Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[SPIN CONTROL]

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

Jonathon Turley's take on the ruling:

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/2...gn-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

-Justice Kennedy

 

[MinnFan]

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

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.

The question was asked about what a strict constitutionalist would think about this ruling. In order to look at things that way one has to look into the original intent of the Founders when they wrote the consitution. I certainly wasn't using the reference to be righteous. Right or wrong it is the law of the land, but if enough people have an issue with it there is a process for making changes.

Let me ask this. How is it right that GE can endorse canditates and make political commentary through its media wing, but GM can't?

 

[ScottM]

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

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.

Sure they could have. These were some of the same guys who didn't think women had a say in public affairs, thought slaves equated to less than 1 whole man and that only property owners should have a vote. However, I think they would be appalled at the 'career politicians" who occupy most seats in Congress.

 

[MinnFan]

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

Sure they could have. These were some of the same guys thought slaves equated to less than 1 whole man

My understanding is the 3/5's rule was actually there to take power away from the southern states with the goal to abolish slavery in the future. Unfortunately, it didn't come about by political means. But I digress...

 

[rufus]

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.

We're not talking about speech, we're talking about money.

If the Washington Post can continue to shill out the liberal view with no interference right up and through election day,

Fred Hiatt's Washington Post? Tell me you're kidding.

Anyway, there's that whole 1st Amendment freedom of the press thing going on. Tell me where it says anything about freedom of the corporation.

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.

Big surprise.

 

[MattS]

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

The question was asked about what a strict constitutionalist would think about this ruling. In order to look at things that way one has to look into the original intent of the Founders when they wrote the consitution. I certainly wasn't using the reference to be righteous. Right or wrong it is the law of the land, but if enough people have an issue with it there is a process for making changes.

Let me ask this. How is it right that GE can endorse canditates and make political commentary through its media wing, but GM can't?

Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out in particular. It was a general comment about the whole "what did the FF mean" argument. But my point stands. I find it absolutely idiotic that anyone tries to presume what people thought 200+ years ago.

And for your second part, I guess I am in the minority but I don't equate free speech to spending money. For me there is a difference. If GM (Ha! Like they have the money ) wanted to buy a TV station or newspaper and run programming that did nothing but slam a candidate then so be it. But I don't like the idea of them having free reign to spend as much money as they want directly on a elected official. It smacks of bribery to me. Yes, it may be splitting hair but for me there is a difference.

Sure they could have. These were some of the same guys who didn't think women had a say in public affairs, thought slaves equated to less than 1 whole man and that only property owners should have a vote. However, I think they would be appalled at the 'career politicians" who occupy most seats in Congress.

I don't get this at all. Are you trying to tell me that the FF had the foresight to see how large and powerful corporations and activist groups would become?

 

[MinnFan]

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

And for your second part, I guess I am in the minority but I don't equate free speech to spending money. For me there is a difference. If GM (Ha! Like they have the money ) wanted to buy a TV station or newspaper and run programming that did nothing but slam a candidate then so be it. But I don't like the idea of them having free reign to spend as much money as they want directly on a elected official. It smacks of bribery to me. Yes, it may be splitting hair but for me there is a difference.

What is the difference between buying the TV station and buying ad time on it? My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that corporations still can't give directly to someone's campaign, but they can advertise on their behalf with full disclosure.

Where I really see this ruling coming into play is when a company is attacked they will now be able to directly defend themselves.

 

[ScottM]

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

I don't get this at all. Are you trying to tell me that the FF had the foresight to see how large and powerful corporations and activist groups would become?

No, but they had much stronger fear, and suspicion, of an overbearing, distant government than the East India Tea Co., Dutch merchants or Barings.

 

[The Sicatoka]

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

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.

You need to look into the kind of power the Hudson Bay Trading Company had during it's history.

 

[5mn_Major]

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.

I agree with you 100%. And the last several days bear out a relationship between speeches/policy opinion and the markets.

Note: When I said the exact same thing a year ago, a couple of posters tripped over themselves to tell me it was ridiculous.

 

[geezer]

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

Bribery always was and is still illegal. I think what this ruling removes are some of the limitations on which groups are allowed to air political advertisements before elections. It doesn't affect campaign contribution limits.
It's based on a lawsuit over a "documentary" that aired in '08, slamming Hillary.

edit: although, based on some of the twisted coverage I'm seeing out there, I can understand how people thought so... holy crap:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-...-finance22-2010jan22,0,850920.story?track=rss

 

[LynahFan]

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

We're not talking about speech, we're talking about money.

No, we're not. We're NOT talking about corporations donating money directly to candidates.

We're talking about whether corporations have the right to stand up and say, "This company endorses candidate X" with full disclosure. And if they have the right to say that, then how could they possibly be disallowed from spending money to broadcast that message via commercial speech?

 

[MattS]

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

What is the difference between buying the TV station and buying ad time on it? My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that corporations still can't give directly to someone's campaign, but they can advertise on their behalf with full disclosure.

Where I really see this ruling coming into play is when a company is attacked they will now be able to directly defend themselves.

You are mostly correct (there are still limits) and I am wrong with regards to Corporate campaign contributions. I misread (or understood) an article and I thought the Court struck that part down too. My bad.

 

[huskyfan]

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

What is the difference between buying the TV station and buying ad time on it?

you pay alot more taxes!

 

[Tundra]

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

Looks like our split here is in line with the national numbers. Facinating

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx?CSTS=alert

Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

 

[ScottM]

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

you pay alot more taxes!

Plus you get to hire Leno .. or fire him, and hire Conan or ...

 

[rufus]

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

No, we're not. We're NOT talking about corporations donating money directly to candidates.

We're talking about whether corporations have the right to stand up and say, "This company endorses candidate X" with full disclosure. And if they have the right to say that, then how could they possibly be disallowed from spending money to broadcast that message via commercial speech?

So, every single person employed by that corporation feels this way? That's the only way a corporation can be allowed to do this. Otherwise, it's blatantly false. It's a small group of individuals who are making that statement, and using the name, power, influence, and yes, money of the corporation to push their own agenda.

 

[rufus]

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

I agree with you 100%. And the last several days bear out a relationship between speeches/policy opinion and the markets.

Note: When I said the exact same thing a year ago, a couple of posters tripped over themselves to tell me it was ridiculous.

Funny, the markets tanked the day after Scott Brown got elected too.

 

[SteveF]

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

So, every single person employed by that corporation feels this way? That's the only way a corporation can be allowed to do this. Otherwise, it's blatantly false. It's a small group of individuals who are making that statement, and using the name, power, influence, and yes, money of the corporation to push their own agenda.

it would actually be all the shareholders, as they are the owners of the company. the employees work at will and would have no say - they could quit if they didnt like the message (or be fired, i suppose).

i think its dumb that corporate money will seep into the elections, but i cannot believe that it isnt already there anyway. and as for it being one-sided, i disagree. there is money on both sides of the aisle and it will largely offset.

 

[Patman]

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

So, every single person employed by that corporation feels this way? That's the only way a corporation can be allowed to do this. Otherwise, it's blatantly false. It's a small group of individuals who are making that statement, and using the name, power, influence, and yes, money of the corporation to push their own agenda.

yes... and its the same way when a building gets bought or they decide on an advertising plan.

BTW, rufus, you are, as always, free to ignore the advice or advisement of the mega-corporation.

Why are you so concerned about the speech allotted to a corporation?