Freedom Of Speech: How Quaint
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"; those get you blocked as a spammer), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2010-01-22 09:32 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 382 references Ignore this thread
Freedom Of Speech: How Quaint *
Category thumbnail

I'm probably going to draw a lot of fire for this, but I believe the US Supreme Court made the right decision yesterday:

WASHINGTONA divided Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on corporate political expenditures, potentially reshaping the 2010 election landscape by permitting businesses and unions to spend freely on commercials for or against candidates.

President Barack Obama attacked the ruling and said it gave "a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," particularly "big oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and the other powerful interests" that "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He pledged to work with lawmakers to craft a "forceful response."

What sort of "forceful response" might that be?  The use of force (that is, the government's stash of guns), right?  "Do as we say, or we (maybe literally) shoot you!"


Let me make my viewpoint clear on this, lest a whole swarm of lemmings start trying to put words in my mouth:

  • "Congress shall make no law.... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" - This is very clear.  Laws restricting speech are unconstitutional.  Period.

  • Money is not speech.  However, money buys amplifiers in all of their forms.  If you stand on a street corner and talk, people within 10 feet can hear you.  If you buy a $2 megaphone people within 30 feet - in front of you - can hear you.  If you buy a $100 powered megaphone, people can hear you to a range of perhaps 100'.

  • So long as I don't drown out other people's ability to speak and be heard I should be able to buy and use as big an amplifier as I would like (and can afford.)  This is the old libertarian (little "L") principle: I can swing my arms around all I want so long as my fist does not connect with your nose.

As a consequence if you honor the black-letter law as expressed in The First Amendment, you are led to the inescapable conclusion that The US Supreme Court came to the correct decision - whether it is personally distasteful or not.

The true test of whether you believe in liberties and rights is not whether you support them when they coincide with what you'd like to see happen - it is whether you support them when they are adverse to what you would prefer.

But with that said, I do believe there is a serious problem with campaigns and politicians - and corruption thereof.

And here, I have a solution.

Public employees - that is, politicians - should not be able to receive a campaign donation (in any form) from anyone except an actual constituent - that is, someone who is qualified and registered to vote in their district or state.

Let the corporations (and individuals), along with PACs, Unions and others buy all the issue and even candidate ads they want - so long as they honestly identify who is funding the speech in question.

But bar all public employees from receiving any campaign contribution from anyone other than a natural person who is registered to vote in the area represented by that particular politician, with violators subject to felony prosecution.  If such an act is traced to a corporation the firm's charter is revoked.

Isn't it funny how we never address the actual problem - the fact that candidates have huge war chests funded by corporations (directly and indirectly) and instead try to focus on trying to restrict people's desire to speak - a right that is guaranteed under our Constitution?

Solve the problem instead of allowing politicians to play Kabuki Theater with this (very legitimate) issue.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

No Comments Yet.....
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 380  First123456789Last
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 380  First123456789Last