Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[Ivan Seeking]

Its funny. A while ago I came up with an idea for a story where legislation created a loophole in campaign finance that allowed corporations to spend large sums of money on political campaigns. A corporation then decided to produce a reality television show "Joe Blow for President" wherein they used an American Idol style nomination process to decide on a candidate from a group of "Average Joes" who had never ran for office before and then followed the nominee on their fully corporate funded campaign trail for the office of president. The nominee then of course has a weekly aired television campaign with plenty of advertisement besides.

I thought it was perhaps too far fetched and believe I saw some advertisement for a movie with a similar premise at some point so I abandoned the idea but its starting to look like a good idea again.

Wasn't there a recent movie that played with a similar idea? I seem to remember some ads.

 

[Nebula815]

Why should fictitious persons be allowed free speech?

Corporations are groups of people. If you say corporations should not be allowed free speech, then the government can justify legislation to control the media companies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's what the guy is drafting an amendment to do. Limit free speech.

Not everything is entitiled to free speech. That right resides with the people, not the imaginary people. Nor is free speech protected for non-citizens.

Why in the world would you defend this? This is not a free speech issue. Can't you see this opens the door for outrageous levels of foreign interference and manipulation in US elections?

Are you a US citizen?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Corporations are groups of people. If you say corporations should not be allowed free speech, then the government can justify legislation to control the media companies.

And all of those people that belong to the corporation all have always had their individual free speech. So again, why does the fictitious person of the corporation need unlimited free speech? For commercial advertisement? Sure. For the content of their products? Sure. Those things fit neatly into the special case made for the fictitious personality of a corporation. Why free political speech? What does that have to do with running a business?

There are already laws and court decisions regarding the media and what they are and are not allowed to do.
Edit: I am fairly certain that the media is not allowed to run private political campaigns.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wasn't there a recent movie that played with a similar idea? I seem to remember some ads.

Yeah. I have no idea what that movie was though or what exactly the premise was. I think it may have been about a reality tv star that got a write in nomination for president or something along those lines. I'll have to look it up and watch it before I get writing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Corporations are groups of people. If you say corporations should not be allowed free speech, then the government can justify legislation to control the media companies.

And each citizen already has a voice. Why should they get two? Why are members of a corporation entitled to more free speech than I am? Also, let's get real, the corporation really represents the voices of an elite few, not the entire company.

I think you are correct about the media. Political propoganda now passes as news. There comes a point where the political media should be limited by campaign laws. Whether it be Fox, or MSNBC, [I watch neither], or hate radio, they should be required to identify themselves as a political organization and state their affiliations. For example, this show is funded by Kensi motors which supports the following candidates...

The point is, if they are really a political organization, then they are required to represent themselves as such. Democracy cannot exist in a world of uncontrolled disinformation. At some point EVERYONE is liable for their claims. That is an unavoidable consequence of the right to free speech.

For example, I have the right to say that you committed a crime; say, you broke into my house, and put it on TV. Consequentially, you have the right to sue me. Would you deny my right to free speech and sue me?

 

[drankin]

And each citizen already has a voice. Why should they get two? Why are members of a corporation entitled to more free speech than I am?

Two? That's funny. The right of free speech is not a quantity of speech. LOL!

 

[Nebula815]

Not everything is entitiled to free speech. That right resides with the people, not the imaginary people.

Corporations are made up of people.

Why in the world would you defend this? This is not a free speech issue.

It is absolutely a free speech issue. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One might say the First Amendment says specifically that government cannot censor the press. Well what constitutes the "press?" Are people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or whatnot members of the "press?" They are not journalists. Limbaugh most certainly isn't press. But he is part of a corporation that one could argue, through him, is using its money to make political speech. Which means the government could at some point find a way to shut people like that up.

Can't you see this opens the door for outrageous levels of foreign interference and manipulation in US elections?

