RIP USA

[Atticus]

They should be about voters. They should be about helping the electorate make an informed decision, and the electorate is not going to be able to make an informed decision if all they can see on the air, hear on the radio, are attacks ads funded by hidden corporate agendas... There’s a reason our Constitution was set up the way it was, and there’s a reason you can’t buy an election, because we didn’t intend for those who have the most money just to be able to get everything in the system the way they want it every time.”

 

but hasn't this been a really big problem in the past? you know much more about news media than I do, but I've been led to believe that before the advent of tv, many voters' primary source of opinion on candidates/elections was from newspapers, many of which were not much more than mouthpieces for their owners. aren't we at least in a time now when voters can get information from an overwhelming amount of sources--and therefore are not so direly in danger of being swayed by corporate-funded candidate ads? just curious.

 

Also, as to the "hidden corporate agendas," each ad has to pass the disclosure requirements as to who funded same, etc. So the people should be quite aware when watching the ad which big for-profit is supporting which candidate.

 

Then there's Glen Greenwald, who uses the u-word too, but from a different angle. “I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling... Even on a utilitarian level, the long-term dangers of allowing the Government to restrict political speech invariably outweigh whatever benefits accrue from such restrictions... The speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws... Laws which prohibit organized groups of people – which is what corporations are – from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood... The invalidated statute at issue here exempted media corporations – such as Fox and MSNBC – from these restrictions, since the government obviously can’t ban media figures from going on television and opining about elections (the way they do all other corporations)... It allowed the views of News Corp., GE, and Viacom to flourish (through their ownership of media outlets) while preventing the ACLU and Planned Parenthood from speaking out.”

 

I fear I'm missing something but this portion seems to argue my very point

 

I think, like M Christine has mentioned, that the effect of this ruling must be closely monitored. But to allow a ban on election speech by all entities for fear of potential abuse by some seems like a Bush-like measure. one thing is for sure, we shall see.

[bjorn_skurj]

Meaning, if you've run out of suitable hyperbole, invoking the Nazis will suffice in a pinch.

Well, I got a rep for upholding Godwin's Law. If you like, you can read it as, "It's like opening a newspaper on Aug. 5, 1914, and saying, 'Hey, it'll be OK. The Belgians have guns, too, just like the Germans.'"

 

Here's the whole transcript for the Moyers, in case anyone is interested.

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/transcript1.html

[Atticus]

Well, I got a rep for upholding Godwin's Law. If you like, you can read it as, "It's like opening a newspaper on Aug. 5, 1914, and saying, 'Hey, it'll be OK. The Belgians have guns, too, just like the Germans.'"

 

Here's the whole transcript for the Moyers, in case anyone is interested.

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/transcript1.html

 

I think this link might work better, Dan.

[bjorn_skurj]

I think this link might work better, Dan.

Thank you, Neil. I get overexcited when I use military metaphors.

[bleedorange]

Good piece on this case

 

Writer is executive director of Institute for Justice, which submitted a cited brief.

[Leo]

Is he supposed to be impartial with respect to his own decisions?

There's a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold and not a chearleader's outfit.

Yes, he should be impartial with respect to his own decisions. A judge/justice should not personalize his/her rulings. Rulings should be based upon findings of fact and matters of law, not personal preference. When Alito reacted, he clearly showed it was personal.

[bleedorange]

There's a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold and not a chearleader's outfit.

Yes, he should be impartial with respect to his own decisions. A judge/justice should not personalize his/her rulings. Rulings should be based upon findings of fact and matters of law, not personal preference. When Alito reacted, he clearly showed it was personal.

 

You're reading way too much into his reaction.

 

If anything, we should be lamenting the childish, unpresidential manner of Barack standing up there and admonishing a separate branch of government to serve his political whims.

[bjorn_skurj]

Here is a good, even-handed explanation of the issues involved and their history:

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/?8ty&emc=ty

 

[bleedorange]

Here is a good, even-handed explanation of the issues involved and their history:

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/?8ty&emc=ty

 

That was a good read. Thanks.

[Edie]

You're reading way too much into his reaction.

 

If anything, we should be lamenting the childish, unpresidential manner of Barack standing up there and admonishing a separate branch of government to serve his political whims.

 

Since when is 100 years of case law "political whims"? And why is speaking his mind unpresidential?

[D-Dogg]

[Gobias Industries]

And, as usual, the Onion puts this issue in the right perspective (the comical one): Supreme Court Allows Corporations To Run For Political Office.

[JohnO]

Since when is 100 years of case law "political whims"? And why is speaking his mind unpresidential?

What about the 120 years of case law that preceded? There are laws to deal with corruption so there's no need to limit speech "just in case" it might corrupt.

[Edie]

What about the 120 years of case law that preceded? There are laws to deal with corruption so there's no need to limit speech "just in case" it might corrupt.

 

What kind of multi-national conglomerate did we worry about during the drafting of the consitution? It took about 100 years for it to become a concern, so much so that it was dealt with by the Supremes.

 

I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers would approve of this.

[D-Dogg]

What kind of multi-national conglomerate did we worry about during the drafting of the consitution? It took about 100 years for it to become a concern, so much so that it was dealt with by the Supremes.

 

I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers would approve of this.

 

 

They absolutely would approve of it.

