Here is a pretty even handed evaluation by the Economist:

Quote :

"BY THE narrowest of majorities, America's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday January 21st that Congress may not bar corporations and unions from paying to disseminate political messages at election time. The ruling is arguably a blow for free speech, although critics of the decision quickly concluded that it would lead to big business buying elections. The case concerned “Hillary: The Movie”, a 90-minute documentary which portrays Hillary Clinton as a power-crazed gorgon. It is a dreary and unbalanced piece of hack work, but clearly protected by the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” says the First Amendment. Not “thoughtful, judicious speech”. Just “speech”. Yet the makers of “Hillary: The Movie” were forced to drop plans to distribute their work via cable for fear of being fined or jailed. The Federal Election Commission ruled that the film was an attack ad, not a documentary, and therefore subject to America’s confusing mess of campaign-finance restrictions. The conservative group that made it, Citizens United, wanted to release it during the Democratic primaries in 2008. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold after its sponsors in the Senate, that was not allowed. "

http://ow.ly/Z8Sj


Everyone is zeroing in on the fact that corporations can essentially buy votes, but what some people are missing was the fact that under the old law, corporations were about the only "people" with pockets deep enough to circumvent the law. If a group of concerned citizens simply wanted to get together to fight a candidate 30 days out from an election, they probably would not have the means to do so, while corporate accountants and financial lawyers will find a way to do so. Furthermore, McC-F grants a massive advantage to an incumbent who has the power of name recognition by limiting the amount of exposure his opponent might have in the final 30 days . . . precisely the time frame when most undecided voters start paying attention and zeroing in on a decision.

Personhood of corporations is something that should be struck down, but you don't fix one flaw in the judicial system by introducing a legislative flaw . . . you fix the original flaw.

Quote :

"From where did they pull this ruling?"

I'll field this one: 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.

This prohibited lawfully organized entities, recognized by the law, from exercising the right to free speech. Again, if you disagree with corporate personhood (and I do, at least in it's current form) fix corporate personhood, don't simply restrict freedom of speech.

Quote :

"notes NPR's Nina Totenberg. "It will undoubtedly help Republican candidates since corporations have generally supported Republican candidates more.""

Nice professional reporting there Ms. Totenberg. Money generally follows the party most likely to be in power, whomever that may be. In the last election at least:

1/22/2010 1:28:59 AM

Quote :

"Everyone is zeroing in on the fact that corporations can essentially buy votes"

And yet, as is so often the case, what everyone knows is often just not so. Yes, the first few million dollars of election spending buys a lot of votes, as it introduces the candidate to the electorate. However, as best can be discerned from available data, election spending has almost nothing to do with the outcome of an election. According to Freakanomics, doubling election spending increases your votes 2%. As most elections are no where near that close, this means that during the vast majority of elections money played no part in the outcome. And as money can easily be countered, simply by spending more yourself, it is a very rare occurrence that money ever actually swayed an election, if it ever has.

1/22/2010 2:36:41 AM

The end of this CNN article entitled "Analysis: High court ruling a game-changer for campaign spending" made me lol a little:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/supreme.court.analysis/index.html

Quote :

"Coming soon to a television near you: campaign ads, ads, ads."

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 7:49 AM. Reason : .]

1/22/2010 7:46:18 AM

Quote :

"Voted for: Roberts - Nominated by George W. Bush Alito - Nominated by George W. Bush... See More Scalia - Nominated by Ronald Reagan Thomas - nominated by George H.W. Bush Kennedy - Nominated by Ronald Reagan Voted against: Stevens - Nominated by Gerald Ford Ginsburg - Nominated by William Clinton Breyer - Nominated by William Clinton Sotomayor - Nominated by Barack Obama"

1/22/2010 8:51:17 AM

NEWS ALERT: Supreme Court Justices are nominated, confirmed, and known to vote along ideological lines.

1/22/2010 9:15:24 AM

"Colorado GOP to sue to lift campaign money limits"
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14243394

And the GOP is wasting no time making use of the new corporate money allowed by their conservative counterparts in SCOTUS.