I don't think so. All it does is opens the way for spending on commercials by corporations and other organizations. And as said, foreign interference already occurs in governance immensely at the lobbying level. If we are concerned about foreign ownership of American corporations, then we need to perhaps do something about that, although specifically I am not sure what.

Are you a US citizen?

Yes.

And each citizen already has a voice. Why should they get two? Why are members of a corporation entitled to more free speech than I am? Also, let's get real, the corporation really represents the voices of an elite few, not the entire company.

WHA!? Free speech isn't like a vote. So if say there was as yet no Fox News, and I was the one who started it, but then I also became an author of many books, and I also operate a blog, do I have three "voices" by your definition? What happens if I also use my newfound wealth to found a policy think-tank?

There is nothing to stop yourself and other like-minded people from pooling your resources to create organizations to create political commercials as well.

I think you are correct about the media. Political propoganda now passes as news. There comes a point where the political media should be limited by campaign laws. Whether it be Fox, or MSNBC, [I watch neither], or hate radio, they should be required to identify themselves as a political organization and state their affiliations. For example, this show is funded by Kensi motors which supports the following candidates...

It isn't all political propaganda though. Sure some of it can be, many other times it is legitimate discussion about important issues. IMO, any government control over such discussion is dangerous.

Also, this SCOTUS ruling did not strike down the provision of campaign-finance that requires all political commercials to state/show who is funding them.

The point is, if they are really a political organization, then they are required to represent themselves as such. Democracy cannot exist in a world of disinformation.

Who decides exactly what constitutes disinformation?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Corporations are made up of people.

And as pointed out already none of those individuals ever had their freedom of speech restricted, it was only the fictitious personality of the corporation. Why do you keep dodging this? Fact: Nothing about this court decision has any bearing what so ever on the freedom of speech of Real People.

 

[Nebula815]

And as pointed out already none of those individuals ever had their freedom of speech restricted, it was only the fictitious personality of the corporation. Why do you keep dodging this? Fact: Nothing about this court decision has any bearing what so ever on the freedom of speech of Real People.

Yes it does. With the law in place, unions and corporations could not publish certain books, Amazon Kindle could not distribute books, Barnes & Noble could not sell books, etc...advocating positions for or against candidates.

Also, because regular people band together to pool their resources via non-profit corporations. This law restricted all corporations, non-profit to profit, and unions, and other groups from political speech. Corporations are entitled to the same right as individuals to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes it does. With the law in place, unions and corporations could not publish certain books, Amazon Kindle could not distribute books, Barnes & Noble could not sell books, etc...advocating positions for or against candidates.

Also, because regular people band together to pool their resources via non-profit corporations. This law restricted all corporations, non-profit to profit, and unions, and other groups from political speech. Corporations are entitled to the same right as individuals to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.

I think that the companies you mentioned published/distributed plenty of books that advocated certain political positions and ideologies. Books authored by individuals. They have been doing it. The court decision changes what can and can not be done. A decision the other way would not have changed anything. And any people can easily band together and use their money to endorse or oppose candidates. Corporations and unions are not necessary for that purpose. Why would they need to create a corporation or union for such a purpose?

 

[Nebula815]

I think that the companies you mentioned published/distributed plenty of books that advocated certain political positions and ideologies. Books authored by individuals. They have been doing it.

Yes, I worded it wrong: it was that the government had the ability to prevent the distribution and publication and selling of certain books and so forth:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5019112172931620.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/congress-shall-make-no-law/print/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/

The court decision changes what can and can not be done. A decision the other way would not have changed anything. And any people can easily band together and use their money to endorse or oppose candidates. Corporations and unions are not necessary for that purpose. Why would they need to create a corporation or union for such a purpose?

People might form a non-profit corporation if they want to finance political speeches, varying from political movies advocating positions and candidates, or to pay for commercials. There are different organizations formed to advocate specific policies as well, ranging from healthcare to climate change to arms (NRA).

Unions and for-profit corporations may publish works or want to finance commercials as well.

