And where do you draw the line?
Oh by the way Lewk, Wraith merely made an observation, he didn't say anything that can be considered either left or right wing.
Printable View
And where do you draw the line?
Oh by the way Lewk, Wraith merely made an observation, he didn't say anything that can be considered either left or right wing.
I'm not sure, obviously we now need to rethink campaign giving laws. But they should be focused on giving to candidates, not advertising.
You are equal in the eyes of the law. This has absolutely nothing to do with that, nothing to do with how you are treated or how loud your voice is. "Equal in the eyes of the law" is quite literal, it refers to the legal process.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
But advertising is what wins elections. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Really? That'll be news to the GOP, which managed to overturn 40+ years of US political tradition and grab (and hold) control of both houses of Congress for over a decade on the strength of a GOTV machine the Dems just couldn't match.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Right Wing radio is one big advertisement. Maybe I should have used the term "propaganda" wins elections. And political advertisment is one kind of propaganda. There's other kinds too, very effective other kinds, like talk radio. The fine trick with that is it generates income too. Imagine that coup, propaganda that not only pays for itself, but it makes people rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It's a hell of a lot more than advertising. It's on-the-ground organization, printing stuff, travel budgets, staff budgets, legal fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Printing stuff? On the Ground Organization? Travel Budgets? Huh? You think any candidate could ever win any election today without television and radio spots? Dream on. Only if ALL the candidates weren't advertising on mass media.
:bulb: Dude, I'm not saying it's not important. But I'm saying candidates have a ton more costs than just advertising.
Yes, they do. The issue here is that several posters want to conflate everything into advertising (some of it actually makes sense, conceptually) but their conflation is meaningless because that's not the definition SCOTUS used. Advertisements refers strictly to broadcast and print media. Not signage, not door-to-door, not phone banks, etc. And that includes talk radio. There is absolutely no good way to try and touch that, without touching also touching journalism and turning the whole thing from a free speech issue into a free press issue. I trust I don't have to explain why that would be a Bad Thing?
But this isn't an arugment about the tons of costs a candidate has. Its about whether its good for democracy to take the lid off money in campaign advertising. When you do this, the candidates with the money behind them are almost always going to win. So the country becomes one of government for the money by the money. And maybe I'm just kidding myself because the USofA is really that already. Isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
What we need in 1988 was a stronger fairness doctrine, not an abandonment. (thumbs down emoticon)Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
But it's not about campaign advertising, it's about third party advertising.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Also, http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/f...ibution_Limits
1) Many of the old emoticons work. EG :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
2) A stronger fairness doctrine? :bulb: You want the government to decide who is on what "side" and the apportion airtime accordingly? :down:
As it made clear in numerous rulings, the ONLY reason the Supreme Court allowed the Fairness Doctrine was because the ability to broadcast *i.e. tie-up airwaves* was rather limited. It is not so limited now and the internet actually takes it to the relatively unlimited nature of print, where the Court ruled any such doctrine set unconstitutional limits. All the FCC did was acknowledge that themselves, rather than force the Courts to remove it for them.
The same third parties that write the legislation? That employ the lobbyists with direct access? Yeah. So billion dollar industries like Big Coal and Big Oil and Big Finance and Big Pharma that the government is seeking to regulate will have unfettered ability to blast away at the campaigns of anyone that talks bad about them. Great. That's going to be a big improvement in our democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Are we going to have a picklist again? i can't remember most of those. :coffee: was the best.Quote:
1) Many of the old emoticons work. EG :down:
2) A stronger fairness doctrine? :bulb: You want the government to decide who is on what "side" and the apportion airtime accordingly? :down:
It doesn't matter what the courts say. The fairness doctrine prevented radio stations like WJR in detroit from broadcasting one-sided political propaganda literally all day long. I don't know if you've ever bumped into anyone that listens to talk radio but they put on one channel and leave it on all day long. They don't switch to the other channels to get other points of view. They soak up one political message all day long with no opportunity for balance. And then they vote. In practice, regardless of what the courts say, this is disastrous. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Why do you underestimate people so much that you prefer to restrict what they hear? I see those coal ads all the time -- they aren't explicitly political (IE they were never controlled by McCain-Fiengold) and I can make up my own mind.
The "unfettered ability to blast away at the campaigns of anyone that talks bad about them" is known as "democratic discourse". If you want something less, check out ataricommunity.com. :o
Stronger fairness doctrine? Are you serious? For one thing there are not simply "two sides" to every issue. Sometimes there are three, four or more! Furthermore who is going to decide that this viewpoint is more conservative then liberal so it gets the axe? That is ridiculous. Because its a murky legal issue it just creates a chilling effect on political discourse. Which is fine if you are CHINA but not OK if you are in America.