1/22/2010 9:36:35 AM

Quote :

""Coming soon to a television near you: campaign ads, ads, ads.""

well how about now ads that end with "this message sponsored by Goldman Sachs" (assuming such disclosure is even required any more....)

1/22/2010 9:59:42 AM

Quote :

"However, as best can be discerned from available data, election spending has almost nothing to do with the outcome of an election. According to Freakanomics, doubling election spending increases your votes 2%. As most elections are no where near that close, this means that during the vast majority of elections money played no part in the outcome. "

So much is wrong here it hurts my brain.

Even if I grant Freakanomics (which is mostly pop-culture drivel) and grant your exaggerated assumption that the "vast majority" of elections aren't won by close to 2% margin, the implication that someone can win an election without election spending is just ridiculous.

1/22/2010 10:27:35 AM

The initial couple million helps tremendously, there's no doubt. There are diminishing returns, though. For instance, some people (like Dole) managed to hurt their chances by spending/advertising more.

1/22/2010 10:35:56 AM

Quote :

"This prohibited lawfully organized entities, recognized by the law, from exercising the right to free speech. Again, if you disagree with corporate personhood (and I do, at least in it's current form) fix corporate personhood, don't simply restrict freedom of speech."

It's a legal entity-- not a person, nor even an assembly of people in the traditional sense. It is completely independent of the people who own it and run it. It has no more inherent rights than a soda can. We can tell it what it can and cannot do.

1/22/2010 10:57:24 AM

The Incumbent Protection Act (McCain-Feingold) was successfully weakened..but must be eliminated completely.

1/22/2010 11:14:28 AM

Quote :

"the implication that someone can win an election without election spending is just ridiculous."

I addressed that, the first few million helps tremendously. The point is that even more spending rarely, if ever, helped. That said, dead people have won elections, and presumably not much was being spent on their behalf.

Quote :

"It's a legal entity-- not a person, nor even an assembly of people in the traditional sense. It is completely independent of the people who own it and run it. It has no more inherent rights than a soda can. We can tell it what it can and cannot do."

A soda? As you established with your first few words, a corporation is not even a soda can: a soda can actually exists in the physical world. It is a figment of yours and mine imagination, a stand-in for the owners of the corporation, which are real people and have rights. The mistake you are making is imagining a corporation as a government construct, which is untrue: corporations have existed long before governments recognized them in statute. Corporations spring from the human right to contract. Therefore, when you imagine you are punishing corporations, you are merely choosing to punish fellow humans that made the mistake of partaking in their right to contract with each other.

That said, we do that all the time. A married couple is nothing more than two people that have signed a marriage contract (marriage predates government statute too) and the tax system treats them radically different from those of us not contracted to a spouse. But you need to recognize that is what is happening and stop pretending that the people in the story somehow cease to exist just because they signed a contract. We tolerate it because there is no Constitutional right to be treated equally by the IRS, but there is a right to freedom of speech, and to ban corporate speech would be akin to banning speech by married couples.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/22/2010 11:27:31 AM

Ah, ok that's true, but that doesn't really refute the point that corporations can buy votes. Corporations can make that initial investment. It's still a large enough amount to grant businesses a distinct advantage.

In any case, 2% is a game-changing portion of votes. Two of the last 3 presidential elections came down to that much.

1/22/2010 11:38:40 AM

Quote :

"but there is a right to freedom of speech, and to ban corporate speech would be akin to banning speech by married couples."

They aren't comparable institutions. A marriage doesn't exist outside of its members. Nor does it have unlimited life or limited liability.

Your analogy only goes far enough to prove my point: just as members of a marriage retain all their rights, CEOs and shareholders all retain their 1st Amendment rights. The entity that is entirely separate from their persons (a corporation) does not.

1/22/2010 11:49:36 AM

I think this sums it up:

Quote :

"Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality.""

1/22/2010 11:55:33 AM

I don't remember exactly, I read the book quite awhile ago, but being passably handsome gains you ten times more votes than spending twice as much as your opponent. Should we ban televised debates?