 

I want to know what do you have to fear by watching another commercial lobbing for your vote? What's the difference?

Oppressing many voices is oppressing one voice, and is absolutely in violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

I also believe you have the facts wrong, only American base companies can contribute. So a company based in London (or any evil country that is currently terrifying the US) that has many subsidiaries here in America cannot contribute (not that it does not happen with both sides).

[auctioneer69]

They absolutely would approve of it.

 

I want to know what do you have to fear by watching another commercial lobbing for your vote? What's the difference?

Oppressing many voices is oppressing one voice, and is absolutely in violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

I also believe you have the facts wrong, only American base companies can contribute. So a company based in London (or any evil country that is currently terrifying the US) that has many subsidiaries here in America cannot contribute (not that it does not happen with both sides).

 

Again - where is the common sense? I remember the day that Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate sitting in a cafe in Vancouver, B.C.. Her campaign had cost more than the combined total for the recently held Canadian parliamentary systems. The huge and excessive pools of money that slosh around our political system devalue the average vote and put our politicians far too closely under the influence of their campaign contributors.

 

I live in Washington state where we have an enormous budget deficit. Most people have forgotten it was already a massive problem before the recession of 2008/2009 because in large part our Governor Christine Gregoire helped to ensure her best campaign contributors in the public sector unions were rewarded with better contracts and pensions. Look at the causes of the financial crisis which nearly took down our economy and that of the entire world simultaneously. Part of the reason that politicians from both parties were so keen to deregulate Wall Street or not question the demands of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the vast amounts that they have taken from the financial sector in contributions for a long-time. Health-care reform. A bipartisan approach will always be hard to achieve as long as the Democrats are in the pocket of plaintiff attorneys. I could go on forever. To think that an even greater deluge of money from corporations and unions is a good thing or even neutral is delusional. Maybe I'd consider the Tea Party attractive if they'd militate for term limits for all politicians and (limited) public funding for all elections.

[JohnO]

What kind of multi-national conglomerate did we worry about during the drafting of the consitution? It took about 100 years for it to become a concern, so much so that it was dealt with by the Supremes.

 

I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers would approve of this.

The "multi-national conglomerate" argument is a red herring. The SC's ruling left standing the portion of the law related to foreign contributions. In fact the majority opinion makes seven different references to the fact that the ruling does NOT apply to foreign contributions. The President and his supporters are intentionally using this lie to smear the Court.

[Edie]

The "multi-national conglomerate" argument is a red herring. The SC's ruling left standing the portion of the law related to foreign contributions. In fact the majority opinion makes seven different references to the fact that the ruling does NOT apply to foreign contributions. The President and his supporters are intentionally using this lie to smear the Court.

 

So the US subsidiary of BP cannot contribute its shareholder money to the political candidates it thinks will be best suited to its interests, but ALCOA can? I call bullshit.

 

I can tell you I will be voting with my invested dollars. Companies who invest in candidates I disagree with and who I do not want elected will lose my money. I encourage others to do the same, as long as this is allowed (which hopefully will not be long).

[JohnO]

So the US subsidiary of BP cannot contribute its shareholder money to the political candidates it thinks will be best suited to its interests, but ALCOA can? I call bullshit.

 

I can tell you I will be voting with my invested dollars. Companies who invest in candidates I disagree with and who I do not want elected will lose my money. I encourage others to do the same, as long as this is allowed (which hopefully will not be long).

And that's exactly the way it should work! Vote with your money.

 

Justice Thomas pointed out in remarks on Tuesday that the desire to restrict speech cuts both ways. He pointed to the Tillman Act of 1907. The genesis of the legislation came from Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina's concern that Corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.

 

Stand up for more speech rather than less lest we find ourselves in this place.

 

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

-- Martin Niemöller

[Guest Speed Racer]

So the US subsidiary of BP

 

Pretty sure Amoco isn't a subsidiary of BP - they merged, and they took on the BP name, but I know that BP still uses Amoco brand gasoline and that there are Amoco refineries. I think BP Amoco is a U.S. operated company and BP is the UK branch of the same organization, though I would happily be corrected.

 

ETA: If I recall, Amoco bought out BP, and they assumed the BP name because of its better global image and established business model, though Amoco gas was superior.

[calvino]

And that's exactly the way it should work! Vote with your money.

 

What happens to those who do not have much money and are pretty much forced to spend it on corporations that may not fit their political views?

[Winston Legthigh]

What happens to those who do not have much money and are pretty much forced to spend it on corporations that may not fit their political views?

Compromise.

[Edie]

Pretty sure Amoco isn't a subsidiary of BP - they merged, and they took on the BP name, but I know that BP still uses Amoco brand gasoline and that there are Amoco refineries. I think BP Amoco is a U.S. operated company and BP is the UK branch of the same organization, though I would happily be corrected.

 

ETA: If I recall, Amoco bought out BP, and they assumed the BP name because of its better global image and established business model, though Amoco gas was superior.

 

Whatever. You get my point.

[bjorn_skurj]

What happens to those who do not have much money and are pretty much forced to spend it on corporations that may not fit their political views?

They get to feel sad and frustrated.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Whatever. You get my point.

 

Wasn't sure if BP was directly related to your point; also worth knowing if you're going to start moving investments around on account of who supports whom.