule set for an exceedingly simple problem? If you want corporate/union/special interest money out of Washington, limit the impact Washington can have. There is no easier way to get this tainted money out of politics than by tying the hands of politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tontoe

It also doesn't mention that fruit bats, moldy bread, and brighter-than-average rocks don't receive these same rights, yet we can all assume they don't receive protections. I suspect we're exceeding my deep in legal scholarship, but I also would imagine that the founders did not anticipate multinational corporations funding nationwide campaigns deserved free speech protection. Goldman Sachs did not exist in 1789.

---

Oh I see, political speech is OK as long as its not effective. Gotcha. I'm sure that its vital to freedom and democracy to ban effective political speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So we should restrict freedom of speech because you don't like the outcome of certain types of political speech. Oh ok that makes sense. I mean I'm sure the founding fathers were mostly concerned with the ability to say curse words in public. Political speech surely was the last thing they wanted the 1st amendment to protect.

---

Speech already has legal limits (not inciting riots, liable, slander, truth in advertising, age limits for porn, etc.) that SCOTUS has decided doesn't violate 1st Amendment rights. What I don't like isn't that individuals or corporate interests can funnel millions of dollars toward candidates or lawmakers, but that they can do so without disclosure or transparency via super PACs. The outcome turns our electoral process into an auction to the highest bidders with no upward limits, no checks-and-balances on bundling, bypassing FEC laws everyone else has to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I think there's stark difference between corporations being recognized as associations of individuals, and as such should be allowed to make political donations and exercise free speech, and the very kitsch slogan, "Corporations are people." Should we likewise place limitations on the speech of large news conglomerates because they happen to be corporations?

---

The slogan referenced Citizens United (a court opinion I didn't agree with) and Lewk knew that. News conglomerates have Fourth Estate protections, but they're not exempt from liable or slander charges. Even freedom of the press comes with some legal restrictions, too.

edit: while we're on the freedom of speech angle....churches and religious/faith based groups also have limits on political speech. Sure, they can preach specific politics from the pulpit, endorsing candidates or telling congregants who to vote for --- but they can lose their tax exempt status if they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I wouldn't mind an analysis of/commentary on the following letter:

http://www.rense.com/general92/ans.htm


This quote from that letter has been popping up in various discussions about corporations:



Can't help but feel as if something is being lost in "translation" here

---

Can't help you much. I don't know the historical context for the letter and Jefferson's always been something of a cipher to me anyway. Between his politicking and pandering *of the prominent "Founding Fathers" he was the closest to the modern politician* and his oratorical flourishes I've always been left at something of a loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tontoe

Groups, including corporations, create their own dynamic. They are not people in aggregate, but their own beast. Many groups, businesses being the most prominent, do not actually represent individuals in a meaningful way. We can't just scale up individual rights and pretend like that covers all permutations of individuals organizing. Going back to one of my earlier examples, many stock holders are not aware of the political positions of the companies they invest in. Nor, frankly, should they be. Business is a money making enterprise, not a political one, yet the donation made by a corporation is treated as if it were representative of the beliefs of individuals. That's not what businesses are, that's not what they claim to be, but that's how we treat them.

---

Allowing corporations to express their views isn't a scaled-up view of free speech to me. I think it's simply an equal application of the principle.

A corporation expresses its views on an issue just as it comes to any other decision. It's not meant to be representative of anyone affiliated with that corporation. It's simply the view the organization has, and it's choosing to make its view known. I don't see how that's any different than me making my view known. I also see this as far more desirable than saying that some entities should have more speech rights than other entities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Speech already has legal limits (not inciting riots, liable, slander, truth in advertising, age limits for porn, etc.) that SCOTUS has decided doesn't violate 1st Amendment rights. What I don't like isn't that individuals or corporate interests can funnel millions of dollars toward candidates or lawmakers, but that they can do so without disclosure or transparency via super PACs. The outcome turns our electoral process into an auction to the highest bidders with no upward limits, no checks-and-balances on bundling, bypassing FEC laws everyone else has to follow.

---

What if someone had really awesome charisma and his speech was more effective then other people's. Should we restrict that person's speech because it has unfair impact on elections?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

What if someone had really awesome charisma and his speech was more effective then other people's. Should we restrict that person's speech because it has unfair impact on elections?

