Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[BobG]

If there is to be a referendum on set-backs that would protect organic crops (including valuable seed crops) from contamination by GMO crops, what would happen? Monsanto will jump right in and buy up all the available ad-time in news-hours and prime-time in our tiny broadcast TV market, and the organic growers will not be able to get their message out. "Free speech" to the people with the deep pockets - no access to the media for small farmers that don't have a lot of money.

The specific example might seem to be an exception, but it does illustrate what I meant by asking whether freedom of speech protects just the content, or does it mean the effort to present a message can't be restricted either. I.e. - freedom of speech means the media (the "roads") have to be unregulated as well.

I can think of a more relevant example of the media, i.e. the "road", being spoiled so badly it became unusable, even if this example didn't pertain to campaigns. During the Schiavo fiasco, one group of people figured out a way to overwhelm search engines so any search for Judge Greer, the judge that decided the case, only displayed page after page of Greer hate sites. That went beyond presenting a viewpoint. That reached the point of deliberately destroying the internet as a medium for finding information. It was the equivalent of blowing up the bridges to bring the flow of information to a halt.

Google revised their algorithms to supposedly prevent that from happening in the future, but I'd predict that new ways to jam search engines will be as prevalent as new viruses and malware. Particularly contentious issues will be jammed so badly by both sides that no one will be able to learn anything about the issue except from Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

The definition of freedom of speech and separation of the content of speech vs the media used to present that speech goes beyond just election campaigns.

 

[Skyhunter]

Look at who owns Anheuser-Busch. Should Belgians and Brazilians be able to skew legal initiatives regarding the production, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages in the US?

Obama's statement was accurate. This ruling most certainly opens the door for foreign corporations to influence our elections. Just like this case, foreign corporations can influence elections now with minimal restraint. Any opposition would have to file a lawsuit and wait another year or so for the hearing.

Corporations are not persons. They should not be afforded the same rights.

 

[mheslep]

Obama's statement was accurate. This ruling most certainly opens the door for foreign corporations to influence our elections. Just like this case, foreign corporations can influence elections now with minimal restraint.

No not because of this ruling. Whatever ambiguity existed in the law over foreign influence has not changed due to this ruling.

 

[turbo]

The specific example might seem to be an exception, but it does illustrate what I meant by asking whether freedom of speech protects just the content, or does it mean the effort to present a message can't be restricted either. I.e. - freedom of speech means the media (the "roads") have to be unregulated as well.

One glaring problem is that the fairness doctrine was abandoned, and would have to be reinstated in order to provide air-time for opposing views of political ads. Small media-markets like here in Maine and other less-populous states will be dominated by corporate money if Congress does not act decisively.

As I pointed out a while back, even the very rural, sparsely-populated states each have 2 senators, and given the immense power the Senate wields, senatorial contests in small-population states will from now on be dominated by corporate money in tiny media markets. The neo-con wing of SCOTUS knows this - they are not idiots. Sociopathic ideologues, maybe, but not idiots. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew the damage it would inflict on participatory democracy and they DON'T care!

 

[BobG]

No, read again. I referred only to the foreign influences aspect. The law of the land is that foreign individuals are prohibited from contributing to campaigns and that law still stands.

Where did Obama refer to foreign individuals contributing to campaigns?

The experts said Obama was right that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion...

... our experts agreed that Obama erred if he meant to suggest that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

That sure sounds like "he might be right but there's no way to confirm it one way or the other" to me. And besides, I just felt you overstated the case. You might wind up being right.

 

[mheslep]

Where did Obama refer to foreign individuals contributing to campaigns?...

Sorry should have said corporations, or associations per Kennedy.

 

[Skyhunter]

No not because of this ruling. Whatever ambiguity existed in the law over foreign influence has not changed due to this ruling.

It doesn't need to. The environment in which they operate has changed. We already have tremendous foreign influence in our politics as is with FOX news and the Washington Times. This ruling will allow any corporation with foreign interests to unduly influence American politics. Most corporations are multi-national. They will do what they want during the election cycle, and argue the legality later.

The court only hears emergency arguments when there is a possibility of harming George W. Bush. Good luck getting them to rule as to whether or not a multi-national corporation airing political commercials is causing undue harm to a candidate other then a Bush.

