Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:33pm PT
|
While corporations have been taking a lot of flack here, let me make it clear that I am no happier about unions, 527s, or any of the other host of special interest groups corrupting our elections.
I do check the donate to elections box on my tax return. In fact I'd happily donate $20/yr to publicly fund elections.
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
Across Town From Easy Street
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:34pm PT
|
I find this so disheartening.
But then another side suggests that we welcome the greed implosion. Better now, and maybe we will get smart, than to stretch it out over the next twenty years in slow complete exhaustion of all resources. Like some John Pitre painting...
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
|
Since the choice was between allowing corporations to spend their money in the way they see as most fit, and banning the screening of movies because of political content, I'd have to say the Supereme Court made the right call.
The Obama Attorney didn't help his case any when he said if the banned movie in question were a book, he'd ban it too.
If you guys are all for banning books and movies, then go ahead and call the Court a sickening sellout.
I think banning movies is what's sickening.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 11:10pm PT
|
It's interesting watching the reactions of the ST Repugs to this issue. There is the informed opinion end of the spectrum like JE, who, though I disagree with him, I feel relatively confident that he understands some of the true legal underpinnings of the issue.
And then there's the other end of the spectrum, who clearly don't have a technical legal understanding, and fall back on the standard Repug talking points, making statements like 'what part of .... don't you understand?'. The droids are making themselves quite evident on this one.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 11:29pm PT
|
Interesting article Jeremy. Thanks for posting. Scary that even Fortune Magazine sees this for what it is.
Great paragraph from that article:
In this case the Court went far out of its way to address a question nobody had asked -- and to create a constitutional right where none is indicated. "Essentially," Justice Stevens noted, "five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." When liberals do such a thing -- and they did so repeatedly in the 1960s and '70s on issues like abortion -- conservatives hollered "judicial activism!" When conservatives do it now, they squeal about "vindicating constitutional rights." By any other name, that's hypocrisy -- and it allows the public to cynically conclude the court is just another political branch of government, except one that's unelected and unaccountable.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 11:34pm PT
|
Since it's clear that my only climbing this weekend will be in the gym, I'll rejoin the debate.
franky, you're close to guessing what I think (not that this is something difficult to do), but I strongly support laws requiring disclosure of all campaign contributions. I would also like to see New York Times v. Sullivan overruled. Right now it's too easy to defame those running for public office with impunity.
As a matter of intellectual honesty, however, I don't see how restricting the content of speech -- and particularly doing so becausethat speech is political in nature -- can coexist with the First Amendment.
John
P.S. I never considered Fortune to be particularly pro-business. It's too close to Time magazine for my taste.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 12:40am PT
|
"P.S. I never considered Fortune to be particularly pro-business"
Yeah that damned Liberal media is just everywhere these days. Thank God we can still get fair and balanced news on Fox.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 12:51am PT
|
I must admit that about 10 years ago, McCain seemed seriously concerned about the sorry state of American Democracy. And if he had shown anything approaching that concern during the last election he would have had my complete respect.
Instead, we got to witness an embarrassing capitulation to the very worst elements of the Republican party.
PS. Got any good stock tips Fatty, you're the best contrarian indicator out there.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 01:01am PT
|
He's always been the same sorry SOB.
You just allowed your perception of him to be manipulated by the Pros.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 01:06am PT
|
Thanks for setting me straight on that Chaz...please keep me informed with your arrow sharp insights and pearls of wisdom.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 01:12am PT
|
"I don't see how restricting the content of speech -- and particularly doing so becausethat speech is political in nature -- can coexist with the First Amendment."
John, the Founding Fathers could have never foreseen the level of corporat-ocracy that exists in this country today. Within the context of politics, the concept of 'free speech' seems clearly intended to protect the voices of the citizenry as a means of representation in their government.
Corporations may be comprised of individuals, but their motive is simple: profit and growth. Individuals banded together, in something of a communal or socialist manner (tongue-in-cheek), these corporations are every bit as powerful and overwhelming of the citizenry as the British government was at the time of formation of the US.
Again, somewhere between your idealistic view of the concept of free speech, and the opposing controlling view, there must be a practical compromise. Your idealism of this issue simply seems out of touch with the realities of our political system today, &/or you have a strong vested interest in the ability of corporations to influence the political system for their own benefit (and to the detriment of individual citizens). Please explain.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 02:43am PT
|
Plain and simple: all people are equal, but those "people" with more money are more equal than others.
apologies to G.O.
|
|
kirra
climber
Golden
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 03:37am PT
|
I've been very concerned about this issue- Thanx FatDad
the original concepts of our 1st admendment & constitutional groundwork is being miss-and-overly interpreted by buttheads. As a Fortune article quoted "the court is just another political branch of government, except one that's unelected and unaccountable." Justice Kennedy seems to be having too many powerlunches lately
NYT - "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution"....The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
Hahahahaha - yeah right..?!?!?!
