SCOTUS, Politics, Speech, and Money

[GGT]

Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.


By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01 ... ml?_r=1&hp

[Dreadnaught]

I would expect you of all people to see that unions can bring a ton of financial and organization pressure to bear on particular issues.

It's precisely because they are weaker than ever that they pursue change via regulatory fiat.

[EyeKhan]

I would expect you of all people to see that unions can bring a ton of financial and organization pressure to bear on particular issues.

It's precisely because they are weaker than ever that they pursue change via regulatory fiat.

Why ME of all people? (confused emoticon) The UAW can probably kick around the atuo companies still, a little bit. But I think that era's just about passed. Union dues arn't bringing in the kind of money that a reasonably sized corporation could. And lets say the UAW and or the AFL CIO gets into issue adds for health care reform and they're up against the AMA, Pharmaceutical companies, Insurance Companies, big hospitals, etc. You really think that's a balanced fight???? (Puh-Leez emoticon)

[EyeKhan]

Dread - I'm curious. Do you really think the cap should be off mony in election campaigns? You think that's good for Democracy as a common citizen?

[Dreadnaught]

As I said before, I think there is a difference between paying for advertisements on your own and giving money to a candidate. I'm comfortable letting anyone have unfettered access to advertising. I'm less comfortable with unfettered giving to candidates.

[Hazir]

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.

[EyeKhan]

As I said before, I think there is a difference between paying for advertisements on your own and giving money to a candidate. I'm comfortable letting anyone have unfettered access to advertising. I'm less comfortable with unfettered giving to candidates.

But advertising is what wins elections.

[LittleFuzzy]

But advertising is what wins elections.

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.

[EyeKhan]

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.

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.

[Dreadnaught]

But advertising is what wins elections.

It's a hell of a lot more than advertising. It's on-the-ground organization, printing stuff, travel budgets, staff budgets, legal fees.

[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.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm not sure, obviously we now need to rethink campaign giving laws. But they should be focused on giving to candidates, not advertising.

[Dreadnaught]

Dude, I'm not saying it's not important. But I'm saying candidates have a ton more costs than just advertising.

[LittleFuzzy]

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?

[EyeKhan]

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?

What we need in 1988 was a stronger fairness doctrine, not an abandonment. (thumbs down emoticon)

[Dreadnaught]

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.

But it's not about campaign advertising, it's about third party advertising.

Also, http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/f...ibution_Limits

What we need in 1988 was a stronger fairness doctrine, not an abandonment. (thumbs down emoticon)

1) Many of the old emoticons work. EG

2) A stronger fairness doctrine? You want the government to decide who is on what "side" and the apportion airtime accordingly?

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

[EyeKhan]

But it's not about campaign advertising, it's about third party advertising.

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.

1) Many of the old emoticons work. EG

2) A stronger fairness doctrine? You want the government to decide who is on what "side" and the apportion airtime accordingly?

Are we going to have a picklist again? i can't remember most of those. was the best.

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.

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.

[EyeKhan]

Dude, I'm not saying it's not important. But I'm saying candidates have a ton more costs than just advertising.

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.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[EyeKhan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

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.

No, it means everyone gets to speak, but they don't have to be listened to.

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?

[Being]

No, it means everyone gets to speak, but they don't have to be listened to.

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?

[Supermarioman]

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!

[EyeKhan]

No, it means everyone gets to speak, but they don't have to be listened to.

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?

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?

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.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

[EyeKhan]

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:

#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.

[Wraith]

#1. Corporations should not be granted speach as if they were individual citizens. They are not.

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.

#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.

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?

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.

[Being]

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.

How many corporations have the same interests as ALL individual citizens they are composed of?
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?