 

[Al68]

Fines and prison sentence for people who who expressed their political speech through corporations. If they had only expressed their political speech themselves instead of using a fictional person as a proxy there would be no problem. For what reason do they feel the need to hide behind a corporation in order to express their political speech?

How is it relevant why they felt such need? The issue is whether government should be able to suppress speech using those means, not whether or not people have a "right" to engage in speech using those means.

Why should they have such a right? and what reasoning could you possibly muster for the legal or practical necessity of such fictional persons having free political speech?

I also don't think government should restrict what a newspaper can print. Does that mean I must think a newspaper is a person with rights? Of course not.

Despite the representation made by some, this SCOTUS decision was not based on whether or not a corporation is a person, or whether or not a corporation has any rights.

From some posts in this thread, you would think that SCOTUS ruled that government was perfectly free to suppress political speech as long as the speaker wasn't a "person with rights", then ruled that a corporation was a "person with rights" and therefore exempted. That's not what happened. SCOTUS ruled that the suppression was unconstitutional regardless of whether or not the "speaker" has any rights.

 

[Al68]

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision...

This is just plain false. SCOTUS specifically said that the "status" of the speaker was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not government could suppress political speech. It wasn't just the rights of the "speaker" that were violated by this law. It was the rights of the "listeners" that were violated, as well as the constitutional limits on government use of force.

The first amendment isn't just about the personal liberty of those who engage in political speech, it's about the right of the public to hear it.

Do you really think freedom of the press is only about the personal "rights" of newspaper owners? (corporations in many cases, BTW). Believe it or not, our founding fathers didn't put that in because of their intense love and concern for the "rights" of companies that owned printing presses.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How is it relevant why they felt such need? The issue is whether government should be able to suppress speech using those means, not whether or not people have a "right" to engage in speech using those means.I also don't think government should restrict what a newspaper can print. Does that mean I must think a newspaper is a person with rights? Of course not.

The corporation is a special case. It, as a corporation, is given the rights that it has as a special legal fiction to resolve certain legal issues of the manner in which such an organization operates. The corporation has no rights under the constitution, only so far as laws regarding corporations give them rights. They are not assumed to have all rights afforded any person, you must rationalize and argue the reason why the law should allow it in the case of this class of fictitious persons.

Despite the representation made by some, this SCOTUS decision was not based on whether or not a corporation is a person, or whether or not a corporation has any rights.

From some posts in this thread, you would think that SCOTUS ruled that government was perfectly free to suppress political speech as long as the speaker wasn't a "person with rights", then ruled that a corporation was a "person with rights" and therefore exempted. That's not what happened. SCOTUS ruled that the suppression was unconstitutional regardless of whether or not the "speaker" has any rights.

The issue is that a corporation is in fact considered a "legal person". That is what creates this issue. If it were not for that there would be no issue. Regardless of how the court made its decision the fact remains that they have given the right of free political speech to fictitious persons in their decision.



Edit: The scary thing is I looked more into this and found that corporations apparently never were denied political speech completely. In fact the only restriction was on distributing politically sensitive material regarding candidates currently running for office "within the final days of the election". So they apparently already had the power to campaign for or against particular candidates and this case was specific to maintaining/removing the restriction that appears designed to prevent them from last minute actions made in an attempt to swing elections.

Sad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Edit: The scary thing is I looked more into this and found that corporations apparently never were denied political speech completely. In fact the only restriction was on distributing politically sensitive material regarding candidates currently running for office "within the final days of the election".

Which is what drove the court case.

So they apparently already had the power to campaign for or against particular candidates and this case was specific to maintaining/removing the restriction that appears designed to prevent them from last minute actions made in an attempt to swing elections.

Sad.

It is tough for us real voters and election donators to compete with the fictional ones.

According to the logic of the SC, how then is a corporation denied the right to vote?

 

[Nebula815]

Edit: The scary thing is I looked more into this and found that corporations apparently never were denied political speech completely. In fact the only restriction was on distributing politically sensitive material regarding candidates currently running for office "within the final days of the election". So they apparently already had the power to campaign for or against particular candidates and this case was specific to maintaining/removing the restriction that appears designed to prevent them from last minute actions made in an attempt to swing elections.