People running for office don't have a right to not be outspent by their opponents. I was merely pointing out that money rarely turns elections (the two presidential elections you refer too, both sides spent shockingly similar amounts of money, and such close elections, while common in the 2000s, are rare in U.S. history). But even if they did completely dictate election outcomes, I would still be against revoking the right of others to assemble and petition the government for redress. If you don't like the outcome of elections, then get involved in whatever means is effective, even if the only effective means is to start a corporation to lobby politicians for good laws.

You are missing the problem. The problem is not that politicians are beholden to corporations, there are big corporations on both sides of any debate. The problem is power. Politicians are free to accept the corporation's money and then ignore them once in office, just as they are free to ignore you and the promise they made once in office. The problem is self-selection and the type of person that runs and keeps office, not who bought their dinner. And it seems to me that the best way to fix that problem is to reduce incumbency. Remember what I said, the first few million makes a huge difference to an election, but many candidates for office cannot even make that hurdle. It is no accident that re-election rates have reached new heights of 98% now that we had a regime of restrictive campaign finance.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/22/2010 12:01:08 PM

Quote :

"They aren't comparable institutions. A marriage doesn't exist outside of its members. Nor does it have unlimited life or limited liability. "

Corporations dont exist outside their members. Same as any other collective.

I think its really fucking stupid to say that one group of people is somehow different from another group of people because they have a different label.

A corporation is a collection of people who usually have similar views. They might not be identical, but if they're all in the same industry they probably agree on particular points. To say that somehow their collective decision to contribute their money to one cause is different from their individual decisions to do the same is pretty dumb.

All the feigned anger over this from the dems is because whereas the reps buy votes with corporate cash, the dems buy votes with tax money. Its really not going to change anything.

1/22/2010 12:05:35 PM

Quote :

"Corporations dont exist outside their members. Same as any other collective. I think its really fucking stupid to say that one group of people is somehow different from another group of people because they have a different label."

Well, no.

If a corporation goes bankrupt, do its shareholders go bankrupt?

If all a corporation's shareholders die, does the corporation cease to exist?

If a corporation breaks the law, do its shareholders go to jail, and visa-versa?


It is different.

1/22/2010 12:09:19 PM

Quote :

"If a corporation goes bankrupt, do its shareholders go bankrupt?"

No they just get bailed out by the fed. :-P. Really though, they can be desolved either by force or through a reorg/takeover. Do couples cease to exist if they declare bankruptcy?

Quote :

"If all a corporation's shareholders die, does the corporation cease to exist?"

If they all die, then most likely yes.

Quote :

"If a corporation breaks the law, do its shareholders go to jail, and visa-versa? "

Corporations do not break the law, individuals do. Same with any other organization. Couples dont get collectively penalized if one person breaks the law.

It is not different.

1/22/2010 12:17:35 PM

Quote :

"They aren't comparable institutions. A marriage doesn't exist outside of its members. Nor does it have unlimited life or limited liability."

Terms of the contract and gifts from the government. Corporations do not naturally posses limited liability, after-all, there is no wording of a contract between paul and I that can restrict johns right to sue me or paul. Limited liability is a miracle of government statute: free liability insurance in exchange for paying taxes. Corporations predate statute, and thus limited liability, it was not an unmanageable hassle for creditors to sue shareholders back in the day, corporations would sometimes buy insurance against the eventuality of shareholder liability. It was also unusual for corporations to leave massive liabilities behind, unlike today where shareholders will leave a corporation to wrack up huge liabilities in search of an unlikely turn-around. True, this era of full liability stock companies was short in Europe, but lasted for hundreds of years in China.

1/22/2010 12:22:29 PM

Quote :

"Do couples cease to exist if they declare bankruptcy?"

Of course not, and this is one of the many ways the two institutions aren't comparable.

Quote :

"If they all die, then most likely yes."

No, it wouldn't. Just like any other asset the stocks would be passed on to a beneficiary.

Quote :

"Corporations do not break the law, individuals do."