 

[Count Iblis]

Can the Chinese government now take over the US?

 

[Skyhunter]

If you read the http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf", you will note that it was the first issue raised.

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?

Mr. Olson: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

Justice Ginsburg: Would that include --

Mr. Olson: Now, Justice --

Justice Ginsburg Would that include today's mega-corporation, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?

Mr. Olson The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.

Justice Ginsburg: Own many shares?

Mr. Olson: Pardon?

Justice Ginsburg: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governments, that own not one share but a goodly number of shares.

Mr. Olson: I submit that the Court's decisions in connection with the First Amendment and corporations have in the past made no such distinction. However --

Justice Ginsburg: Could they in your view, in the view that you are putting forth, that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation for First Amendment purposes, then any mega-corporation, even -- even if most of the investors are from abroad, Congress could not limit their spending?

Mr. Olson I'm not -- I'm not saying that, Justice Ginsburg. I'm saying that the First Amendment applies. Then the next step is to determine whether Congress and the government has established a compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored remedy to that interest. If Congress -- and there is no record of that in this case of which I am aware. Certainly the government has not advanced it in its breifs: That there is some compelling governmental interest because of foreign investment in corporation.

If there was, then the Court would look at, determine how serious is that interest, how destructive has it been to the process and whether the -- maybe the limitation would have something to do with the ownership of shares of a corporation or some --

Since the Court's decision offers no "narrowly tailored remedy"... there are no real ground rules.

China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads in the 2010 election. If after the fact, it can be shown that the government has a compelling interest, then Congress can offer a narrowly tailored remedy, which the Court could still strike down.

What the court did was not open the special interest floodgates... it has demolished the dam itself.

 

[mheslep]

China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads in the 2010 election.

That is a distortion of the facts.

What the court did was not open the special interest floodgates... it has demolished the dam itself.

And that is hyperbole. I don't see any concern that MSNBC may be controlled by China, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is a distortion of the facts.

Please explain and provide an example.

And that is hyperbole.

Is it?

The transcript is right in front of you.

Here is a http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913"

And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.

And what is

 

[mheslep]

Please explain and provide an example.
Is it?

The transcript is right in front of you.

Indeed, and it does not support your China, Saudi Arabia statement. The Chinese or Saudis may own shares in US flagged corporations. It is a distortion to then say they "are free", by themselves, "to air political ads" in US elections.

Here is a http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913"

The misnamed CPI is a left wing think tank.

 

[Skyhunter]

Indeed, and it does not support your China, Saudi Arabia statement. The Chinese or Saudis may own shares in US flagged corporations. It is a distortion to then say they "are free", by themselves, "to air political ads" in US elections.

I never said they were free "by themselves", nor did I imply it. If you read the context it is clear I was talking about the corporations these counties control. Please refrain from constructing strawmen arguments.

The misnamed CPI is a left wing think tank.

Wrong on both counts. It is not left-wing and it is not a think tank. Irregardless, this is an ad hominem attack, also an argumentative fallacy.

 

[mheslep]

I never said they were free "by themselves", nor did I imply it. If you read the context it is clear I was talking about the corporations these counties control. Please refrain from constructing strawmen arguments.

You posted some nuanced background material from the court decision and then made an over simplified statement that is unjustified.

Wrong on both counts. It is not left-wing and it is not a think tank. Irregardless, this is an ad hominem attack, also an argumentative fallacy.

That's a misunderstanding of those fallacies. You brought a source into our discussion, claiming it was expert and non-partisan. I disagreed. CPI is a left wing organization funded by George Soros, Bill Moyers, etc, even if it doesn't directly endorse candidates. Ad hominem requires a personal attack on you, the presenter of the argument. I've not done that, nor will I. Ad hominem certainly doesn't include refutation of no bias claims about third parties presented as references.

 

[mheslep]

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877" . Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make - (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

[...] the term "foreign national" means - (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22,[...]

The http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fara/links/indx-act.html#611b"definition of foreign principal includes pretty much foreign anything: governments, partnerships, and corporations.

As discussed above, this part of US code remains untouched by the recent decision.