Sad.

Nothing sad about it. The last 60 to 30 days of an election are when people really start paying attention. Only political junkies follow elections in detail, but it is within the latter two months to one month to even weeks that people really start watching.

This is when political speech is most important.

 

[Al68]

They are not assumed to have all rights afforded any person, you must rationalize and argue the reason why the law should allow it in the case of this class of fictitious persons.

Why must I argue something I'm not claiming? I'm claiming exactly what SCOTUS ruled, that government can't suppress political speech even if we assume that the "speaker" has no political speech rights.

The issue is that a corporation is in fact considered a "legal person". That is what creates this issue. If it were not for that there would be no issue.

That's only because the FEC attributed personhood to the corporation as a prerequisite to attributing the political speech to the corporation, since the offending act was physically committed by a real live human. It wasn't used by the court to attribute rights to the corporation.

Regardless of how the court made its decision the fact remains that they have given the right of free political speech to fictitious persons in their decision.

No, they didn't. The end result of government not suppressing political speech is the same, but not for that reason.

The SCOTUS decision made perfectly clear that under the assumption that the "speaker" has no rights, government still has no legitimate power to suppress the political speech.

I just reread the majority opinion, and nowhere does it claim or rely on any "rights" of a corporation. That's just a misrepresentation by those that disagree with the court.

I think many lose sight of the main reason for free political speech. It's not all about the personal rights of the speaker. It's not just the speaker that is affected by suppressing political speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is tough for us real voters and election donators to compete with the fictional ones.

According to the logic of the SC, how then is a corporation denied the right to vote?

I am also wondering how many stockholders may wind up inadvertently assisting in the funding of support for a candidate they do not support or opposing one they do support. So if I invest in a corporation for financial reasons I ought keep abreast of the political inclinations of the board of directors on top of tracking their business savvy?

I was fairly certain that nonprofits lost their tax exempt status if they supported particular candidates, which seems logical enough to me. I hope that still holds at least.

Nothing sad about it. The last 60 to 30 days of an election are when people really start paying attention. Only political junkies follow elections in detail, but it is within the latter two months to one month to even weeks that people really start watching.

This is when political speech is most important.

And I am quite certain that individuals are capable of exercising their freedom of speech during the most important phases of elections individually or in groups other than corporations. I still have not seen any arguments as to why they should be allowed to use a corporation as a proxy for this.
I can think of only one and that would be that several poorer individuals, through a nonprofit, can hopefully compete financially with wealthier individuals. Though I see no reason why wealthier individuals could not avail themselves of the same advantage through their own nonprofits there by negating, and likely defeating, the advantage gained by poorer individuals through such means. If this were restricted to nonprofits I might be inclined to favour it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's not all about the personal rights of the speaker. It's not just the speaker that is affected by suppressing political speech.

I would not argue that it effects more than the speaker but the speaker is with whom the right is invested and intentionally or not the court is investing that right with persons fictional. Does Mickey Mouse get to campaign for candidates? Joe Camel?

 

[drankin]

Does Mickey Mouse get to campaign for candidates? Joe Camel?

Yes and yes. The government cannot restrict the freedom of speech from factual or fictional people.

 

[edpell]

There never was enforceable law against depositing money in a pols swiss bank account. So as far I can see nothing has changed.

 

[edpell]

Or, money talks everyone else walks

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes and yes. The government cannot restrict the freedom of speech from factual or fictional people.

That's a rather sad state of affairs in my opinion.

 

[BobG]

Why must I argue something I'm not claiming? I'm claiming exactly what SCOTUS ruled, that government can't suppress political speech even if we assume that the "speaker" has no political speech rights.

How about if the speaker does have political speech rights?

