While I've disagreed with the Gen on this issue, I am very glad to read this almost 300 post discourse.....

As it is clear, this isn't a dem vs republican issue. This isn't a right vs left issue.

I've been shocked as I brought this decision up in public yesterday to folks who should have been clueless, who knew about the decision and had an opinion....

To me, the discourse is GREAT! Agree or disagree, the mere fact that peeps are discussing and debating is the best thing ever.

This is what the republic needs. Debate about the goodness or badness of an issue, and not partisan with me or against me the way so many issues have devolved over time....

And the fact that there isn't an echo chamber here should give joy, even to those who think Gen is flat out wrong, me included, because who in the hell wants to talk to themselves over and over?

Kudo's to all!

----------

Quote:

I support neither. I have no opinion on "entertainment". I have the ability to formulate my own opinions on what is spin and what is fact.

Then you should support wide open freedom of speech because you have the ability to sort out the B.S.

Freedom of speech and press has never been construed as an absolute, not even close, and thus there are a shitload of exceptions to this doctrine:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v....

In the spirit of the above limitations, limiting the scope of corporate speech, especially multinational corporate speech, would be of no great loss to the Republic, nor does the slippery slope argument carry much weight; and, btw, would be entirely consistent with the views of the Patron Saint of Capitalism himself, Adam Smith, who contrary to popular myth was no fan of corporate power.

Nothing was stopping Lloyd Blankfein from spending as much of HIS OWN money, earned from his corporate position, on whatever political issue that rocks his boat. Nothing was stopping anyone at Goldman Sachs from spending every penny they have on political speech also. Nothing was stopping any of them from banding together and forming a PAC either. So how the hell was their free speech being abridged by being corporate employees under McCain/Feingold? It wasn't.(that's not an endorsement of McCain/Feingold on my part either, but that's beside the point).

I don't feel a bit sorry for the BIG corps, and I'm sure the vast majority of Americans don't either. Christ, they get tens of millions of ready made employees trained at taxpayer expense (government schools). There's one big reason among others why giant corps are generally behind the standardized mega-state leviathan--read; fuckin tax and spend liberal, except for themselves, of course .

As a practical matter, however, I don't think the SCOTUS decision will have much of an impact when it's all said and done. There were holes big enough in the McCain/Feingold legislation to drive a small size planet through. All the decision accomplished was to put a philosophical semantic stamp of approval on what was already being practiced to begin with. The metaphorical dogs and tails are still in their respective places. Enjoy your slavery.

It's scary how much people don't believe in freedom anymore. I just got into an an argument with my sister who wants me to join the "Petition to get "Fuck The Troops" kicked off face book" group.

During the course of the discussion she replied, "the freedom of speech does not cover hate speech". She's a conservative christian BTW, and doesn't see how advancing this idea might negatively impact her.

It boggles my mind that some people will happily construct their own prison cell, walk inside and then be shocked and angry when they get locked in.

Quote:

Quote:


I support neither. I have no opinion on "entertainment". I have the ability to formulate my own opinions on what is spin and what is fact.

Then you should support wide open freedom of speech because you have the ability to sort out the B.S.

WRONG again Wis/Mn......I dont share the confidence you have on the high intelligence of the American people....
Not to sound elitist or anything, but I dont consider myself a mouth breathing NASCAR/NFL/NBA fan who traipses thru life sucking down Budweiser's while constantly saying: Git er done...

I would say, 70% of the American population cant recognize a typical "informercial" on TV today from a REAL news show (whatever that is)....your argument just gives the wolves more fresh meat with which to further deceive these poor clowns....

Your arguments are getting stale and your premise is wrong ..... and you know it in your heart.

BTW in your sig line under your username you have incorrectly spelled "BORDER"...Fix that will ya, it smacks of under education for Constitutional Scholar and defender of freedom such as yourself

----------

Paying other people interest to borrow money from ourselves that we don't have...... Asimov

It is quite possible that ALL debt in FRB with fiat currency is insoluble

I'm finding my opinion on this issue changing. At first I was mortified, but then realized that it really does say "congress shall make no law.." not "the people have the right.."

I still don't like it, but it may be constitutionally correct.