I want to expand what people hear. Buy saturating advertising with corporate money, what they hear will be restricted to one side. Democratic discourse implies everyone with a stake in the issue gets to speak and be heard. That's not what currently happens in the US and this is going to make it far worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Dead serious. There's no coincidence that Rush started his show the same year the last bit of the fairness doctrine was repealed. You couldn't have hours on end of political editorial without some kind of balance before then. Now that's basically all you get on the big am radio stations. Hour upon hour of propaganda. Its incredibly damaging to our democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No, it means everyone gets to speak, but they don't have to be listened to.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
So what if someone has hours or political editorial on a radio show? People want to hear it enough that Rush can attract advertisers. Is this your way of whining about Air America going bankrupt?
I wonder how much his ratings would climb if he bashed issues instead of just Democrats?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Man, the supreme court has been on a roll in recent years.
First Corporations can steal everyone's land, and now they can buy the elections too!:D
I'm pretty sure that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." was ripped from something Paine said that went "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property and Power". We are finally getting back to basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermarioman
:rolleyes: The speech we are talking about is campaign advertisements on television and radio. To buy advertising spots you have to be able to spend piles of money. The bigger the piles, the more time, and the better the time slot. The more time and the better the time slot, the more peole you reach. It has nothing to do with how good your idea is or how persuasive you are or how much you love your country. In that playing field those with free speech are those with the MONEY. You are free to speak all you want; start a blog, write a letter to the editor, wear a sandwich board in times square. You want to call that equal right to free speach? You have the same right of speech that Exxon Mobile does? If you opposed them on an issue in the next election - Dread vs. Exxon Mobile. Whose going to hear you? :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
So its ok to pretend you are entertainment but really be a propaganda instrument for a political agenda? No danger to democracy there? And I don't know anything about air america. I don't listen to non-stop editorial crap all day.Quote:
So what if someone has hours or political editorial on a radio show? People want to hear it enough that Rush can attract advertisers. Is this your way of whining about Air America going bankrupt?
You do realize that everything you're saying is completely antithetical to the idea of free speech, right?
You're saying that certain kinds of advertisements should be banned because they contain a certain message or are backed by a certain group. Or that other kinds of messages should be promoted by the government if they are believed to be in opposition to a certain group.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let me say what I'm saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
#1. Corporations should not be granted speach as if they were individual citizens. They are not.
#2. Political speech is extremely important in the US. It should not be restricted to wealthy people or organizations. Given the power of mass media, when it comes to political speech, it should be equally available to legitimate players in the political arena. How do you decide what player is legitimate - if a candidate is on the the ballot, ie has enough petition signatures for example, he should have the same access to mass media as anyone else. Regarding adds by non-candidates, I'm not sure. There could be another petition based system set up to get equal access or something else. Something that takes money out of the equation and says if you're a significant player, you get to speak. As it is now, those that get to speak to the masses are those that can spend piles of money. That has never been fair and now it's going to be horribly stacked in the favor of corporate entities.
This decision will not expand free speach, it will further limit it.
NoQuote:
="EyeKhan"]No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let me say what I'm saying:
But they're composed of individual citizens, and saying they don't get speech when they're together in the form of a corporation is an attack on the freedom of association as well as freedom of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
How are you defining political speech? Why is it okay to force media venues to propogate messages whether they want to or not? Who gets to decide what counts as political speech and what counts as entertainment?Quote:
#2. Political speech is extremely important in the US. It should not be restricted to wealthy people or organizations. Given the power of mass media, when it comes to political speech, it should be equally available to legitimate players in the political arena. How do you decide what player is legitimate - if a candidate is on the the ballot, ie has enough petition signatures for example, he should have the same access to mass media as anyone else. Regarding adds by non-candidates, I'm not sure. There could be another petition based system set up to get equal access or something else. Something that takes money out of the equation and says if you're a significant player, you get to speak. As it is now, those that get to speak to the masses are those that can spend piles of money. That has never been fair and now it's going to be horribly stacked in the favor of corporate entities.
Aren't you killing a method of protest by saying that both sides always get equal time? The government will then always be able to silence dissenters simply by not granting air time to their supporters - effectively ending all complaints about an issue by refusing to acknowledge that an issue exists.
Limiting others free speech because you think your side isn't loud enough to compete effectively is a bad idea.
How many corporations have the same interests as ALL individual citizens they are composed of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
How many corporations have the same interests as MOST individual citizens they are composed of?
How many corporations have the same interests as THE TOP ECHELON individual citizens they are composed of?
It doesn't matter. Free association. Anyone's free to disassociate themselves at any time if they disagree with the course it's taking, and the manner in which the group makes decisions is easily knowable before anyone signs up. The organization varies radically across corporations anyways.
As long as you are willing to quit your job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Employees are typically there to sell their labor to the corporation, they aren't actually part of what forms the real association there unless made so. But sure, they're free to quit their jobs if they disagree with the corp's policies and decisions, whatever they may be.