 

[edpell]

What the court did was not open the special interest floodgates... it has demolished the dam itself.

It is pure capitalism. Nationality does not count for anything it all boils down to how many dollars you have.

 

[BobG]

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877" . Contributions and donations by foreign nationals



The http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fara/links/indx-act.html#611b"definition of foreign principal includes pretty much foreign anything: governments, partnerships, and corporations.

As discussed above, this part of US code remains untouched by the recent decision.

But a corporation creates a separation between the people and the corporation.

If the corporation is created in the US by Americans, but a foreign government buys over half the stock, the corporation is still an American corporation?

And does having any foreign stockholders mean they're indirectly contributing to a campaign when the corporation donates money?

Neither question is resolved by the decision, by the way (which is why Obama was only given credit for "Barely True" in his comment about the decision). The court didn't say there couldn't be regulations or laws dealing with foreign ownership of an American corporation. They said a blanket ban on all corporate contributions was an overbroad restriction, even if the BCRA was intended to prevent foreign influence over elections (which it wasn't - it was designed to restrict contributions of all corporations, period).

 

[edpell]

It seems clear to me that any corporation that has any ownership by any non-American is prohibited from giving money directly to a political campaign. But there is no restriction on the free (hardly it costs lots of money to buy TV ad time) speech of foreign entities of any sort. So they can buy ads that say candidate X is good/bad/whatever.

 

[edpell]

Since IBM domiciles its patent portfolio in the Cayman Island and since the 100% owned foreign subsidiaries (like IBM Japan) pay patent royalties to IBM Cayman so allowing IBM to pay zero federal tax on the money. In what sense would you say IBM is an American company?

 

[Al68]

They said a blanket ban on all corporate contributions was an overbroad restriction...

I would note that a big part of the issue addressed by SCOTUS was that it wasn't a blanket ban. Any corporation that government determined to be a media outlet was exempt, even if that was only part of their business.

Government got to pick and choose which corporations were permitted to speak, and presented no significant argument for the ban that wouldn't apply equally to the exempt (media outlet) corporations.

The corporations most likely to mislead people, by claims of non-bias or fairness, were the ones exempted by the law.

Does anyone have an argument for that law that wouldn't equally justify government suppressing Fox News, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Democrat Gazette, etc?

 

[BobG]

I would note that a big part of the issue addressed by SCOTUS was that it wasn't a blanket ban. Any corporation that government determined to be a media outlet was exempt, even if that was only part of their business.

Government got to pick and choose which corporations were permitted to speak, and presented no significant argument for the ban that wouldn't apply equally to the exempt (media outlet) corporations.

The corporations most likely to mislead people, by claims of non-bias or fairness, were the ones exempted by the law.

Does anyone have an argument for that law that wouldn't equally justify government suppressing Fox News, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Democrat Gazette, etc?

Yes, even if TV and radio stations aren't literally the press, as in newspapers, they perform the same function with a different media and are usually included as falling under the same protection of the press, which is specifically given protection under the First Amendment (completely separate from the freedom of speech protected for individuals).

It is true that a literal interpretation of the First Amendment would protect only newspapers and allow the government to regulate what can be said by TV and radio station and on the internet, but that's going to be a really tough sell. (Newspapers should probably start lobbying for that interpretation - it might help save them.)

 

[edpell]

Since the largest share holder of IBM stock is the Abu Dhabi Trust in what sense would you call IBM a U.S. company? The trust is managed by seven independent managers and Abu Dhabi has a letter of intent on file with the S.E.C. promising never to acquire 51% of the stock. So the S.E.C. allows them to use their number of shares divided by seven in determining if they must be listed publicly as one of the five top holder (as all public stock must disclose their top five holders) and so they do not show up on the offical list of top five holder. Some people are special ;) but not American.

 

[mheslep]

But a corporation creates a separation between the people and the corporation.

If the corporation is created in the US by Americans, but a foreign government buys over half the stock, the corporation is still an American corporation?

And does having any foreign stockholders mean they're indirectly contributing to a campaign when the corporation donates money?