Anytime Karl and Glenn Greenwald agree on something it's worth listening to them.

http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gree....

Bear, I'd rather not get into a pissing contest with you but you have declared your self among "the elite" by your own admission though that is probably unintended and have qualified yourself as able to judge what speech is permitted and what is not.

If my premise is I believe in free speech unencumbered by the government, then I am guilty as charged.

BTW-thank for the catch on my sig line. Spell check strikes again.

The Geenwald article pretty much is in line with my view on the practical effects of the decision. He's incorrect, however, regarding his view that Congress cannot limit speech, as the link I provided above illustrates.

The case involved the Federal Elections Commission blocking ads for a movie opposing Hillary Clinton. The movie died as a result.

I can't believe anyone, left or right, would support what the FEC did. That is censorship, plain and simple. Front Page has a good interview with Ilya Shapiro on how this ruling is a victory for free speech:

The New York Times despairs this morning that the decision is a blow for democracy that paves the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections. Is there any merit to the objection that the courts ruling will distort democracy by empowering corporations while diminishing the voice of regular citizens?

Shapiro: I think the concern about corporations is misplaced. Most corporations are not Exxon. They are smaller companies or non-profits. With the disclosure rules that are in place, voters will still be able to judge which candidate is in the pocket of some corporation, whether its the ACLU or the Sierra Club, or the Cato Institute for that matter. We still have laws in place going back to 1907 that prevent direct contributions to candidates.

To the extent that there has been a diminution in the publics faith in the democratic process, the government is probably more to blame than the corporations. Earmarks, special tax breaks, the dispersal of government goodies and baddies these types of actions harm democracy much more. McCain Feingold was never about regular citizens. It was a creature of the Beltway. There was no great call from the hinterland to get money out of politics.

I dont think democracy will be diminished as a result of the ruling. What we could see is more ads like the Swift Boats ads during the 2004 presidential campaign or the Hillary movie. But the way the law stood, some government bureaucrat could have simply banned books that were critical of a political candidate in an election year. That would have been far worse.


FP: In part, there is a partisan argument here. Democrats complain that if you make it easier for corporations t o spend money in political campaigns, you empower Republicans, since the Left considers corporations and Republicans natural allies.

Shapiro: I think that argument is laughable. Its not at all clear which party would benefit from this ruling. Corporations are highly strategic about what they do with their money. Its because they want political influence that they donate money to both parties. Goldman Sachs gave more money to Barack Obama than to any other candidate in the last election cycle. They were the number-one donor to his campaign. You could go down the list of Fortune 500 companies and find similar contributions. So when Obama rails that this ruling will help Wall Street, its a little rich. He set the record for donors from big companies.

FP: Another common claim among critics of the ruling is that corporations dont deserve the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

Shapiro: No one is saying that corporations are human beings. But corporations are groups of private individuals who have legal rights. Take Front Page magazine. Its not an individual. But the government cant raid your office and just seize your computer. That would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, corporations have First Amendment rights. Think of it this way: George Soros can spend as much as he wants in an election, but if you and a hundred other people get together to spend your money, suddenly, that cant work. Individuals dont lose their rights just because they come together to magnify the effects of their donations.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/22/a-vic....

Greewald lost me when he began immediately ranting about the Bush administration and wireless wire taps.

There is no reason to read further.

Quote:

I read Scalia opinions as a hobby.

I have found myself disagreeing with a SCOTUS opinion in the past, only to read Scalia's opinion and suddenly realize my first assessment was obviously wrong.

One has to ask, despite the wrangling about corporations vs individuals, what did we really 'lose' here? McCain-Feingold didn't work. Period.

Corporations just circumvented the law, and in reality, made more efficient means of acquiring campaign funds with PACs and Committees and such and distributing the money amongst their anointed officials. All this did was obfuscate where the money was really coming from. The whole point of the legislation was therefore defeated....as is typical of what normally happens when rights are infringed. People have a way of finding a way around the infringement.

What has changed? Walmart looks great, but **ck all the US corporations. I would rather drink milk from China than donate money to support political agenda of US corporation. When I buy a US product, I am committing political suicide by stuffing their political coffers. This is good enough reason for me to boycott everything made in US.

