Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[Al68]

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.

Of course there is, but did you misunderstand my post? Under the law in question, many corporations were free to do both, including coming right out and endorsing a candidate. Others were suppressed. That was part of the issue addressed by the court.

Of course, the endorsement of and campaigning for candidates has been done throughout U.S. history by corporations/companies. At least in that case no one is being mislead, since there is no pretense of non-bias.

On the other hand, "reporting on candidates" in many cases serves the same purpose, except many people are being mislead by a pretense of non-bias, so is much more dangerous in my view, but still protected by the First Amendment.

 

[BobG]

Maine is very rural, with poor access to cable, and satellite TV is priced beyond the reach of most of our citizens, so broadcast TV is very important to us. Unfortunately, corporations can now block all citizens groups from the air-waves with a minimal investment. When you figure how much power 100 senators have, and that even sparsely-populated rural states like Maine have two, you can see what a ripe target our senatorial races will be. Olympia Snowe has come out firmly against the SCOTUS decision, and for good reason. As a moderate in the GOP, she is a prime target for the neo-cons.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to not run the ads. Running the ads costs money, plus disclosure of who paid for the ads was upheld by the SCOTUS. They could suffer some bad PR for attacking an incumbent politician that at least 50% of the people liked at one time.

They should just threaten to blanket the airwaves with anti-Snowe ads (preferably in private to save face for both them and the Senator). With the threat of eminent defeat, maybe she'd change her vote(s) to save her job. The corporation could get the desired effect without having to pay out any money and without any backlash for interfering in a Senate race. There's no disclosure necessary if the ad never runs.

 

[Skyhunter]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to not run the ads. Running the ads costs money, plus disclosure of who paid for the ads was upheld by the SCOTUS. They could suffer some bad PR for attacking an incumbent politician that at least 50% of the people liked at one time.

They should just threaten to blanket the airwaves with anti-Snowe ads (preferably in private to save face for both them and the Senator). With the threat of eminent defeat, maybe she'd change her vote(s) to save her job. The corporation could get the desired effect without having to pay out any money and without any backlash for interfering in a Senate race. There's no disclosure necessary if the ad never runs.

This is why I think we need to do something before the mid-terms get into full swing. It will take a cycle or two for the players to figure out how to best exploit this ruling.

I expect that Massey Coal will be very active in West Virginia this election cycle.