Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[bronconick]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Explain that to me. What does that affect? Which individual person does not get the right of free speech? Why can't they do it? Why can't they say it?

They can't because they're not people. They're not citizens with the right to free speech or the responsibilities in the constitution. It's an imaginary thing, written down on a piece of paper.

Considering that a company (or a union) is made up of people with likely very diverse views, allowing the minority at the top to decide what views and candidates to support with their general funding, likely in opposition to some of their own employees makes it **** near the opposite of free speech, as it inflates their views and disallows opposing ones. And the amounts of money that now get thrown around are so absurd, it makes the idea of individual free speech pointless compared to the almighty corporation.

We're not a democracy. Never were. We're not a Republic. This is pretty much an Imperial court where you bribe the courtiers to get what you want out of the Emperor now. All voting is is picking which color dildo is getting shoved up our collective ***.

Just look at copyright law if you think otherwise.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I don't want to hear anyone supporting this ruling coming around later and complaining about the influence of special interests...

Support it or not, special interests are firmly entrenched in our gov't, see the health care bill as an example

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

If corporations are not allowed to express political speech (that advocates a candidate), then there can never be another book, movie, magazine, or newspaper that endorses a candidate - unless it's published by a sole proprietor. I don't think that was the intent of McCain-Feingold, but as written, it certainly was one of the consequences and this was directly acknowledged during the the arguments before the court.

When the NYT endorses the Democrat du jour, does anyone assume that reflects the opinion of every single NYT employee? Not at all. How is that different from Exxon endorsing the Republican du jour?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

If corporations are not allowed to express political speech (that advocates a candidate), then there can never be another book, movie, magazine, or newspaper that endorses a candidate - unless it's published by a sole proprietor. I don't think that was the intent of McCain-Feingold, but as written, it certainly was one of the consequences and this was directly acknowledged during the the arguments before the court.

When the NYT endorses the Democrat du jour, does anyone assume that reflects the opinion of every single NYT employee? Not at all. How is that different from Exxon endorsing the Republican du jour?

Corporations are allowed to do just that, the question is if money is equal to speech. I would argue that it is not, and restrictions on spending are reasonable restrictions on political speech. We have other restrictions on the First Amendment for very good reasons.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Corporations are allowed to do just that, the question is if money is equal to speech. I would argue that it is not, and restrictions on spending are reasonable restrictions on political speech. We have other restrictions on the First Amendment for very good reasons.

Exactly what do you mean? Are you arguing that a company should be allowed to spend $X on political advertising but not $X+1? That seems fraught with all kinds of difficulties to me.

Among other things, it assumes that the market has priced commercial speech correctly, so that the "amount of speech" (whatever that means) resulting from $500 of spending on internet ads is equivalent to the amount of speech resulting form buying $500 of TV ad time. Why are dollars a good proxy for for "units" of speech?

Back to the book example: a company should only be allowed to spend $X printing, publishing, and advertising a book endorsing a candidate? That's ridiculous, by my careful estimation.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I don't want to hear anyone supporting this ruling coming around later and complaining about the influence of special interests...

"Special interests"? What are they? Name one person who isn't part of some special interest group. Your employer, trade or professional associations, unions, non profit groups (Red Cross), club memberships (AAA), etc. are all special interests, and most of them lobby and seek political favors in one form or the other. Special interests represent individuals, not just big, bad bogeyman "corporations". If the politicians weren't such money grubbing whores this would be less of an issue. As long as you allow privately funded elections, "special interests" will always have a seat at the table.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

One thing this ruling does is increase the opportunities for a 3rd party candidate to run for office. They no longer would be forced to have a huge structure behind them to run. A multi-millionaire who believes in their cause could back them and help them bring others in.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Newt Gingrich (I'd vote for Newt) provided the "pro-SCOTUS" analysis on NPR last night. Using himself as an example, he said this decision makes it more realistic for a "middle class" challenger candidate to run for office against all the advantages of an incumbent, which levels the playing field and gives us more options to vote for (he called the corporate whoring, "finding a group of like-minded citizens to support your message", or something like that).
Sounds good to me. Inability to fundraise is why Newt dropped out last time, when his message of financial responsibility would have been extremely valuable later in the primaries.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Newt Gingrich (I'd vote for Newt) provided the "pro-SCOTUS" analysis on NPR last night. Using himself as an example, he said this decision makes it more realistic for a "middle class" challenger candidate to run for office against all the advantages of an incumbent, which levels the playing field and gives us more options to vote for (he called the corporate whoring, "finding a group of like-minded citizens to support your message", or something like that).

...or sells his/her soul to one issue that's not in the best interest of voters.

That's whats at issue here in the big picture. Who will the candidate answer to? The voter or another agenda? For the welfare of this country, its important that the voter be the number one customer of a politician and the agenda stand on its own merits.