CBS violated FCC regulations and was fined. Microsoft violated patent law and was punished. Exxon violated environmental regulations and was fined. Neither their stockholders nor their executives were punished by the government.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2010 12:38:12 PM

Quote :

"Of course not, and this is one of the many ways the two institutions aren't comparable. "

Many corporations survive bankruptcy so im not sure what you're getting at here.

Quote :

"No, it wouldn't. Just like any other asset the stocks would be passed on to a beneficiary."

if all the shareholders of a company died the company doesn't exist anymore. The shares may get passed off to people who have no idea what the company is and would be completely against donating to whoever the corp donated to in the past. Likewise, as corporate membership changes so do the goals and functions of the corporation.

Quote :

"CBS violated FCC regulations and was fined. Microsoft violated patent law and was punished. Exxon violated environmental regulations and was fined. Neither their stockholders nor their executives were punished by the government. "

Collective fines happen to many other groups including couples. If a couple commits tax fraud while filing as a couple they get punished collectively. None of the fines you mention are actually purposeful crimes either. CBS shareholders didn't conspire to put a titty on tv, microsoft doesn't violate patents on purpose, and the exxon valdez, despite what many might wish to believe, was an accident. The fines exist as a way to punish shareholders for not taking better precautions to prevent the incidents.

In the event of actual law breaking on purpose (enron) individuals get prosecuted. if you could prove that all enron shareholders knew what was going on, then you would be able to prosecute them as well.

I mean it comes down to this. The shareholders in a corporation generally have the same political views simply due to the nature of the work. The individuals have the right to donate or participate in politics with the backing of their own wealth, including what they have invested in the corporation. If they decide, along with other shareholders, to put that money directly to the same political purpose how can you consider that different from them doing it individually?

Unions have put direct (non-monetary) support to candidates, but thats ok? Its ok to contribute to a campaign, as long as you dont contribute money? Both are providing tradable goods or services in order to buy future political capital.

And this is completely ignoring that there are many other avenues for corps to buy political capital without direct investment. I dont think you'll even see much of an increase in overal contributions. You will probably see a decrease in individual contributions, and a coresponding increase in corporate contributions.

You will never be able to decrease corporate influence on government because limits can by bypassed in any number of ways. The only thing you might be able to do is decrease the effect of government on individuals.

1/22/2010 2:01:44 PM

Quote :

"I mean it comes down to this. The shareholders in a corporation generally have the same political views simply due to the nature of the work. The individuals have the right to donate or participate in politics with the backing of their own wealth, including what they have invested in the corporation. If they decide, along with other shareholders, to put that money directly to the same political purpose how can you consider that different from them doing it individually?"

I can't believe you're alright with this.

1. I have the right to donate to politicians, and should have the right not to donate to politicians. This right has been taken away from me.

2. Shareholders generally don't have anything at all in common. Mutual funds.

1/22/2010 2:44:39 PM

Can we stop this silly back and forth? Businesses are not people. They don't deserve rights beyond their owner's vague right to non-interference. Businesses are not capable of philanthropy or common good, except through the actions of the individuals within the business.

There is no justification for giving a "company" its own say in government; no more than any other non-living entity that is subjected to laws, like my car, or my guns.

No, banning corporate contributions will not solve everything, but it doesn't hurt one bit.

1/22/2010 2:52:34 PM

Quote :

"Businesses are not capable of philanthropy or common good"

Well that's just blatantly untrue. Look at all the donations corporations make to all kinds of things all the time. Scholarships, endowments, charitable donations of money and products, etc.

That said, I don't disagree with you about banning corporate donations. Thing is, they'll just spend more money on lobbyists or you'll just see more contributions from individual employees at those companies.

1/22/2010 2:59:49 PM

Quote :

"1. I have the right to donate to politicians, and should have the right not to donate to politicians. This right has been taken away from me. 2. Shareholders generally don't have anything at all in common. Mutual funds."

This ruling doesn't change that from what it was before. in fact all it would do is make it more obvious what companies support what.

You dont have to own mutual funds. You do it because they give you a return on your investment. if you care what they use your money for, choose your stocks more carefully. Again, before this ruling you had no idea what your money was doing, but now you'll be able to clearly see where it goes.

