"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;"
This seems to be a fairly blanket law. Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech. No exceptions are given or implied. It seems to me any entity, even foreigners, would be protected here. I guess the authors figured freedom was sometimes the best policy.

1/23/2010 2:16:04 AM

Quote :

"No exceptions are given or implied."

Yet we all know that there are exceptions.

Quote :

"I guess the authors figured freedom was sometimes the best policy."

How will this ruling result in a gain in freedom? Corporate employees and shareholders were already able to fund politicians. All we did with this ruling was grant freedom to something that isn't sentient. Woo-hoo.

And given that it will almost certainly elbow more actual people out of the political process, this is a net loss for freedom.

Quote :

"modern liberalism is all about emotional reactions"

Solinari, you're rapidly becoming irrelevant.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 8:50 AM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 8:44:20 AM

oh noes! he dodges with an ad hominem!

1/23/2010 8:53:29 AM

What does one say to "modern liberalism is all about emotional reactions"?

"nuh-uh"?

Especially when it was used to deflect very rational criticism of your argument.

1/23/2010 9:04:31 AM

I wasn't even talking to you when I said that... I was explaining to leet baka why the liberal positions seemed so arbitrary.

My response to you is requoted below, because you conveniently ignored it (strange how that works, isn't it?):

===========

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 9:09 AM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 9:09:15 AM

The Supreme Court wiped out 100 years of distinctions with their ruling. And this entire thread is about arguing whether they were right or not.

Citing the ruling as proof that you're right is circular reasoning; come up with your own argument to defend the WSJ article.

This is where we left off:

The 1st Amendment explicitly grants the freedom of the press irregardless of business model. It does not explicitly grant the freedom of speech to corporations. There's a distinct difference. Your WSJ article is silly.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 9:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 9:17:37 AM

wtf, you're still not addressing my point. You claimed that scotus did not address the distinction. I reminded you that in effect they did address the distinction, by wiping it out. Or alternatively, in order to remain consistent with their own reasoning, they could not address the distinction because their premise was that there was none.

Where in that do you get circular reasoning? This particular statement of mine makes no claim as to whether their decision was correct (although that is my position).

p.s. irregardless is not the proper word.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 9:24 AM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 9:21:13 AM

Let's remember that we're discussing the WSJ article.

WSJ: according to the NYT, they shouldn't have the right to write editorials, given that they're a corporation.

Me: The NYT is the press before it's a corporation. There's nothing inconsistent about their position.

You: The SC ruled that there's no distinction between press and corporations.



You're right-- now that I spell it out for myself, it's not circular reasoning; it's a non sequitor.

The Times' position is consistent. Explain why it isn't in the space provided below:

1/23/2010 9:27:27 AM

You said,

Quote :

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

Which is what I responded to.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 9:30 AM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 9:29:34 AM

...by arguing that the SC's ruling made the Times' rationale moot.

You've not explained how their rationale is inconsistent.

1/23/2010 9:42:40 AM

Quote :

"Matt Welch, Reason 1/22: The plight of "ordinary citizens" is precisely the reason why non-Republicans like me (let alone many conservatives who refused to support John McCain) opposed the campaign finance laws struck down yesterday. When a law requires any group of two or more people who raise $5,000 for the purposes of making a political statement to adhere to a blizzard of federal regulations subject to fines, that law, by definition, chokes off the "voices of everyday Americans" that President Barack Obama, in his ridiculous reaction to the decision yesterday, expressed outrage on behalf of. "

1/23/2010 9:52:34 AM

No, I did not respond to this:

Quote :

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

by arguing that the SC ruling made the Time's rationale moot. I reminded you that in effect the SCOTUS did address the distinction, by wiping it out. Or alternatively, in order to remain consistent with their own reasoning, they could not address the distinction because their premise was that there was none. Where in the preceding two sentences do I say anything about the Times or the Times rationale?

Perhaps you're getting parallel argument threads mixed up.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 10:02 AM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 9:59:36 AM

Quote :

"When a law requires any group of two or more people who raise $5,000 for the purposes of making a political statement to adhere to a blizzard of federal regulations subject to fines, that law, by definition, chokes off the "voices of everyday Americans" that President Barack Obama, in his ridiculous reaction to the decision yesterday, expressed outrage on behalf of. ""

Two "everyday Americans" have difficulty raising $5,000? What world is this guy living in? Corporate pockets could easily marginalize that kind of contribution, thus "choking off" the voices of everyday Americans.

