SCOTUS, Politics, Speech, and Money

[Wraith]

Once two or more people get together they become less and have fewer rights.

[GGT]

['ear]Corporations aren't people. Whoops.

We might agree on that, after all--corporations can't "vote" like an individual can.

But somewhere along the line our Justices decided that corporations do have rights, at least Free Speech rights, just like an individual, and it has precedent.

Judicial Activism, our two party system that relies on money to appoint a legislator, the ensuing political games geared toward who appoints the next Supreme Court Justice...etc ad nauseum.

Checks and Balances are also money term$

go go USA #1?

[Dreadnaught]

The unions couldn't begin to spend the kind of money their corporate counterparts can.

Yeah, I saw that in parentheses in the NYTimes wimpy editorial they wrote this morning.

It's kind of silly, unions donate tons of money and manpower to [Democratic] campaigns. I find it interesting that people feel the need to start making unions look weak and unimportant in this debate.

They are corporations too, except with the sweetest government perks of all.

[Lewkowski]

Once two or more people get together they become less and have fewer rights.

Heh.

That is apparently the belief of people who hate free speech.

A corporation is an entity comprised of *PEOPLE* if you restrict the actions it can take you restrict the actions of the *PEOPLE* who own and run it.

[EyeKhan]

Yeah, I saw that in parentheses in the NYTimes wimpy editorial they wrote this morning.

It's kind of silly, unions donate tons of money and manpower to [Democratic] campaigns. I find it interesting that people feel the need to start making unions look weak and unimportant in this debate.

They are corporations too, except with the sweetest government perks of all.

Your obsessive, irrational hatred for all things union aside, they are weaker today than ever and they can't martial nearly the wealth to dump into propaganda that a corporation can. If you think that's false, you're dreamin' buddy.

[EyeKhan]

Heh.

That is apparently the belief of people who hate free speech.

A corporation is an entity comprised of *PEOPLE* if you restrict the actions it can take you restrict the actions of the *PEOPLE* who own and run it.

Nonsense. Those PEOPLE have the same rights as the rest of the CITIZENS of this country, just without the MONEY that is concentrated in the CORPORATION they work for or hold stock in. Free Speech isn't FREE unless everyone gets the SAME opportunity to SPEAK. In your universe the people with more MONEY get more SPEECH. That's not free or fair and it HAS HURT our democracy and with the cap off corporations it will HURT IT EVEN MORE.

[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.

[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.

[LittleFuzzy]

Because we are both citizens of the nation and that means we are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. There arn't supposed to be First Class and Coach Class citizens but everyone gets an equal voice and equal treatment. By what you're saying, why vote at all? Whoever has the most money wins! Yay for democracy!

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?