I personally dont like the idea of any group of individuals buying influence with the government. but the point im making that you dont seem to get is that this is absolutely no different from any other group donating money or other non-monetary benefits.

Saying a company cant have any say in government, but unions or some other group can is fucking dishonest and you know it.

Quote :

"Businesses are not capable of philanthropy or common good, except through the actions of the individuals within the business. "

They also aren't capable of harm or evil, except through the actions of the individuals within the business.

1/22/2010 3:02:06 PM

^^All committed with the following intentions:

1. fostering admiration among their customers and business-partners (for every self-less act, there is an advertisement to tell about it)
2. qualifying for industry awards or recognition
3. public service in compensation for closed-door civil litigation
4. becoming eligible for government subsidies and tax breaks
5. getting a marginal return out of an other-wise useless resource (for example, food shelter donations from restaraunts) see 1
6. individual initiatives from employees that use little or no corporate resources (for example, HanesBrands often sponsers the MS Walk, but all of the contributions are donations from individual employees. Hanes simply puts their name on the envelope)

Quote :

"Saying a company cant have any say in government, but unions or some other group can is fucking dishonest and you know it. They also aren't capable of harm or evil, except through the actions of the individuals within the business."

I can get behind that. Unions and religious groups can suck it. They got lobbyists. Thats enough.

However, a business is an entity whose sole purpose is to create profit. Thus, every single thing it does is intended to ultimately increase it's earnings. Any business that operates differently is a failure, in principle.

On the other hand, Unions, religions, non-profit groups, etc are capable of harming themselves for the sake of common good (or common harm). Their continued existence is not neccesarily part of their agenda. I don't know if that means they should be treated differntly than a business, but I think it's worth pointing out.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/22/2010 3:15:09 PM

Unions exist to increase the wealth and wellbeing of the union members, often at the expense of anyone else.

Organized religion is just as much a self serving scam to create personal power and wealth.

non-profit is a terrible term because all it means is you dont payout profits to external places. Non-profits can still bring in a shitload of revenue and give it out to whoever they want as long as its counted as salaries or some other semantec garbage. Non-profits are probably worse than corporations in that they get money for idelogical purposes, rather than a straight forward business reason.

Thing is, limiting any group participation is next to impossible. Even when we put limits on corporate spending, they found other ways to get passed the limits (dontating to non-profit shells, hiring lobbiests, etc...). Again, this ruling isn't going to change their impact. Its going to change the direction you see it coming from. Which, ironicly, should make it easier to target. If walmart outright buys a campaign, the politician is going to come under direct fire from anti-walmart folks. Before the ruling, walmart would just diseminate the same funds through non-profits or other organizations or individuals.

You could go so far as to limit monetary contributions to $5 per person per candidate, but then how would you limit non-monetary contributions? How would you make sure person A only contributed one time while maintaining privacy? Would you be able to make anonymous donations at all?

Putting an arbitrary limit on corporate spending is feelgood crap that doesn't actually change anything. The problem is the politicians and the government.

1/22/2010 3:39:07 PM

^

1/22/2010 5:57:10 PM

Quote :

"This prohibited lawfully organized entities, recognized by the law, from exercising the right to free speech. Again, if you disagree with corporate personhood (and I do, at least in it's current form) fix corporate personhood, don't simply restrict freedom of speech. "

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement.

Quote :

"It's a legal entity-- not a person, nor even an assembly of people in the traditional sense. It is completely independent of the people who own it and run it. It has no more inherent rights than a soda can. We can tell it what it can and cannot do."

Yes. And we have officially established that they are people, or at least they are treated as if they were people. Which is why we should address what kinds of "people" they really are

Quote :

"Well, no. If a corporation goes bankrupt, do its shareholders go bankrupt? If all a corporation's shareholders die, does the corporation cease to exist? If a corporation breaks the law, do its shareholders go to jail, and visa-versa?"

Well, yes. A marriage, itself, is not defined as a person. A corporation is. A corporation can break the law. A marriage cannot.