The answer to this needs to frame the solution...not the other way around.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

...or sells his/her soul to one issue that's not in the best interest of voters.

That's whats at issue here in the big picture. Who will the candidate answer to? The voter or another agenda? For the welfare of this country, its important that the voter be the number one customer of a politician and the agenda stand on its own merits.

The answer to this needs to frame the solution...not the other way around.

I will say that full disclosure is important. If the voters know to which eeeeevil big corporation a politician's soul has been bartered, they'll be able to pass judgement on that with their votes.

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

It has definitely been a tough week to be a moonbat.

1. The loss of "Ted Kennedy's seat"
2. The SCOTUS ruling in favor of the 1st Amendment
3. Air America declaring bankruptcy

I thought Olberman's head was going to explode last night!

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Nobody's saying that.

What people are saying is that money is not speech. The NRA and unions have plenty of avenues to freely express themselves.

Also, the Constitution guarantees the country's citizens the right to free speech. Maybe there's a court case that has ruled this, but since when are corporations or unions, or anything else citizens? And where in the Constitution does it grant corporations 'rights'?

You strict constructionist types should be livid about this.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Has anyone ever created a timeline or stock tracker that marks when Mr. Obama says something that is obviously, to even the most casual observer, anti-business (see: yesterday's proposed bank restrictions that even Geitner isn't on board with).

I could see a market graph that'd look like a normal stock tracker, but instead of marking splits it'd mark Mr. Obama's speeches. And with each new business/Wall Street speech you'd see the broad markets drop at least a full percent if not two (see: yesterday).

If you knew when he was going to roll out his next great plan for business and Wall Street I'm guessing you could make a fortune shorting the markets.

And I'm guessing also that someone does.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Also, the Constitution guarantees the country's citizens the right to free speech. Maybe there's a court case that has ruled this, but since when are corporations or unions, or anything else citizens? And where in the Constitution does it grant corporations 'rights'?

You strict constructionist types should be livid about this.

Aren't they taxable entities? Aren't they entities that can be prosectuted? Sued? Sue?

If they can be all those, shouldn't they have the right to speak out about it?


What ever happened to "more speech is good speech"?
I guess that only applies to politically correct speech today.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Who will the candidate answer to? .

The same people they answer to now, those with the money

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Aren't they taxable entities? Aren't they entities that can be prosectuted? Sued? Sue?

If they can be all those, shouldn't they have the right to speak out about it?


What ever happened to "more speech is good speech"?
I guess that only applies to politically correct speech today.

Sure, they're taxed - but under a different set of rules than individuals. And they always have had other means of expressing their rights to free speech.

What I want to know is what happened to John Roberts' philosophy of narrowly tailored decisions that 'call balls and strikes.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?ref=opinion

The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Also, the Constitution guarantees the country's citizens the right to free speech. Maybe there's a court case that has ruled this, but since when are corporations or unions, or anything else citizens? And where in the Constitution does it grant corporations 'rights'?

You strict constructionist types should be livid about this.

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward - 1819.

If the Washington Post can continue to shill out the liberal view with no interference right up and through election day, what makes them different than, say, People for the American Way? Either you treat corporations the same, or you have censorship.

If a corporation wants to spend a gazillion bucks for or against a candidate to a party, then they are subject to the approval/approbation of their stockholders. If, for example, GM shelled out $3 M for some ads on Obamacare, as a stockholder I would be peeved because that money could have been used to hire some workers.

Further, who says I have to listen to the message? I am an adult, not easily swayed by the mass marketers. I can make my own decisions, thank you.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

You strict constructionist types should be livid about this.

A strict interpretation of the constitution sides with free speech as the default and sets a very high bar on anyone trying to limit it. I think the Founders would have agreed with this ruling.

--Congress Shall Make No Law....Abridging Freedom of Speech--

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

A strict interpretation of the constitution sides with free speech as the default and sets a very high bar on anyone trying to limit it. I think the Founders would have agreed with this ruling.

--Congress Shall Make No Law....Abridging Freedom of Speech--

I tend to agree. Anytime you start to limit speech based on content, source, etc. you start down a slippery road. Besides, nobody is forcing these candidates to take this money. If they have the courage of their convictions, they should refuse contributions from sources they may later regret.

 

[MattS]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I think the Founders would have agreed with this ruling.

I hate this kind of rhetoric. It's pure BS to presume what a group of men thought 222 years ago. That some people use this rhetoric try to make their side sound righteous and patriotic is pathetic.

Even if you are correct, so what? It doesn't mean they were correct. They weren't infallible. The Founding Fathers never could have fathomed the kind of power that corporations and other activist groups have over the Government and thus the people. I also highly doubt they equated free speech to $. But that is my guess at their thoughts.