---

Yeah, another what if....? Again, the distinction I'm making is disclosure/transparency. I don't care if one multi-billionaire wants to use his money-as-speech, to fund a candidate's 'war chest' as political-speech, buy media-as-speech, and try to impact elections. (That's the ultimate goal of all campaigns, their funding and ads.) I do care if it's done in secrecy, using a type of money-laundering to hide its origins, without the ability of voters to know who's behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Yeah, another what if....? Again, the distinction I'm making is disclosure/transparency. I don't care if one multi-billionaire wants to use his money-as-speech, to fund a candidate's 'war chest' as political-speech, buy media-as-speech, and try to impact elections. (That's the ultimate goal of all campaigns, their funding and ads.) I do care if it's done in secrecy, using a type of money-laundering to hide its origins, without the ability of voters to know who's behind it.

---

So you would be OK with spending limitless money as long as its disclosed? Because I actually don't have that big of a problem with. The ability to speak is still preserved. I'd view it as a nuisance law but in the grand scheme of things that isn't nearly as bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Yeah, another what if....? Again, the distinction I'm making is disclosure/transparency. I don't care if one multi-billionaire wants to use his money-as-speech, to fund a candidate's 'war chest' as political-speech, buy media-as-speech, and try to impact elections. (That's the ultimate goal of all campaigns, their funding and ads.) I do care if it's done in secrecy, using a type of money-laundering to hide its origins, without the ability of voters to know who's behind it.

---

Nice to see you endorse the decision behind Citizens United. In which the Supreme Court ruled that no one could limit speech as long as the funding sources behind said speech was disclosed.

Seriously, the amount of misconception about Citizens United is absurd. You just summarized the ruling of the case and said you agreed with it, after months of complaining about Citizens United.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So you would be OK with spending limitless money as long as its disclosed? Because I actually don't have that big of a problem with. The ability to speak is still preserved. I'd view it as a nuisance law but in the grand scheme of things that isn't nearly as bad.

---

Disclosure and transparency, that's what I've been advocating, even in older threads about lobbying and campaign finance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Nice to see you endorse the decision behind Citizens United. In which the Supreme Court ruled that no one could limit speech as long as the funding sources behind said speech was disclosed.

Seriously, the amount of misconception about Citizens United is absurd. You just summarized the ruling of the case and said you agreed with it, after months of complaining about Citizens United.

---

:rolleyes: We've been over this in multiple discussions. The ruling ended up with some creative work-arounds, by either not funding a campaign or candidate "directly" through super PACs or 501-(c)s that do NOT have to disclose funding sources. We know this whole mess began with McCain-Feingold and other attempts to reform campaign financing, putting caps and limits on the money itself. Unfortunately, every attempt at reform has meant big donors finding/creating back doors to get around any donation limits, and even full disclosure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Allowing corporations to express their views isn't a scaled-up view of free speech to me. I think it's simply an equal application of the principle.

A corporation expresses its views on an issue just as it comes to any other decision. It's not meant to be representative of anyone affiliated with that corporation. It's simply the view the organization has, and it's choosing to make its view known. I don't see how that's any different than me making my view known. I also see this as far more desirable than saying that some entities should have more speech rights than other entities.

---

That sounds good in theory, but that's not how it works in reality. Corporations using money-as-speech IS scaled-up political speech. They not only expect but receive special treatment once their chosen candidate is elected. Whether they do it themselves, use a lobbying group, fund a group like ALEC or a super PAC, they're buying legislative influence.

Even when they're not picking any particular political party or candidate, the largest corporations (and sectors) can buy million$ in advertising, flood air time with expensive ad campaigns that appeal to the consumer, and try to influence their votes. They do it all the time because it works. And everybody knows.

Surely you've noticed the "I'm an Energy Voter" ads promising more jobs, domestic prosperity, cheaper energy, cleaner fuels, etc. sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute? Remember consumer response when Target, Inc. disclosed donations to anti-gay candidates? That kind of transparency and disclosure is the only way individuals and small groups can dissent/boycott/protest, and use their free speech.

It's not a scaled-up application when people can't really choose not to put gas in their car, knowing every tankful helps fund the oil industry's lobbying efforts, and keeps legislators in their pockets. We need to distance our legislators and policy-makers from that kind of "paid constituency", but no one agrees on how. :sour:

Before someone blasts me for being anti-business or anti-money....those same complaints apply to unions and large groups like AARP, who also "buy" legislators and influence policy to their favor. Sometimes it starts with gerrymandering, redistricting, or restricting who can vote. Now we've got severely polarized sides who can't manage to compromise or negotiate in order to conduct the nation's business, or state business, and the process itself is all gummed up. No wonder voters are fed up, cynical, and give government officials low approval ratings. :sour: