KD confuses the issue. Therefore, I believe he is dead wrong. While he draws the logical conclusion from the starting argument, ie free speech is a fundamental right, and therefore it is only logical to afford free speech to corps, he misses the ideal that the founding fathers attempted to create.
Using the argument that unions and non profits can, and therefore corps should be able to, is a classic example of two wrongs don't make it right.
The two fundamental components of free speech are the right to petition sitting politicians and the right for anyone to run for office.
Both facets of this are fundamentally corrupted by money, which is at the heart of the matter. No where in the constitution does it say that it is permissible to either bribe a sitting legislator or to purchase a seat of government.
Yet the supreme court yesterday approved the idea that it is both legal and "constitutional" to bribe and to purchase representation.
Unions, private individuals, and corps should have freedom of speech to say whatever they want. They should have the right to petition .gov and to provide discourse on candidates.
They should NOT however, have the right to spend money, whether it is through hiring PR firms, lobbyists, purchase commercials, give money to campaigns, hire relatives and friends, etc. etc. to influence our governments.
The constitutional ideal of free speech is inherent the supposition that the process of free speech will create a majority consensus of the right path and candidate through logic and Darwinism of the "right thing to do".
The use of money, by individuals and corps, to subvert this ideal is why we are here in the first place.
It's positions like what Gen is taking that has destroyed the shining city on the hill. By supporting the Supreme Court decisions, he is allowing the ideal that a major wrong, corruption of our gov by corporate money, is okay, because others are corrupting gov by money.
Instead, I'm afraid, he indeed missed the original point, and so did the supreme court. Any money injected into the political process is wrong, and should therefore be rooted out, and not made worse.
----------
Pj
1k posts, incept 2009-12-07
Quote:
According to spirit of the 1st amendment, the SCOTUS made the right decision. They did what they are SUPPOSED to do. The problem isn't with the SCOTUS, its with some fundamental flaws in the constitution. The only RIGHT way to continue to make a "more perfect union" is by adding or repealing constitutional amendments.
Very good points. My only problem is how do we fix it without censoring political speech by corporations such as Fox, CNN, Michael Moore-type LLC's, etc...?
If Partipant Meida, LLC (with the C standing for CORPORATION) can make a two-hour political film (An Inconvenient Truth)on how man is causing Global Warming, then is it fair to Constitutionally protect their speech while muzzling a coal company or textile manufacturer who disagrees? Does Al Gore's ties to the Chicago Climate Exchange and his advocacy for Cap & Trade which would benefit this exchange nullify Particpant Media's present day speech protections with regards to this political film? Why does a coal companies profit motives move us to want to exempt them from speech protections, but Al Gore's profit motives do not?
----------
Is that clean spot on your bumper where your Obamacare sticker used to be?
Quote:
Again, I'll respectfully disagree.
A corporation is a chartered institution with recognition as a 'separate legal entity', having its own rights, liabilities, and privileges DISTINCT from those of its members.
The individuals have all the rights they need under the Constitution, the corporation itself should have none.
Should a 'corporation' have the 'right' to bear arms? I do not believe so.
Great discussion.
This. Being part of a corporation gives advantages and disadvantages to its owners. Advantages such as not being personally liable for the corporations' debts. Surely that should come with some restrictions as well.
----------
In Soviet Russia, the government regulates the banks.
Not only does a corp have the right to bear arms, it is much easier to buy a silencer under a corp, than it is to buy one as an individual.
Go figure.
----------
Quote:
Both facets of this are fundamentally corrupted by money, which is at the heart of the matter. No where in the constitution does it say that it is permissible to either bribe a sitting legislator or to purchase a seat of government.
Yet the supreme court yesterday approved the idea that it is both legal and "constitutional" to bribe and to purchase representation.
Nope - and we can draw that distinction without restricting free speech.
You may buy all the speech you want. But
no political office-holder may accept a donation - of anything - from someone he or she does not actually represent.Since the officeholder is a public employee we may set the terms of his or her employment - including how he or she may receive funds (for whatever purpose) during that employment.
This both preserves freedom of speech and yet prevents BUYING representation.
----------
"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
What I was trying to somewhat ineloquently get at last night in the other thread was my observation that speech (free or unfree) seems to do little to ensure liberty. Speech and any other natural right for that matter are in direct conflict with an entity that assumes a monopoly on authority. (I know, duh!)
Speech is somewhat unique in our system in that it has become the primary means of obtaining largess from the authority at the expense of others. The old observation that the government has nothing and can only give to one what it takes away from another.
So, I find it paradoxical that one natural right is being used by some to systematically take natural rights away from others (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, time, property, means of self defense, the right to be left alone, etc.)
Again, I have no quarrel with speech and advocate no laws to limit it. My concern is that we cannot solve the conflicts that arise with any system of authority.
