Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 03:35am PT
|
"Fox News, Dow Jones, CBS, ABC, New York Times Corp. and all the rest of the corporations that own media outlets are exampt from its reach. Why should these corporations be allowed unfettered ability to disseminate their views, but no other one corporation?"
Ok, I'll bite. These are PRESS corporations, which are specifically exempted by the Constitution. Their freedom to publish (in the larger sense), is fundamental to our freedom, and is why they are known as the "fourth branch of gov't".
Alright, since you planted this and repeated it over and over, now make the point that you wanted to make:
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 04:53am PT
|
It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
Which part of that do you consider "liberal rhetoric"? And, btw, look at that link, it is to an 'editorial' published in the 'Opinion' section of the paper. Editorials are what news organizations do from time-to-time, unless you're Fox News, in which case the 'news' is one continuous editorial.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: editorial
Function: noun
Date: 1830
: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 06:22am PT
|
"i've worked for corporations and found they willingly give money in exchange for hard work; i've worked for one that didn't pay very well so i asked for more, which they gave me...i was offered work from some that i didn't think paid well so i didn't work for them
sorry, fluoride, if you demand a hand-out...that's not why corporations are created; you should ask the government or a charity or a church
and corporations do give away money"
Is this a joke post??? You didn't even argue any of the points of my posts. You're just being a reactionary idiot. Where did I demand handouts?
Come at me with a real argument or don't come at me at all.
BTW, learn how to capitalize words that begin sentences...it's basic proper grammar. Otherwise it shows a Hell of a lot about you.
But thank you for spelling my handle correctly.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 07:33am PT
|
"There's a big difference between making your corporation's political opinions known via an editorial in a newspaper (i.e. the Whole Foods CEO who came out against healthcare reform), and influencing the entire political system with campaign funds that completely overwhelm those of the citizenry with far less funding sources."
see, that's the problem...these media corporations are not limited to their own editorial pages; they can use their entire papers/programs to promote an agenda under the guise of "news"...for example, abc NEWS produced an hour-long infomercial on health care reform...nyt can fill their pages with sob stories about people being cheated by insurance companies...60 minutes can take 100 hours of film and reduce it to 17 minutes of anti-insurance sound bites...michael moore can make his own propaganda and have it hyped on access hollywood, mtv, and the today show
here's the inside story from the horse's mouth:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/apeterson/2010/01/25/my-date-with-hillary-and-history-by-alan-peterson/#more-300566
fluoride asks Jan 26, 2010 - 03:22am PT:
"Where did I demand handouts?"
fluoride said jan. 25, 2010 6:36 am pt
"Better yet, argue with me that corporations are "giving me money" cause they are not. Where's mine?? Seriously, where's my money under your arguement?"
fluoride said Jan 26, 2010 - 03:22am PT:
"You didn't even argue any of the points of my posts. You're just being a reactionary idiot."
fluoride said Jan 26, 2010 - 03:22am PT:
"BTW, learn how to capitalize words that begin sentences...it's basic proper grammar. Otherwise it shows a Hell of a lot about you."
"I've yet tp participate in a union election, whether it be of officers or organizing a workplace that was not secret ballot."
don't you guys read anything except st? just google "card check bill"
it seems most of us agree that mccain-feingold was a bad bill since it gave the government the power to ban books and movies because of political content (according to the government's own lawyer, this would include a 500-page book with a single sentence supporting one side of a specific political issue)...most of us probably were not aware of m-f's reach...now that we know, isn't it a good thing that this law was overturned? just imagine if evil repubs like bush and cheney had such power...oops, they did have it but interestingly, m-f was never challenged...also, keep in mind that scotus' ruling kept in place all limits on direct corp donations to candidates
your hysteria reveals a strange disconnect...you claim the democratic process will be lost forever; however, you seem to believe your own votes are immune to corp influence (barry outpaced mccain in corp donations and aig was his biggest donor)...are you so arrogant/elitist to think the rest of us can't think for ourselves because we have different opinions? what about all those people who voted for barry as a result of his corp-financed campaign? were their votes misguided? what influence have corps had on these voters in the last year to make so many of them now vote against him in states he carried handily (nj, va, ma) despite near constant railing against these same corps by barry's all-star team (including the media)?