1/22/2010 6:20:48 PM

Quote :

"Alternatively, Shouldn't a person have be able to choose between investing in a company for profit (or retirement) and investing in a political cause? Supporting clean energy =/= supporting Gore/Kucinich 2012. "

A valid point, but I question whether it's possible, even without this ruling. If you invest in a company, you are intrinsically investing at least partially in their politics. Anyone who invested in Google has now invested in Google's stance against China's censorship.

Quote :

"However, a business is an entity whose sole purpose is to create profit. Thus, every single thing it does is intended to ultimately increase it's earnings. Any business that operates differently is a failure, in principle."

Certainly though, one would say investing in promoting politicians who will in turn make a climate more favorable to that business is working towards creating profit no?

1/22/2010 7:49:41 PM

when a corporation makes a bad decision, you can take your business elsewhere. when the government does, you can't. what happens when the corporation makes a bad decision for the government?

1/22/2010 8:37:07 PM

Quote :

"when a corporation makes a bad decision, you can take your business elsewhere. when the government does, you can't. what happens when the corporation makes a bad decision for the government?"

Funny how you don't consider that a valid argument against government healthcare.

Ok, cheap shot out of the way, I'm not sure that they don't already. I mean realistically we all know that corporations own the government. We've given the government so much power to interfere, it's only natural that those who want power will try to buy it. I mean, nominally the people are running this thing, but realistically I think the last few years have shown we're not. Ultimately, if we're going to allow corporations and organizations to spend money like that, I would rather it be open and out front rather than funneled through secondary corps and orgs.

Overall I'm not so sure that I like that any organization can spend like this but I'm not sure of a good way to solve it.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM. Reason : hklh]

1/22/2010 9:58:03 PM

au contraire, ive said before that i'd prefer a voucher system to purchase insurance

but carry on

1/22/2010 10:00:28 PM

Quote :

"CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N SCALIA, J., concurring... The dissent says that when the Framers “constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not “an individual American.”"

1/22/2010 10:28:58 PM

From today's best of the web:

Quote :

""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."

1/22/2010 10:35:19 PM

^^Repost, because everyone (liberal and conservative) can agree that Rehnquist >>>> Scalia

Quote :

"Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality."

Seriously. A corporation is not an association of people. It is a document independent of its leadership and owners.

It can die without its owners dying. Its owners can die without it dying.

It can violate the law without its owners being punished. Its owners can violate the law without the corporation being punished.

It can go into debt without its owners going into debt. Its owners can go into debt without it going into debt.




[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 10:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2010 10:37:26 PM

Quote :

"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."

1/22/2010 10:39:53 PM

The 1st Amendment explicitly protects the freedom of the press, irregardless of its business model. This is only difficult to understand if you're a WSJ editorialist (how ironic).


It's pretty humorous to see that this guy spent a significant amount of time to write an article that was so fundamentally flawed. And then it was published by the conservative media's most "respectable" outlet.



[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2010 10:44:15 PM

if it is so flawed, then why did mccain feingold have to explicitly go out of its way to exempt media companies from its restrictions?

1/22/2010 10:49:24 PM

Because if they hadn't, their bill would've been in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

1/22/2010 10:52:33 PM

Quote :

"It is a document independent of its leadership and owners."

A corporation may be independent of its owners (especially if publicly traded) but it isn't independent of its leadership. Off the top of my head, HP, Google, Apple, Palm, Microsoft, Whole Foods, all of these companies and more would be entirely different if their leaders were different. Indeed many of them have changed already as their leadership has changed.

And yes, freedom of the press is protected, but one could easily argue that the press today is nothing like the press of the past. CNN, Fox, NBC etc all have as much of an agenda as Google, GM and Monsanto. To say that Fox gets to opening engage in political acts because 2 hours a day they show "news" but Monsanto does not get to do the same seems like playing political favorites.

1/22/2010 10:53:25 PM

Quote :

"A corporation may be independent of its owners (especially if publicly traded) but it isn't independent of its leadership. Off the top of my head, HP, Google, Apple, Palm, Microsoft, Whole Foods, all of these companies and more would be entirely different if their leaders were different."