I'm fairly sure the moment a joint stock corporation cedes more than half its shares to a foreign entity, US chartered or not, it becomes foreign owned. Still those are good points. Certainly influence can be exerted by minority owners, and I expect there are other what-if cases regarding corporations. But I argue we had these kind of problems with individuals prior to Citizens United. Corporate influence was banned, but the door was wide open for billionaires like Soros. So I argue for a more targeted fix, if needed, against foreign influence, and not a blanket shut down given the burden falls on the vast majority of US corporations which are mom and pop operations.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, GM is owned by the Gov't and banks (and possibly insurance companies) are largely under it's control.

That is a MUCH bigger concern.

 

[edpell]

The Supreme Court said Congress has the right to regulate corporations. It only said that congress has not bothered to do so yet.

 

[Al68]

Yes, even if TV and radio stations aren't literally the press, as in newspapers, they perform the same function with a different media and are usually included as falling under the same protection of the press, which is specifically given protection under the First Amendment (completely separate from the freedom of speech protected for individuals).

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

 

[BobG]

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

There never was one. Any corporation has been free to buy any radio station, TV station, newspaper, magazine, etc. Or they could start their own newspaper.

I think that could be perceived as a minor loophole in the original McCain-Feingold bill. A corporation could easily circumvent the restrictions by deciding that having a political voice was more important than turning a profit.

There would certainly be instances where a corporation bought a media organization, but their primary motivation would almost always be to turn a profit by giving their customers what they want - which may be accurate news and objective analysis or maybe their customers just want to hear biased crap. I have a feeling that there aren't many corporations so committed to making a political statement that they'd buy the Fox newschannel just so they can air left wing shows.

But all of those issues play into whether the bill was a good idea, whether it can actually work in practice, whether it's enforceable, whether it solved an actual problem vs an imaginary problem and so on. There's nothing unconstitutional about passing a bad law.

And just to be clear - freedom of the press and freedom of speech aren't the same thing. They are each protected by the same amendment. So is freedom of religion, which isn't freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Freedom of the press applies to news media. Freedom of speech usually applies to individuals (even though the BCRA decision seems to stretch that a bit).

And freedom of speech applies to both the speaker and the receiver. I think the receiver's rights were where the emphasis for the decision was placed and were the individuals whose right to free speech were denied. A corporation has no inalienable right to free speech, but unreasonable restrictions can obstruct listeners from obtaining information they want. Burning books of dead authors is still a violation of free speech since readers are denied the opportunity to read those books.

 

[Skyhunter]

You posted some nuanced background material from the court decision and then made an over simplified statement that is unjustified.

That is your opinion. I linked the entire transcript, and copied the relevant portion that supports my argument. I did not take it out of context, and as for nuanced... uh that is the point I am making. This ruling creates a huge gray area that will not be sorted out till after the 2010 election.

That's a misunderstanding of those fallacies. You brought a source into our discussion, claiming it was expert and non-partisan. I disagreed. CPI is a left wing organization funded by George Soros, Bill Moyers, etc, even if it doesn't directly endorse candidates. Ad hominem requires a personal attack on you, the presenter of the argument. I've not done that, nor will I. Ad hominem certainly doesn't include refutation of no bias claims about third parties presented as references.

You are the one who made the argument that foreign nationals are free by themselves to air political ads, not me. That is the definition of a strawman argument since you both constructed the argument and debunked it with no aid from me whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it is my argument, it is still a strawman.

Perhaps poisoning the well is a more accurate description than ad hominem. But the simple fact is, you attacked the source instead of addressing the substance.

CPI is nonpartisan. They do not support or endorse parties or candidates. It is a non profit foundation dedicated to investigative journalism. Saying they are a left-wing think tank because they get money from Georg Soros and Bill Moyers is nothing more than a projection of your own political bias. Which is just your opinion and irrelevant to the argument.

CPI interviewed legal experts and then wrote a report based on those interviews. It is not their fault that reality has a liberal bias.

The legal definitions you posted are for "contributions and donations." Which are irrelevant to this ruling since it only addresses uncoordinated political spending by corporations, not direct contributions or donations. In other words, as your post shows, the laws governing contributions and donations remain unchanged. But that was never a part of my argument, nor was it the subject of this case. The law preventing corporations from airing their own political ads, so long as they are not coordinating with party or candidate, in order to influence elections and policy decisions has been struck down. This means that unless Congress passes a law in the next few months, the airwaves are wide open for any corporation formed under American law. Regardless of who owns it.