Fortune - "Congress has passed bipartisan legislation dating to the Gilded Age that has curbed corporate spending in the political arena. And since corporations are merely creatures of legislation -- established only to make money for shareholders rather than to be deep-pocketed actors in electoral politics -- it then follows that legislators can regulate corporations, including on matters relating to speech."
IMO only those entitled to vote should be alowed to $$$ support a candidate. Maybe someday the justices will also allow a corporation over 18 to cast a ballot
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 03:45am PT
|
Apogee, thanks for your very kind words earlier. I guess I am idealistic on free speech. I cannot see how allowing the government to limit the content of political speech is anything but political censorship and a giant step toward tyranny.
Let's review the decision. Citizens United, the plaintiff, was a group that produced a 90-minute "documentary" (in the Michael Moore sense of the word) that was shrilly critical of Hillary Clinton. It wanted to air that screed during the primary season, and ran afoul of McCain-Feingold because it was an incorporated association, and therefore prohibited from doing so. The court majority found this restriction to be an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.
Anti-corporatists are going crazy because they would love to use the elctoral process to tax, take over, or otherwise cause grief for the corporations they so despise. Allowing the objects of their political hatred to fight back obviously makes that job harder. That's all this is about. The anti-corporatists' idea of a fair fight is one where they can say what they want, and their opponents can say nothing. Free speech doesn't work that way.
This has always been a dilemma in American law. I am aware of no other country with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech that exceed those of the United States. Trying to make political campaigns less expensive, while a laudable goal, is not a Constitutional one. That goal must yield to the supreme law of the land.
Incidentally, the 1907 prohibition against direct corporate donations to candidates for public office was not directly involved, but it is certainly, to my mind, brought into some question. I can see an intellectually honest distinction, though. When you give money to a candidate's campaign directly, the candidate controls how it's spent. McCain-Feingold, in contrast, purports to control how and when corporations, unions and other groups can distribute "electioneering" messages. That involves a direct government inquiry into the content of the speech (is it "electioneering" materal?) The guaranty of freedom of speech exists to prevent such inquiries from the government.
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 07:36am PT
|
John wrote
Anti-corporatists are going crazy because they would love to use the elctoral process to tax, take over, or otherwise cause grief for the corporations they so despise. Allowing the objects of their political hatred to fight back obviously makes that job harder. That's all this is about. The anti-corporatists' idea of a fair fight is one where they can say what they want, and their opponents can say nothing. Free speech doesn't work that way
You write as if corporations don't already have an predominance over our political system. Corporations have full time lobbyists in Washington that vastly outnumber the politicians they are paid to provide paid speech to. They already get plenty of money into campaigns and to candidates.
I had some private placement stock before the brokers robbed me of everything. The CEO called me up and wanted me to donate to the local congressperson, who expected $5000 along with their vote to earmark some funds for the company I invested in to be spend for homeland security uses of their product. It wasn't "quid pro quo" but it was more like they had to say that.
Which network does GE own? It goes on and on. Corporations are at no disadvantage.
Having pity on them is cuckholding madness. They are required by law to put profit above all else. Only the top executives determine what a corporation says. You might as well give defense contractors a vote in congress regarding whether we go to war or not and write it down as an automatic "yes."
Peace
Karl
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 09:05am PT
|
"the Founding Fathers could have never foreseen the level of corporat-ocracy that exists in this country today. Within the context of politics, the concept of 'free speech' seems clearly intended to protect the voices of the citizenry as a means of representation in their government."
i agree, the founders would be appalled at the level of monetary influence (of which corporations are merely the easy target for scorn) in politics, BUT i have an inkling they would be even more appalled by any attempt to limit free speech--that's why they made it the FIRST AMENDMENT--which is specifically designed to LIMIT the power of the government to act against the citizenry
"Corporations may be comprised of individuals, but their motive is simple: profit and growth. Individuals banded together, in something of a communal or socialist manner (tongue-in-cheek), these corporations are every bit as powerful and overwhelming of the citizenry as the British government was at the time of formation of the US."