----------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc9xhAM8W.... ♫ Play me! ♫

"bums collecting pop bottles from dumpsters do more than the top does" -- Hypertiger

My Hero, Bear wrote..

WRONG again Wis/Mn......I dont share the confidence you have on the high intelligence of the American people....
Not to sound elitist or anything, but I dont consider myself a mouth breathing NASCAR/NFL/NBA fan who traipses thru life sucking down Budweiser's while constantly saying: Git er done...

I would say, 70% of the American population cant recognize a typical "informercial" on TV today from a REAL news show (whatever that is)....your argument just gives the wolves more fresh meat with which to further deceive these poor clowns....

Your arguments are getting stale and your premise is wrong ..... and you know it in your heart.

BTW in your sig line under your username you have incorrectly spelled "BORDER"...Fix that will ya, it smacks of under education for Constitutional Scholar and defender of freedom such as yourself

You blew that bitch up. Got 'er done fer shure!

----------

Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do - Voltaire

Quote:

I'd make the distinction that if a corporation is PURELY media ie newspaper, television, radio, online news/blog, then it is The Press.

If however said tv station is owned by a ginormous multinational conglomerate, then it is not The Press.

So if Goldman Sachs BUYS a film making LLC and makes films supporting themselves, then that is not the press.

If employees OF Goldman Sachs create a seperate company that makes a film supporting Goldman Sachs using their own personal money, that is the press.

Joe-Bob, I think your reasoning above is fair and logical, however it is also the loophole the corporations could, and many would, use to get their message out.

And that would make these 13 pages pretty much moot.

----------

Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?

You folks arguing the "non-personhood" of corporations miss the point.

The First Amendment doesn't read "The right of persons to speak freely shall not be infringed." (paraphrasing the second amendment into the first)

It reads:

First Amendment wrote..

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.

Nowhere does it say that only PEOPLE may have freedom of speech. It says that Congress may not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech OR (not and) the press.

Therefore all entities in The United States are entitled to freedom of speech - irrespective of who or what they are.

If you disagree with The Constitution you amend it - you don't come up with twisted BS to try to justify abrogating the black letter law therein.

Again: The test of whether someone truly supports The Constitution is not whether they like what happens when it is applied to positions they agree with. It is whether they will support it when the conclusions reached are contrary to what they would prefer.

----------

What is hard for many to comprehend, however, is 1) did the FF truly mean how this court interpreted it, and, if so, how do we know that since it took until yesterday for SCOTUS to figure it out and 2) had they foreseen the heavy influence of corporate money on politics would they have been more specific to in-or exclude corps?

Frankly, had they been able to foresee how many corporations exist with absolutely ZERO regard for anything but their bottom line, it's hard to believe they would not have addressed it.

----------

Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do - Voltaire

After a few days to cool down, I see it as Scalia described: Speech, not Speaker. And by that very logical and astute observation this ruling followed the Constitution to the letter, it just took an absence of emotion for me to see it.

----------

Carbon is a whore.

Clearly the founding fathers DID intend The First Amendment to apply to CORPORATE entities.

Indeed, much of the speech of the period WAS by other-than-singular-persons. Most newspapers were (even then) corporate entities in some form or fashion - that is, whether formally incorporated or not, they were more than one person with a printing press.

Second, the purchase of amplifiers (in the colonial times) was in fact common too - people posted handbills on trees, which they paid someone (with a printing press) to reproduce so they didn't have to hand-write each one. Again, corporations (in some form or fashion) were involved.

As for business influence in politics, my God, please do some reading. The banksters of the time were a BIG part of how the revolution happened in the first place, and they weren't singular people - they were corporate entities! It was so blatant that not long AFTER the revolution the banksters in fact sent "emissaries" over to the newly-founded USA to BRIBE Congress - literally.

Money and politics are nothing new, and neither is the corrupting influence thereof. It is as old as politics itself. The First Amendment's beauty is that it provides ANYONE with the right to speak.

The Internet has changed much of the corporate hierarchy. If you wanted to run a political piece critical of some candidate 30 years ago and didn't have the COOPERATION of the corporate media you were FUCKED. Today you can start a blog, put it on Youtube, or whatever - all for small money compared to what it used to cost.