here's your answer: the media landscape has changed drastically...it is now routine for bloggers working from home while wearing pajamas and watching the kids to scoop the major media and to conduct far more rigorous investigations...americans were once subject to the views of the msm; cable/satellite changed that, providing a more global and balanced perspective; now we have free and instant access to even more resources...many years before m-f there would have been a stronger case for m-f; now? not so much
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 10:07am PT
|
" (barry outpaced mccain in corp donations and aig was his biggest donor)...are you so arrogant/elitist to think the rest of us can't think for ourselves because we have different opinions? what about all those people who voted for barry as a result of his corp-financed campaign?"
or...
"On Wednesday, the Obama campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission that it collected $36 million in January — $4 million more than campaign officials had previously estimated — an unprecedented feat for a single month in American politics that was powered overwhelmingly by small online donations"
Bookworm, you repeat the same nonsense over and over and over. Yes, Obama took donations from big corporations, as does every politician in America.
However, what was so remarkable about the Obama campaign was the number of small donations..the biggest in history. Is that fact really so hard to grasp?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 10:50am PT
|
"However, what was so remarkable about the Obama campaign was the number of small donations..the biggest in history. Is that fact really so hard to grasp?"
i get it, but the hysteria on the thread is about corp money (which barry received more of than mccain)...now, why the hysteria when recent elections (barry, or course, and brown over $1 mil in 24 hours) have proven the potential for small individual donations and grass roots efforts to turn the tide?
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 10:54am PT
|
When the state is bought and sold to the higest bidder..
none of us Americans can expect anything less than what we get for our statesmen and stateswomen.
you can expect the dumming down of the population to continue..
you can expect big corporate money in every election, every office, and every decision made by those who have been bought....
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 11:38am PT
|
"you can expect big corporate money in every election, every office, and every decision made by those who have been bought...."
maybe so, but can they really buy enough votes to control the government? again i point to brown in mass...talk about an election juggernaut: the kennedy name, kennedy's signature legislative initiative, one of the most dem states in the nation, more money (private and corp) to the dem candidate, the msm incessantly touting the dem issues
what about nj and va, which saw 20-30 point swings since barry's election? you think that was detemined by corp money? prove it...no, those elections were determined primarily by the people--people you despise perhaps, but people nonetheless
do you really think the american people (yourselves excluded, of course) are so stupid they can't see when they've made an electoral mistake? how do you explain 1980, 1992, 1994, 2006? i agree the process is not as speedy as i might like (another 3 years of barry?!), but the slowness of the process is intentional to prevent the chaos of athens
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:12pm PT
|
Ken M,
You state:" Ok, I'll bite. These are PRESS corporations, which are specifically exempted by the Constitution. Their freedom to publish (in the larger sense), is fundamental to our freedom, and is why they are known as the "fourth branch of gov't".
Alright, since you planted this and repeated it over and over, now make the point that you wanted to make:"
My point is that no one questions that corporations possess this constitutional right (freedom of the press), yet they persist in arguing that corporations cannot possess any constitutional rights. Which is it?
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:27pm PT
|
"My point is that no one questions that corporations possess this constitutional right (freedom of the press), yet they persist in arguing that corporations cannot possess any constitutional rights. Which is it?"
Reposting my answer from yesterday:
Uh, no, John, I'm not suggesting that at all. There's a big difference between making your corporation's political opinions known via an editorial in a newspaper (i.e. the Whole Foods CEO who came out against healthcare reform), and influencing the entire political system with campaign funds that completely overwhelm those of the citizenry with far less funding sources.
John, do you believe that there is a problem with the level of influence that corporations (or labor groups) have on the US political system, specifically, the election process?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:31pm PT
|
You seem to have your political beliefs nailed down pretty good.
That's why it seems odd to me you of all people would be concerned that your views may be altered by corporate spending.