----------
limit(r-->m) k(r) = b
I'm grabbing my popcorn for this because the opportunity for transparency on the influence of corporate to politics is going to be Huge, it's no longer under the table anymore! Also I believe that both left right and center are about to be blindsided by all the reprocutions of this due to monetary influence vs the moral standard. We are inching closer and closer to a true revolution and corporate warfare to the likes no one has ever seen before.
----------
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
- Mahatma Gandhi
Pablo, what you are proposing is censorship. To implement, it requires a governmental agency (bureaucracy: FEC, FCC, etc.) to decide what is allowed and not allowed.
Every person or group of people would then need to go to the government and ask 'is this film/book/blog/etc/' allowed?
What if the government agency is controlled by those with an opposing view? In that case, wouldn't the bureaucracy more likely to deny their requests?
Isn't it discriminatory to decide whether someone or a group of people can speak or not based on their identity? When you say that corporations shouldn't be able to speak freely, aren't you discriminating based on identity of a person or a group of people? Why should some corporations be prohibited from speaking based on attributes such as their balance sheet, what industry they are involved in ('big oil', 'big insurance', 'big pharma') or whether they own newspapers, etc. while other corporations such as non-profits (moveon.org, 529s, etc.) are allowed to speak?
Why should one group of people who organize one way be excluded from discourse while other groups of people who organize another way be given free reign?
Wis/min
5k posts, incept 2009-08-14
Thank you 1lumpsum.
many here are afraid of corporate free speech.
Are they as afraid of the press?
If you limit one type of free speech where do you draw the line that prevents you from limiting someone else's free speech?
So do the supreme court supporters agree that tobacco ads should come back on radio and tv? Maybe toss in some porn ads as well?
The SPIRIT and LETTER of the Constitution restricts the GOVERNMENT from muzzling ANYONE. What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is so difficult to understand? By pretending to be the arbiter of "fair play" in the marketplace of ideas by any rationalization whatsoever, CONgress violates both.
+1 on the vid, 1lump.
----------
They assume an authority which is nowhere so dangerous as in the hands of those who have folly and presumption enough to fancy themselves fit to exercise it. --Adam Smith
Striker, supporters of the SCOTUS majority are in favor of MORE FREE SPEECH. The alternative is censorship, because it requires that the government decide what is and what is not permissible. Absent the resurrection of King Solomon, my preference is for fewer limits, not more.
Quote:
This doesn't change the fact that people who don't represent me still make decisions that affect me.
So what?
You have representatives in Congress. They are your voice. Elect them well.
----------
"Anyone wearing a mask will be presumed to be intending armed robbery and immediately shot in the face. Govern yourself accordingly."
Jstanley,
Why isn't obscene speech protected? Hate speech? You make the assumption that Amendment 1 is absolute. It's not. The spirit and letter of the Bill of Rights was for the people.
I defend the right of SEIU, as well as GE, to develop and write postion papers all day long on ideas and problems that interest them.
I reject outright, the idea that any entity spend money to promote those ideas. If they are good enough, then those ideas will gain traction with the people and free speech wins. If they aren't good enough, then those ideas will fall away, and free speed wins.
How can anyone argue that spending money improves discourse? The only thing that money does is to artifically influence behavior. The more money, the more behavior is influenced. The folks with the most money have the loudest voices and the ability to overwhelm and "shout down" those they disagree with. If 1000 people believe that TARP is fundamentally wrong and spend one dollar to send a letter to congress, and one company thinks TARP is the cat's meow and spends $10,000 to hire a single lobbiest, how is that free speech?
This is the core concept of freedom of speech. I've looked again and no where does it say that anyone has the right to be able to "shout down" others.
I remember the disappoint of all here when TARP passed, contrary to the will of the people. Why did it pass? Because of the confusion of "corporate free speech" folks have here.
----------
Should Chinese corporations be allowed to make political ads too?
----------
Print the money and give it to the people.
100% agree w/ Gen. Unfettered free speech by individuals, corporations, unions, Pro-Life groups, NARAL, etc. Free speech with full disclosure. Besides, unlimited partisan speech has always been allowed corporations...when those corporations are the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc...
Voters can comprehend when big monied interests are attempting to lead them by the nose... whether those big interests are Exxon or the Boston Globe. Heavy-handed attempts to beat people over the head on who they should vote for can backfire - as was seen Tuesday in Massachusetts. I trust voters to be able to see who's behind advertising and adjust their opinions accordingly.
This was a great victory for the constitution over micro-managin do-gooders. the noble aims of the micro-managing do-gooders does not justify their prescribed limits on free speech.
Striker754: The subject is political speech.
Pabloescobar: The premise that if you throw enough money at promoting an idea that it will be accepted is flawed.
CONgress relies on the misperception to rationalize playing nanny, as if they could legislate away the need for critical thinking skills that life requires at every turn.
----------
They assume an authority which is nowhere so dangerous as in the hands of those who have folly and presumption enough to fancy themselves fit to exercise it. --Adam Smith
RSS available