Youtube videos get hundreds of thousands or even MILLIONS of views and yet the software to produce high-quality professional-grade material suitable for that medium can be bought by anyone for a few hundred dollars and will run (slowly, but it will run) on a few-hundred dollar personal computer. Such capability was limited to those with literal MILLIONS just a few years ago.

----------

@Ads (If I'm not on your ignore),

The FFs were against restricting political speech and didn't see any need for Congress to regulate who was talking or what was said for obvious reasons.

Just because something takes a while for the SCOTUS to figure out doesn't necessarily call into question its validity.

All this did was jettison the practice of having favored institutions being exempt from a blanket restriction on free speech. Corps have been able to lobby and fund campaigns since their origin. All that happened is the restrictions got lifted and the Congressionally sponsored monopoly was broken.

The apoplectic panic in the Left is predictable and understandable.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

OK, then I'll grant you everything you just stated. That being the case, then why do you feel politicians should not be allowed to receive funds from anyone but their constituents? Doesn't that contradict the argument? Is there a constitutional basis for that?

And, finally, do you truly believe this ruling is for the betterment of our country? (And, yes, I know that doesn't matter, but I'm looking for your opinion.)

----------

Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do - Voltaire

Like I said I agree with the ruling on its merits. However, I disagree with corporate personhood.

On a side note, I hope when a Second Amendment case like this show up in the SCOTUS that they rule similarly.

Quote:

OK, then I'll grant you everything you just stated. That being the case, then why do you feel politicians should not be allowed to receive funds from anyone but their constituents? Doesn't that contradict the argument? Is there a constitutional basis for that?

No. A politician is an employee of the people. We thus can set the terms of his or her employment, and among them can be how he is compensated as a consequence of that employment.

The purpose of electing representatives is to have them be OUR voice in the government. We do not live in a democracy - we live in a representative republic. As such strengthening the bond between the represented and the representer by forbidding the politician from funding his or her campaigns with other than monies from the represented is entirely reasonable - and again, this is as a term of employment (which we have a right to set.)

We have no say over what he charges as a speaking fee once he leaves office, for example, but while in office we can bar people from paying him to speak during his or her employment as a condition of his or her job.

Quote:

And, finally, do you truly believe this ruling is for the betterment of our country?

Yes.

----------

Thanks for taking to time to explain further.

One final question: by what standards will you determine if this ruling has, in fact, been better for We, The People, and not, Them The Corporations?

----------

Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do - Voltaire

Here is the acid test to see if any of the caterwauling defenders of uncorruped American liberty are really serious about their position, or are just flacks that want the other side to be silenced while their position enjoys Congressional approval:

Resolve - Term limits on all members of Congress and the Senate shall be imposed.

Constitutional Amendment - "Lifetime membership in the House of Representatives shall be limited to no longer than thirty-six months. Lifetime membership in the Senate shall be limited to no longer than one hundred-eight months."

That ends the corporate corruption right there. Every two years, all these EEEVILLLLLLL corporations would have to corrupt an entirely new set of politicians, and all the politicians would have to fight for all the corruption money, with no sense of where they stand in the Congressional pecking order until it is too late.

No longer could you buy some asshat as he is elected to the Senate in 1962 and own his fat ass until he assumes room temperature in the summer of 2009, or is too ashamed to run for reelection because he is named the most corrupt member of Congress (and he is holding down his drunken daddy's seat).

This would force Congress to live in the house they built and would keep the "will of the people" fresh in the halls of Congress.

For all of you who are decrying this USSC decision, what say you about limiting the terms of the reps so as to obviate the entire notion that EEEEVVILLLLLLL corporations can buy the Congress?

I know the response. I'll get some pap about "the will of the people" to be represented by who they see fit, or --->>

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

This was a radical decision. Laws on the books restricting corporate speech in over two dozen states, some going back 100 years, are now going to have to be reconsidered or thrown out altogether. To overturn the applecart like this strikes me as neither responsible nor conservative in my view. Kennedy, Roberts and Scalia must think that all the justices before them were misguided or moronic for not seeing what they see. This makes me question their judgment.

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

The Constitution and its enumeration of the rights of the people and the limitations on the government is a "radical" document.

It's good that we(through the court) have returned part of it back towards its intentions.