 

[edpell]

Maybe it is time to admit that the government in Washington D.C. is the world government. It should be staffed (draft world wide for enforcement) and funded (taxes) by the world. We in America need a national government to promote our local national interests.

 

[mheslep]

That is your opinion. I linked the entire transcript, and copied the relevant portion that supports my argument. I did not take it out of context, [...]

Yes, in my opinion, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2554394#post2554394":

[...]China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads in the 2010 election.[...]

is not a justifiable summary of the oral argument.

Re CPI:

Perhaps poisoning the well is a more accurate description than ad hominem. But the simple fact is, you attacked the source instead of addressing the substance.

CPI is nonpartisan. They do not support or endorse parties or candidates. It is a non profit foundation dedicated to investigative journalism. Saying they are a left-wing think tank because they get money from Georg Soros and Bill Moyers is nothing more than a projection of your own political bias. Which is just your opinion and irrelevant to the argument.

CPI interviewed legal experts and then wrote a report based on those interviews. It is not their fault that reality has a liberal bias.

The logic of your argument distils down to obligating me and others to accept or engage any reference you happen to link only by carefully reviewing all the claims in the reference, without regard to reputation or conflict of interest. It doesn't work that way. CPI apparently has a distinguished staff, and their analysis may even be correct. But I also have good cause to suspect they have an agenda to push, and so I am not inclined to spend time running down all the sources on their claims to verify their so called 'expert' opinion. In addition to their funding sources, many of the CPI advisers or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodding_Carter_III" of Democratic administrations.

 

[Al68]

There never was one. Any corporation has been free to buy any radio station, TV station, newspaper, magazine, etc. Or they could start their own newspaper.

So, the respective TV station involved should have been free to air the program which was suppressed, then?

Yes, the court addressed several issues here, including the right of the public to "hear", but this picking/choosing between corporations was significantly addressed, too.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, in my opinion, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2554394#post2554394":

That is the only part of the transcript that addressed the issue directly. It is left for Congress to determine if there is a "compelling interest,". and if so, provide a "narrow remedy."

That leaves the question of which corporations formed under US law are permitted to air political ads this election cycle open to interpretation.

My statement was hyperbolic, but it was not entirely unjustifiable. What I should have said was that American companies owned by China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads this election cycle.

Re CPI:
The logic of your argument distils down to obligating me and others to accept or engage any reference you happen to link only by carefully reviewing all the claims in the reference, without regard to reputation or conflict of interest. It doesn't work that way. CPI apparently has a distinguished staff, and their analysis may even be correct.

Nonsense. I obligate you to accept nothing. You are free to refute the claims made by the source, and provide other sources with counter claims.

You are also free to dismiss a claim based solely on it's source. But at the same time, I am free to point out that doing so is a logical fallacy.

But I also have good cause to suspect they have an agenda to push, and so I am not inclined to spend time running down all the sources on their claims to verify their so called 'expert' opinion. In addition to their funding sources, many of the CPI advisers or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodding_Carter_III" of Democratic administrations.

Here again you re offering up a red-herring.

What does the fact of Harold Williams being appinted to the SEC by Jimmy Carter have to do with the CPI article about the SCOTUS decision?

Nothing. That is why that point is just an irrelevant distraction to the dialogue. A Red-Herring.

 

[Skyhunter]

I disagree on establishing the bona fides of a source, as apparently know. Do you have any idea of how many times funded-by-'Exxon' accusations comes up on a search of your posts?

Once again you ignore the subject and offer up another fallacy. This time an ad hominem attack against me.

I am through with this conversation!

 

[mheslep]

Once again you ignore the subject and offer up another fallacy. This time an ad hominem attack against me.

I am through with this conversation!

Not ad hominem, but I was needlessly argumentative and apologize. Deleted.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

There is a difference between reporting on candidates and campaigning for or against them. There is also a difference between a corporation being used to provide a service and one being used as a soapbox.