For instance, a military person doesn't lose their freedom of speech rights just because they've joined the military. They can still participate in a war protest if they disagree with that particular war. They can't participate in a war protest wearing a military uniform and/or identifying themselves as a military member. In other words, they can't portray themselves as a military member against the war - just as a regular citizen against the war.

Likewise, an employee of a company that writes a "Letter to the Editor" criticizing that company's policies and identifies themselves as an employee of that company in the letter can be fired. It's one thing to have a customer claim a company cheated them. It's quite another to have an employee claim the company cheats customers on a routine basis.

Surely, the inside info provided by an employee serves some public service beyond that individual employee's rights - at least, if the info is credible enough to stand on its own weight. An unsubstantiated accusation or a false accusation by a disgruntled employee isn't very informative.

In other words, freedom of speech isn't absolute. There can be limits in how it's applied without violating a person's civil rights (at least according to the courts, since a few may disagree that any kind of limits are permissable).

I agree that the SCOTUS decision could basically be expressed as: "The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Laws enacted to control or suppress speech may operate at different points in the speech process. The following are just a few examples of restrictions that have been at-tempted at different stages of the speech process—all laws found to be invalid: ... "

I think they could have easily found a few examples that were found to be valid, had they wanted to (and Stevens notes a few in his dissent).

Almost more interesting than the decision was Roberts and Alito feeling it necessary to explain their opinion on "the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case." This was what the public was interested in hearing during the confirmation hearings for each of them.

The most surreal portion of the decision has to be Stevens's dissent, where he says, "Congress surely has both wisdom and experience in these matters that is far superior to ours.” Except this is a quote from a previous case, "Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. FEC"; and the quote comes from the dissent, not the decision; and the person writing the dissent was Stevens. He couldn't just say that he felt a Congress staffed by politicians that had to know elections in order to get elected were better at figuring out campaign laws than judges appointed for life. He had to quote himself from a previous case. Is that self-pretentiousness or what?!

Sometimes, the reading of these is so interesting you forget to care about the decision.

 

[drankin]

That's a rather sad state of affairs in my opinion.

Why would we restrict Mickey Mouse's political speech?

 

[Nebula815]

And I am quite certain that individuals are capable of exercising their freedom of speech during the most important phases of elections individually or in groups other than corporations. I still have not seen any arguments as to why they should be allowed to use a corporation as a proxy for this.
I can think of only one and that would be that several poorer individuals, through a nonprofit, can hopefully compete financially with wealthier individuals. Though I see no reason why wealthier individuals could not avail themselves of the same advantage through their own nonprofits there by negating, and likely defeating, the advantage gained by poorer individuals through such means. If this were restricted to nonprofits I might be inclined to favour it.

SCOTUS doctrine, from my understanding, is that the First Amendment protects the right of the speaker to speak and the right of the public to hear it. On corporations, as has been shown, any corporations distributing and/or selling books, making films or commercials, etc...could be restricted from doing so right during the important part of the campaign.

So when the White House was saying that "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization...it is more an arm of the Republican party..." does this mean that the White House could use the campaign finance laws to silence Fox News in the last sixty or thirty days of a campaign? At least with their own view of the matter?

It is not a good idea to limit political speech.

 

[BobG]

So, the overall impact of this decision is increased overhead for corporations that generally contribute to both parties almost evenly (In 2008 pro-business political action commitess spent $327 million dollars. About 51% of that money wound up going to Republicans, while Democrats received about 49%. ) The additional impact is to provide incumbents with an election advantage, since corporations are more likely to cultivate stable, long term relationships with politicians already in office than to generate money to some rogue upstart, hell-bent on changing things in Washington.

Hmmm, self-referencing oneself is actually kind of pleasing.

 

[Nebula815]

The additional impact is to provide incumbents with an election advantage, since corporations are more likely to cultivate stable, long term relationships with politicians already in office than to generate money to some rogue upstart, hell-bent on changing things in Washington.

Would have to disagree. The campaign-finance laws helped incumbents. There's nothing more beneficial to an incumbent than making it where corporations, unions, etc...cannot criticize that incumbent via political speech during the most important phase of the election.