Clearly leadership impacts the direction of the company. And clearly that has nothing to do with my point.

Quote :

"And yes, freedom of the press is protected, but one could easily argue that the press today is nothing like the press of the past."

Would you be willing to apply that logic to advances in firearm technology?

Quote :

"CNN, Fox, NBC etc all have as much of an agenda as Google, GM and Monsanto. To say that Fox gets to opening engage in political acts because 2 hours a day they show "news" but Monsanto does not get to do the same seems like playing political favorites."

It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, nowadays, but it's not playing favorites, and it's not exactly easy for a company to break into the media biz. Good luck to Monsanto if they want to start up a 24-hour news channel. I hope they're willing to spend billions on something no one will watch. What I dislike is them being able to spend billions on commercials that everyone will have to watch.

1/22/2010 11:01:14 PM

As it happens, the scotus agreed that the distinction was arbitrary and in fact ruled that the law was largely in direct violation of the first amendment.... Bogus exemptions for politically popular media industries notwithstanding.

1/22/2010 11:05:43 PM

Quote :

"Would you be willing to apply that logic to advances in firearm technology?"

Considering that I prefer not to restrict rights, individual or collective, no I'd rather not.

Quote :

"It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, nowadays, but it's not playing favorites, and it's not exactly easy for a company to break into the media biz. Good luck to Monsanto if they want to start up a 24-hour news channel. I hope they're willing to spend billions on something no one will watch. What I dislike is them being able to spend billions on commercials that everyone will have to watch."

How will everyone have to watch them? There is this magical button on your TV called the "power" button. Combined with the chanel changing buttons, they empower and individual to choose what they watch and what they don't watch.

Ultimately I think I agree with the assessment from earlier in this thread. We're attempting to solve the wrong problem here.

[Edited on January 22, 2010 at 11:09 PM. Reason : sfg]

1/22/2010 11:07:02 PM

Quote :

"As it happens, the scotus agreed that the distinction was arbitrary and in fact ruled that the law was largely in direct violation of the first amendment"

The SCOTUS didn't say a thing about the distinction between corporations and corporate media.

Was this an intentional abandonment of your point, or accidental?

Quote :

"How will everyone have to watch them? There is this magical button on your TV called the "power" button. Combined with the chanel changing buttons, they empower and individual to choose what they watch and what they don't watch."

I phrased my argument incorrectly. Aside from my rock-solid Constitutional argument, the practical argument is that corporations will now be even more powerful, politically. I'm not concerned with corporations exerting their power via their own media outlets. Now one's going to watch the Haliburton Hour. I'm concerned with their purchasing of advertising on already extant media outlets. And while I just may keep my thumb on the power button this fall, the average American won't. And it just so happens that the average American also does whatever their TV tells them to do.

1/22/2010 11:15:47 PM

Oh I get it. You're trying to protect Americans from themselves because you know better what's good for them.

Well, that's always constitutional.

1/22/2010 11:19:12 PM

Whoa, someone just got on their soapbox.

So I guess it's intentional, then?

1/22/2010 11:22:48 PM

Quote :

"I'm not concerned with corporations exerting their power via their own media outlets. Now one's going to watch the Haliburton Hour. I'm concerned with their purchasing of advertising on already extant media outlets."

So it's ok for a corporation to spend a crap ton of money to publish their own political views with their own media, but they can't buy air time on someone else's media? Thats seems fairly arbitrary.

Also if we want to talk about organizations using their money to influence people I'd personally rather see political ads from GE or Trader Joes than listen to commentaries from "North Carolina Policy Watch" which are broadcast every day after the news.

Again, I see the concerns, I just don't think this is the problem so much as a symptom.

1/23/2010 12:01:18 AM

modern liberalism is all about emotional reactions

Quote :

"The SCOTUS didn't say a thing about the distinction between corporations and corporate media."

Well, as the ruling wiped out the "distinction" I guess they did. Or another way of looking at it is that they couldn't actually say anything about the distinction because their premise was that there was no distinction.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 12:11 AM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 12:09:05 AM