Let them spend all the money they want, just don't let yourself be bullshitted and you'll be fine.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 12:49pm PT
|
Thanks, apogee. I'll refine my answer (then shut up for the rest of the day, because I (thankfully) have a ton of billable work to do).
Yes (in a word).
I believe the real problem with political campaigns in this country is with voters whose only information [sic] comes from television. I find most television political ads, particularly those involving California initiatives, misleading at best. Most newscasts are little more than soundbites. Most people would find a transcript of a typical TV news broadcast startlingly skeletal.
In this atmosphere, it's too easy for me to believe that most voters have little clue of the real issues upon which they're voting, so they can be swayed by the sheer volume of political ads. This is a very long-winded way of saying why I think we have a problem.
My solution, though, comes from my diagnosis of the problem. Most voters don't have too much information. They have too much bad information and too little relevant information. If the press would do its job and objectively and critically examine the arguments of all sides, this could change, but I don't see television news, or the press in general (WSJ and often NYT and Washington Post to the contrary notwithstanding) doing this.
Fox News knows how to criticize the left, but without equally critical evaluation of the right, they're useless in providing voters any objective information. Sad to say, Larry King is just the mirror image of Fox.
In this situation, limits on corporate spending for media messages won't work because (1)A majority of the Supremes find it unconstitutional, and (2) a better remedy exists, viz. more good information. How dare the media corporations decry this decision! They hold the key to solving the problem, but would rather sit by and enjoy their McCain-Feingold monopoly on constitutional rights. How effective do you think media advertising would be if all the news shows routinely and fairly dissected those ads? Of course, if the media corporations did so, they'd be killing their goose laying golden eggs, so don't hold your breath.
In the meantime, I'll continue preaching (I'm sure everyone else on this thread would add "ad nauseum") that people should get their information in print, and be skeptical not only of those with whom they disagree, but those with whom they agree. My First Amendment prof in law school, the late Mel Nimmer (who successfully argued the Cohen case [upholding the right of Mr. Cohen to wear a jacket that said "F*ck the Draft" in the LA courthouse] before the U.S. Supreme Court) would always repeat this mantra: "The cure for bad speech is more speech."
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 01:13pm PT
|
You seem to have your political beliefs nailed down pretty good.
That's why it seems odd to me you of all people would be concerned that your views may be altered by corporate spending.
Let them spend all the money they want, just don't let yourself be bullshitted and you'll be fine.
What kind of foolishness is that? Just because 15% of the population might be independently informed about politics doesn't mean billions of dollars can buy a 51% vote of people who believe what they hear on TV, particularly when they hire focus groups and premiere ad agencies to know exactly what lies the most people will believe.
It doesn't matter what you believe if billions are spend to get others to believe otherwise
PEace
karl
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 01:22pm PT
|
So you're smart enough not to buy the bullsh#t, but you feel most others aren't?
That's a bit of an elitist assumption, don't you think?
The answer should be more education, not more Government control.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
|
"In this situation, limits on corporate spending for media messages won't work because...(edit)(2) a better remedy exists, viz. more good information."
Thanks for that clarification, John- it's reassuring to hear that you do agree with most that there is a problem. Oftentimes these threads become so filled with reactionary posts and positions that common threads like that are completely lost.
I agree that there is a dearth of quality information available to the populace- this is complicated by the propensity for individuals to choose information sources that fit their preference for instant gratification, and alignment with their view of the world. There seems to be a lot of intellectual laziness out there on both sides of the political aisle.
The question is how to fix that- M-F was a crude, conflicted attempt to do so, and though well-intentioned, was probably doomed to fail. There is a somewhat mechanical issue of creating quality information sources and making them available, and there is a more complex cultural issue of encouraging more thoughtful consideration of issues (improvine 'intellectual laziness'). Some might argue that the former will beget the latter, but most of the time, I don't find myself particularly optimistic about that.