How high up the chain is the association cut-off? And shareholders, do they all have the same interests as the corporation? Or is there a cut-off at a certain level of investment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Tough shit, because what the courts say and what is and is not constitutional does matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Except that has not been, is not now, and will not in the future be what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
It is what currently happens. People shop around for whatever happens to match their views. In print, on the internet, and via broadcast media. Whether it's Rush, CNN, the NYT, or Daily Kos. That's why SCOTUS sees no rational basis for government interference. Anyone can get their message out, easily. There's no barrier to access anymore. Your complaint isn't that messages can't be heard since they manifestly can if people are interested. Your complaint is actually that people just won't be interested enough to listen. And that's not something for the government to remedy.Quote:
Democratic discourse implies everyone with a stake in the issue gets to speak and be heard. That's not what currently happens in the US and this is going to make it far worse.
Employees of corporations have the same right to speech as anyone else. What they should not have is the right to take the resources of that corporation and use them to blare their speech to drown out the speech of most other citizens who don't have access to those resources. And you also make the mistake of conflating the speech of the employee or the stock holder with that of the corporation itself. The people within a corporation are very diverse and have a variety of opinions. That freedom of association is interesting but doesn't apply here - nobody is saying you can't form a corporation, just that you can't use its resources to abuse the political system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
For the public good. If a media outlet reaches millions of people it has a responsiblity not to undermine our system of government. One sided political propaganda does that.Quote:
Why is it okay to force media venues to propogate messages whether they want to or not?
If your're advocating policy or candidates, you're making political speech.Quote:
Who gets to decide what counts as political speech and what counts as entertainment?
No, you're enhancing protest. AFAIK its not legitimate protest to silence the opposition. It might be an effective way to win an election, good for one party or one candidate, but its not good for a democratic political process.Quote:
Aren't you killing a method of protest by saying that both sides always get equal time?
No, I'm saying the opposite. Air time has to be granted to the opposition.Quote:
The government will then always be able to silence dissenters simply by not granting air time to their supporters - effectively ending all complaints about an issue by refusing to acknowledge that an issue exists.
No, I'm advocating granting all sides equal speech. This is about expanding speech. The recent court ruling will limit speech.Quote:
Limiting others free speech because you think your side isn't loud enough to compete effectively is a bad idea.
The McCain-Fiengold act didn't "grant all sides equal speech" though. When it comes to media, it just said certain groups couldn't advertise in certain conditions. :confused:
It was an abrogation of free speech. One may disagree with the idea, but it's a lot less of a mental somersault than the idea that giving groups unlimited rights to advocate somehow limits free speech.
This is where the disconnect between idealism and reality sets in. Ideally a corporation is all of one mind. Ideally a fifty million dollar add campaign won't drown out a ten thousand dollar ad campaign and the speech from either is the same. Ideally having ten radio stations in a market means all citizens will get political speech from a variety of viewpoints. But all your ideals fail in reality. And while you feel safe and secure in your ideals, reality is undermining our democracy. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Oh, but ideally you can just sell your stock! Never mind that you own the stock through index funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Yep, regardless of the harm it does to the nation. Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Wait and see. We haven't tried this one yet. We've been pretty secure knowing its something we did NOT want to try, but oh well. The conservative court has ruled; against all precedent....Quote:
Except that has not been, is not now, and will not in the future be what happens.
Not true. And will be less true going forward. Wait til corporate money is buying up all the advertising spots - prices will rise, pricing out those with smaller budgets. Supply and demand...Quote:
Anyone can get their message out, easily.
Really? How many region commercial spots could you buy? There's a regional great lakes protection environmental group that's always emailing me. I've never seen them run tv spots. But their opponents sure can - big water bottlers, utilities, mining companies, oil companies, shipping companies.Quote:
There's no barrier to access anymore.
You're missing reality Fuzzy.Quote:
Your complaint isn't that messages can't be heard since they manifestly can if people are interested.
Not even close. Thanks for trying to read my mind and put words in my mouth. But no thanks. :down:Quote:
Your complaint is actually that people just won't be interested enough to listen.
So it should have been enhanced, not removed. You don't fix problems by making them worse.
People keep saying, "what about the people that comprise corporations? Don't they deserve free speech?" The answer is no, not as a collective, because their speech as individuals is protected. Protecting it as a collective effectively bundles their speech to be doled out in a paternalistic manner by one or a handful of top officials, in the form of cash. This also disenfranchises shareholders (also protected as citizens), since their speech is summarized by executive decision. Unless you all posit that the employees of corporations have monolithic values, we're talking disenfranchisement.
So, at best this is a bogus argument, since corporate employees already have voices as individual citizens. At worst, it is "mock" voices, as unelected representatives pretend to represent their "constituency."
Corporations are not citizens. They are treated as pseudo-citizens wrt business law. by why the rights of the corporation should extend beyond that is beyond me. Somebody please show me the passage of the constitution that says this.