and corporations do, in fact, represent the 'voice' of the citizenry because most large corporations are owned by the citizenry (i.e. stockholders--checked your retirement funds recently? which evil corporations are you making money off of?)...you don't like what a corporation says, sell your stock or stop buying their products (that's called the FREE market) or, gasp, protest them by using your right to FREE SPEECH
i belong to aft; as you can guess, i despise their politics and most of their ideas on education; i have my reasons for being a member, but i'm not forced...the aft pours millions into dem coffers, but i don't believe they're controlling the electoral process and they're damn sure not infringing on my right to vote for whom i choose
and, finally, all individuals are motivated by "profit and growth"...we want to make the most money for our work so we can best provide for our families (and indulge ourselves either in climbing gear or microbrews, etc.)...and the comparison to the british monarchy (or any other tyranny) is ridiculous...not all corporations think alike (i.e. rupert murdoch vs. george soros or ford vs. the uaw)...if they did, we would never have a change in government...it seems mostly libs are crying about this, but corporations helped elect barry as much as they helped elect W (though no unions helped elect any repub)
"Again, somewhere between your idealistic view of the concept of free speech, and the opposing controlling view, there must be a practical compromise. Your idealism of this issue simply seems out of touch with the realities of our political system today, &/or you have a strong vested interest in the ability of corporations to influence the political system for their own benefit (and to the detriment of individual citizens). Please explain."
first, why would corporations want to act in the detriment of individual citizens? without the citizens to buy their products, there would be no corporations...now, compare this to a government, which has a similar motive for "profit" but no means to create it; the government can only TAKE profit and they take it primarily from INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS
second, again, i point to the genius of the founders and the brilliance of the constitution...1) scotus did not declare that campaign finance cannot or should not be reformed--scotus doesn't have the power to make law--it simply found the current law to be unconstitutional...which means, congress STILL has the power to make a new law (which is always a chance to make a BETTER law...seriously, does anyone want to argue that mccain-feingold kept big corporate money out of the election?)...and 2) if you are that devoted to restructuring (which means, narrowly defining, which means, strictly limiting) the meaning of "FREE SPEECH", then you are FREE to AMEND the constitution to make it better...free speech is an amendment to make the original constitution better...the founders understood, much better than we do, that history is not static and that their newly formed nation would undergo unforeseeable changes so they built into the constitution the means to make NECESSARY changes...and they were smart enough to make the process slow and deliberate to allow us ample time to fully understand the implications of any proposed amendment (no, it's not a perfect process, but prohibition should be a warning to us to move even more cautiously than the constitution encourages)
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010 - 10:01am PT
|
By JAMES TARANTO
"The majority is deeply wrong on the law," according to a critic of yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC . "Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money."
Whose opinion is this? We don't know exactly, because it is not attributed to any individual. It is an unsigned editorial in the New York Times. That is to say, it reflects the collective opinion of the Times editorial board, a division of the New York Times Co., a corporation that exists to make money.
It's lucky for the New York Times Co. that the Supreme Court upheld its First Amendment rights. Otherwise, it could not have exercised its First Amendment right to denounce the court for upholding its First Amendment rights. Right?
Not quite. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in his opinion, the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance" law--which until yesterday's ruling made it a felony for corporations to engage in certain political speech--exempted "media companies" like the New York Times Co. (and News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site) from this restriction.
McCain-Feingold, in other words, granted a small group of companies, including the New York Times Co., the privilege to speak freely about politics, while denying it to all other corporations--not only "companies . . . that exist to make money," but also taxable nonprofits that exist to represent a point of view, including the advocacy arms of the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.
The editorial published by the New York Times Co. includes no mention of the special privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold--a privilege that creates at least the appearance of a journalistic conflict of interest. Is not the failure to disclose the New York Times Co.'s interest in McCain-Feingold a serious violation of journalistic ethics?
The Times's opinion is wrongheaded as well. Under the paper's cramped view of the First Amendment, the privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold was just that: a privilege, not a right. The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of media corporations." If the Constitution doesn't protect corporations, it doesn't protect the New York Times Co. And if Congress had the power to grant an exemption to media companies, it also had the power to take it away.
As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in McConnell v. FEC (2003), such reasoning would permit "outright regulation of the press." Some on the far left, complaining about "corporate domination" of the media, would like to see just that.
In past generations, the New York Times Co. had a proud tradition as a defender of free expression. It was the prevailing litigant in two landmark Supreme Court cases expanding and vindicating First Amendment rights, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971). The former case, by the way, involved a political advertisement.
What a shame it is to see a once-great media corporation become a fair-weather friend of free expression.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!