Suggesting that the principle of free speech will overcome all that you champion is admirable and absolute, I'll agree. The laissez-faire, idealistic view that it will do so unassisted, though, seems to to have been proven to be simply untrue. Corporate special interests seem to be acutely aware of the desire for quick soundbytes of hyperbolic information that inflames emotion and does little to truly inform, and are too happy to oblige in such a way that best serves the special interest.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 01:37pm PT
|
"You seem to have your political beliefs nailed down pretty good."
Chaz, Rox nailed it pretty damn well, I must say. And for right now, that's all I can say to you.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
|
Huh? How does a Supreme Court holding differ from law? Appellate courts always consider policy. Considering that the facts of this case involved a not-for-profit group seeking to air a clearly political film, just which side is ignoring the facts? Surely this case had facts at least as compelling for vindicating free speech as New York Times v. Sullivan.
John, two points:
First, I know full well that a Sup.Ct. decision is law. My point was, they ignored a substantial amount of precedent to arrive at what I assumed to be a preordained conclusion. EJ Dionne, a journalist with the WSJ (hardly a liberal publication) commented following the decision that, although Roberts described his duties during his confirmation as calling balls and strikes, with this decision Roberts essentially ignored precedent and just made up a new set of rules. A pretty apt summary.
Second, the facts of this case are nowhere near as compelling as NY Times. The very fact that you said that shows how entrenched you are on this issue. That case involved a newspaper's right to comment about a public figure without fear of a retaliatory lawsuit. The case at bar involved the right of corporations to immerse and takeover the political process by creating the legal fiction that they are deemed persons under the First Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights even remotely creates that suggestion.
Moreover, you seem to overlook the implications of that holding by claiming that this is simply a free speech case. That's far too simple of an approach. The Court has long estabished that different types of speech are entitled to different levels of protections. Under this paradigm, politcal speech is entitled to greater protection than commercial speech. Commercial speech is less protected because the message isn't as critical to the rights of the speaker and because, given its commerical nature, the speaker has an incentive to get out his or her message in a different manner.
You fail to realize that this is in reality a commerical speech case. Corporations are money generating entities. Board members have a fundamental duty to their shareholders--to increase the value of their shares. Period. While the speech discussed in the opinion concerning a political election, the purpose of that speech was to elect individuals who would be friendly towards the corporation(s) and their bottom line. You can lie to yourself and say that the corporation distributing the film was a little non profit, but we all know where they received their funding.
Take off your blinders man. You're smarter than that.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 03:28pm PT
|
Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a 20 minute oral judgment, dissenting from the majority. As he is 90 years old, it may be his last judgment as a justice - it is thought likely that he will retire soon. The end of his written judgment summed it up nicely:
While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.
Pretty witty for a 90 year old.
The judgment can of course easily be seen as that of a radical group, determined to make policy. Or of conservatives, hewing to real or imagined constitutional norms - bearing in mind that a main job of the court has always been to find or make policy balancing many variables. My guess is that in retrospect, it will be seen as a judgment that may be justified on narrow constitutional grounds, but that is utterly wrong for policy reasons. It throws such balance as there was away, and puts nothing in its place. So, like similar decisions in the past (Dred Scott, Plessey v Ferguson), it will soon enough be seen as so contrary to the spirit of US democracy and its constitution, and the country's values, that it won't last.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010 - 03:29pm PT
|
fattrad - Thanks for the information...
Actually the two Repub candidates for Calif Gov are essentially self financed, corporate money means nothing.
leading me to believe that they really do have all of our best interests in mind when they vote...
oh, and hey, think of how lucrative this is going to be now that Corporations can just hand over cash to the ones that vote in that corps favor?
Looks like public service if going to me more and more finacially impacting for those who seek to service their constituents!
Thanks again..
Mighty Hiker Edit: thanks mighty hiker for this:
So, like similar decisions in the past (Dred Scott, Plessey v Ferguson), it will soon enough be seen as so contrary to the spirit of US democracy and its constitution, and the country's values, that it won't last.
...it sheds some light on our future. Hopefully, this comes to pass as one of the many mistakes America has made!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!