 

[BobG]

Would have to disagree. The campaign-finance laws helped incumbents. There's nothing more beneficial to an incumbent than making it where corporations, unions, etc...cannot criticize that incumbent via political speech during the most important phase of the election.

Historical re-election rates

Interactive campaign fund comparison

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.php

If you're just looking at McCain-Feingold (BCRA of 2003), then the most accurate answer is probably that campaign finance reform has had no effect one way or the other. It's been too easy to find ways around it (PACs, 527s, etc).

Of course, recent gerrymandering has probably been as signficant as campaign dollars in helping incumbents. The Senate would seem to be a better indicator. I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that the BCRA2003 was responsible for the re-election rate decreasing in 2006 and 2008. Sweeping revolutions in the Senate just don't seem to be what they used to be.

In other words, there's a legitimate problem (or else voters are just more satisfied with our politicians than we used to be). I don't think the BCRA fixed it, regardless of whether it's constitutional or not.

 

[Proton Soup]

if we're going to limit spending by corps and/or individuals, i think we need to limit spending by the government as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So when the White House was saying that "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization...it is more an arm of the Republican party..." does this mean that the White House could use the campaign finance laws to silence Fox News in the last sixty or thirty days of a campaign? At least with their own view of the matter?

It is not a good idea to limit political speech.

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic. Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate, not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speaking of excessive influence,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

many at the Wall Street Journal considered Murdoch's purchase of the company to be the end of the Journal as we know it. As a former subscriber who has read some recent quotes from the paper, it is apparent that the worst has indeed happened. It often reads more as a tabloid than the trusted and prestigious conservative news source that it once was.

 

[Al68]

I would not argue that it effects more than the speaker but the speaker is with whom the right is invested and intentionally or not the court is investing that right with persons fictional.

But a corporation's legal personhood isn't about rights, it's the means by which we can consider a corporation to be a party to any act, good or bad. Without it, a corporation is nothing more than a tool used by people to perform actions, and like any tool, could not be considered a party to any action. Crimes aren't committed by tools. Tools can't be sued, named as defendants, enter into contracts, etc.

So, you're right, this wouldn't be an issue without corporate "personhood", but only because a corporation then, as merely a tool, could no more be legally considered an "offender" than any other tool used by a person to commit an unlawful act. It's not because the tool might have "rights".

But neither side in this case objected to corporate personhood, and neither side argued that a corporation has "rights".

The outcome of this ruling might be the same outcome as that obtained by hypothetically considering a corporation to have "rights", but that isn't in the chain of reasoning contained in the majority opinion.

Edit: You pointed out that the people involved were free to engage in political speech as long as they didn't use a corporation to do it. What if the law in question banned the use of video recorders instead of corporations for this purpose, so that people would be free to engage in political speech as long as they didn't use a video recorder? Would you then call the ruling the equivalent of "vesting rights" in video recorders?

Personhood makes a corporation a special tool, but it just make no sense to suggest that this ruling "vested rights" in any tool.

 

[Nebula815]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope.

Well I don't know if I'd say elections are driven by corporate-funded disinformation services. Corporations, unions, non-profits, etc...can produce political speech to get their opinions on issues out, some are outright dis-information, others can be factual, it depends. It isn't like political parties themselves don't engage in dis-information either.

For example, if its the month before a Presidential election and a Democrat presidential candidate is pushing for carbon cap-and-trade and they say it will "create green jobs and help the economy" and they started hitting the airwaves with tons of ads on this, and then a set of commercials are produced that basically say all of this is baloney, but it turns out they was funded by the oil industry, well so what? People can listen to both, and make up their own minds. They will take into account who is saying what in both cases.

Maybe then Greenpeace makes a film saying cap-and-trade is good or whatnot. Again, free political speech is important.

Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

Corporations already were permitted to do this stuff, they just were banned from doing it during the most crucial portion of the election, the last sixty to thirty days of elections. It is up to the people to be smart enough to sift through the information that is false.

