Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?

[Skyhunter]

That confuses the qualifying legal requirements for some types of corporations with the basic definition of any type of corporation: An entity that has http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation" My example shows the definition in play, and applies to any type of corporation. The fact that there are many different type of non profit corporate charters that grant additional tax benefits, etc, does not change the basic idea of what a corporation is.

Why cherry pick the definition?

I think that creates more confusion than defining non profits. Better to post the entire definition and highlight. (not everyone clicks links)

an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

I prefer the informal definition:

Informal. a paunch; potbelly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bill Moyers provided a personal commentary on this issue, at the end of his show last Friday.

BILL MOYERS: Over the course of a long career in journalism, I've covered this story of money in politics more than any other. From time to time, I've been hopeful about a change for the better, but truth is, it just keeps getting uglier every year.

Those who write the checks keep buying the results they want at the expense of the public. As a reputedly self-governing democracy, we desperately need to address the problems that we‘ve created for ourselves, but money makes impossible the reforms that might save us.

Nothing in this country seems to be working to anyone's satisfaction except the wealth machine that rewards those who game the system. Unless we break their grip on our political institution, their power to buy the agenda they want no matter the cost to everyone else, we're finished as a functioning democracy.

In this I am sympathetic to the people who show up at tea party rallies asking what happened to their jobs, their pensions, their security — the America they believed in. What's happened, says the political scientist Sheldon Wolin, is the increasing cohabitation of state and corporate power.

This is why I find the supreme court ruling so preposterous and ominous. Five radical judges have taken a giant step toward legitimating the corporate takeover of democracy. "One person, one vote" — stop kidding yourself. As I once heard a very rich oilman tell congress after he paid $300,000 to the democratic party to get a moment of President Clinton's ear, "Money is a bit more than a vote." The huge sums of money that already flood our elections will now be multiplied many times over, most likely in secret.

Just this week, that indispensable journalistic website Talking Points Memo.com reported that an influential Washington lobbying firm is alerting corporate clients on how to use trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce as pass-throughs to dump unlimited amounts of cash directly into elections. They can specifically advocate or oppose a candidate — right up to election day — while keeping a low profile to prevent "public scrutiny" and negative press coverage. We'll never know what hit us, and like the titanic, we'll go down but with even fewer lifeboats.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02192010/transcript4.html

I agree completely with Mr. Moyers. We are being sold out and tricked to believe, through blind ideology, that it is in our own best interest.

 

[mheslep]

Bill Moyers provided a personal commentary on this issue, at the end of his show last Friday.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02192010/transcript4.html
[...]

Bill Moyers calling SC judges radical? Whatever. I find his argument unconvincing. He cites a personal donation from an oilman, having nothing to do with corporations, as a reason for the evils of corporate funding. Regarding secrecy, he piles on the same train of those blaming the courts for not doing the job of Congress. Congress has every authority to demand every dime contributed be reported, and posted on the net if they like. Congress should do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bill Moyers calling SC judges radical? Whatever. I find his argument unconvincing. He cites a personal donation from an oilman, having nothing to do with corporations, as a reason for the evils of corporate funding. Regarding secrecy, he piles on the same train of those blaming the courts for not doing the job of Congress. Congress has every authority to demand every dime contributed be reported, and posted on the net if they like. Congress should do so.

"Radical" is precisely the right word [nice pun in that one!]. That is the word used when you overturn a century of law. How is that not radical? It is both liberal and radical.

And what "argument" do you find to be unconvincing? He was stating an opinion based on his long career in journalism.

 

[Hurkyl]

And what "argument" do you find to be unconvincing? He was stating an opinion based on his long career in journalism.

So there is no argument? Maybe that's why it's unconvincing!

 

[russ_watters]

"Radical" is precisely the right word [nice pun in that one!]. That is the word used when you overturn a century of law. How is that not radical? It is both liberal and radical.

It's not radical because it fits the intent of the Constitution. It was radical when 40 years ago (or whenever that case was that was overturned...) the USSC made a decision not in fitting with the Constitution. It is not radical to fix the error.

The founding fathers may have been radical when they wrote the 1st Amendment, but it isn't radical to uphold it now.

He was stating an opinion based on his long career in journalism.

That's hilarious, Ivan. I can't believe you used that as an argument! That could take us into a big discussion about the huge problem that is an activist media! (Oh wait, we already have that discussion: Fox=activist conservative = bad, Everyone else=activist liberal = good...right). I'm confused, though - how is the USSC so broken that they didn't consult the experts in the media before making their decision? Ehh, I guess we could fix that by appointing reporters to the bench of the USSC from now on.

In all seriousness, though, why post a rant with no relevance? I've already linked the opinions of the foremost subject matter experts for you to base an argument on (the dissenting opinion of the USSC). And if you want 3rd party opinions, at least go for one that actually addresses the issue. Nowhere in that rant does he mention the Constitution or the 1st Amendment. He doesn't like the way things work now? Fine. But if he wants to change it, he has to show that the change fits with the Constitution (or argue that we amend it).

What boggles my mind is that on this issue liberals are in favor of a pretty radical restriction in freedom of speech. That seems to go against the general idea of liberalism. I'm thinking that the reason people such as Moyers make no relevant arguments is that they don't want to go down that road, so they pretend their position doesn't take us there. It's easier to convince people to give up their liberty if you argue it obliquely.