And corporations can get around such rules if they own media organizations. For example, General Electric very much wants cap-and-trade and contracts for windmills and so forth from the government.

They own MSNBC right now, and not too long ago, they were running a "Green Week." Glenn Beck was ranting about it, but otherwise, no one seemed to care.

Now imagine if Fox News was bought by General Dynamics or Raytheon and was running a "War Week," HOLY HIGH HEAVENS

Or if Fox News was purchased by a big oil corporation and was running specials about how global warming was baloney. Wouldn't the rest of the media and the White House be screaming, "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization! They are an arm of the oil industry and the Republican party!"

Blood vessels would be bursting if Fox was really under such ownership.

Or I can do even better. Fox News owned by an oil corporation and this oil corporation is lobbying the Republican president (I am pretending here) to remove the ban on off-shore oil drilling (like GE's pushing for windmill contracts, carbon cap-and-trade, etc...). And meanwhile Fox News is running specials about how global warming is baloney and how lifting the ban on drilling will create all sorts of new jobs.

Of course, the WH is already claiming Fox News isn't legit and is an arm of the Republican party, meanwhile MSNBC, which is owned by General Electric, whose own CEO (Jeffrey Immelt) I believe was an adviser to Obama, well no one says, "MSNBC is not a legitimate news organization. They are nothing but an arm of a corporation that has a vested interest in seeing this administration's climate control legislation pass, and they are a quasi-arm of the Democrat party in this sense."

Actually, in such a case (oil corp owning Fox), if anti-global warming and pro-oil drilling specials were being aired, you probably could say the Fox News corporation was just a propaganda arm for the oil industry. But that wouldn't mean the government should have any right to shut it up. After all, who is to say that the oil drilling won't create jobs or that the specials are wrong on climate change? Again, bad to let government decide.

On the other hand, I find it rather hypocritical the current administration does not see MSNBC this same way, which I think one could claim is a quasi-arm of the "green" industry to a degree.

My bigger concern with foreign corporations or foreign-owned corporations would be regarding lobbying. Should we just ban lobbying outright, since foreign corporations and foreign governments lobby our government all the time? Would there be bad unforseen consequences of this?

I understand your point about corporations with foreign ownership being able to engage in political speech, but you have to be very careful when you are regarding speech issues because you can give the government too much power.

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic.

What "unlimited" influence? All they do is air programming. There is nothing to stop alternative programming from being aired. Market-wise, conservative-libertarian talk radio seems to be more successful, but that does not stop anyone from creating leftwing networks or talk shows.

Are you really saying Fox News and talk radio are dangerous to democracy? They need to be controlled? Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" information in such an instance then?

And BTW, for all their supposed unlimited influence, the Democrats still won Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008.

Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate,

YES, and thanks to the Internet, talk radio, television, and books, this is more possible than ever before! Never before have people had the ability to become so informed. It is the greatest confluence of ideas ever seen in the history of democracy, and you think this is a BAD thing??

As an unfortunate side effect, yes there's a lot more noise out there too, but smart people can pick through it.

You really believe too many people getting to say their thoughts is bad for democracy?

Remember, democracy depends, as you say, on an informed electorate. But it is up to the electorate itself to make sure it is being informed properly. That is one of the key components of democracy, and requires responsible citizens.

One cannot argue that it is up to the government to ensure that the people are properly informed by deciding what information is "legitimate" and what is not.

Are you saying government needs to assign a group of people made up of "elites" who "know best" to decide what networks, talk shows, tv shows, books, magazines, etc...are legitimate, and which are not? A group of people made up of folks such as yourself?

not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Yeah there are your idiots out there, but we should NOT be saying that media and infotainment or information sources of any kind have to be watched and controlled by the government to make sure the information is "legitimate" or "correct."

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

I don't think the SCOTUS ruling said corporations as persons have a right to free speech, it is that infringing on political speech infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people.