Quote :

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

You can't change human nature, but you can make laws to limit it. Granted, there are ways around it, but that doesn't rationalize against a law that essentially has no downside.

Quote :

"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?"

True, but its beside the point, which was that a business is a fundamentally different entity than any other group.

1/23/2010 10:50:11 AM

I didn't see liberals crying when the SCOTUS overturned a hundred years of case law and legislation when it ruled on Roe v. Wade.

Just sayin.

1/23/2010 11:04:41 AM

Quote :

"New money will flow into campaigns this year as a result of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, but will the impact be as dramatic as all the hyperventilating in Washington suggests? Experts say probably not. “It’s time for everybody to calm down,” said Ken Gross, a campaign finance expert at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who, like other lawyers in the field, thinks the possible repercussions of the decision have been exaggerated. The court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission clears the way for corporations and unions to use their general fund cash to run sharp, targeted ads in political campaigns. It’s a ruling that advocates of campaign finance reform claim will allow businesses to tap into their vast treasuries and flood the airwaves with hard-hitting ads – commercials that Democrats fear will be aimed mostly at them. That’s certainly possible and, even if corporations hold off initially, they could unleash their cash in the future if relations with Congress truly go bad. In addition, there could well be some ideologically-driven firms that decide to target particular candidates – just as some wealthy individuals have done in the past. But the reality is likely to be something more modest, mainly a shifting of cash that’s already in the system away from so-called 527 groups."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html#ixzz0dSBIc7lH

1/23/2010 11:27:33 AM

Quote :

"Further, corporate paid speech is alive and well in this administration, you and I just can’t see it. Lobbyists are all having record, banner, unbelievable revenues, in large part because the government is putting such a large chunk of the economy in play for forced redistribution and everyone who can afford it is paying to influence the process. But nothing in any of the good government reforms have (rightly) ever put any kind of restrictions on this kind of speech directly to legislators. The only speech they limit is speech to the public at large. In effect, McCain-Feingold said that it is just fine to spend gobs of money speaking directly to us government folks, but try to go over our heads and talk directly to the unwashed masses, well, we have to make that illegal. Far from tilting the balance of power to a few rich elite firms, the recent Supreme Court decision gives new power to the rest of us who don’t have privileged access. Update: Speaking of hypocrisy, the NY Times Corporation is outraged other corporations have been given the same rights it has had all along. In a sense, the Times is lamenting their loss of a monopoly."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/01/further-thoughts-on-corporate-speech.html

Quote :

"Yet we all know that there are exceptions. "

None are given or implied in the text and as the supreme court just said, there are no exceptions. Yes, talking that is not speech is not protected, not even the CEO of the New York Times Co can run into a theater and yell fire, so neither can the CEO of BB&T. But what about BB&T buying an add in the Washington Post pleading to the American People against being forced to take Tarp money? How can anyone argue that this speech should not be legal?

1/23/2010 11:38:02 AM

^ well it just doesn't feel right, so I'm going to have to oppose it.

/modern liberal

1/23/2010 11:53:38 AM

Quote :

"I didn't see liberals crying when the SCOTUS overturned a hundred years of case law and legislation when it ruled on Roe v. Wade. Just sayin. "

i’m pretty sure most people here weren’t even alive then, and i’m pretty sure YOU weren’t alive then.

And it’s not just “liberals” that are decrying this decision, it’s a good mix of both sides. And the issues people have with it are far beyond being upset that it “overturned a hundred years of” precedences. That aspect is probably the least important… it’s almost as if you are trying to (disingenuously) frame the argument in a way to make it easy for you attack…

haha, i can’t believe you’re trying to compare this to roe v. wade. The next thing you know, you’re going to be going to Palin book signings.

^^ the quoted part there seems to imply that voting has no power in a democracy? Is this what all the headlines have been saying about the mass election? That person seems to be making a serpentine argument to prove a point that no one cares about.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 12:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 12:10:26 PM

Quote :

"The 1st Amendment explicitly grants the freedom of the press irregardless of business model. It does not explicitly grant the freedom of speech to corporations. There's a distinct difference."

Ah, but this brings us back to the age old (and still unanswered) question of what and who defines the press? Obviously we all consider Fox, CNN and NBC to be the press. What about CSM, the Rhino Times, and the Technician? Is the criteria to be the press that you own a printing press? Does that make Random House and Lulu Press the press? Or is it that you report on public goings on, in which case does that mean the Huffington Post, TMZ, Perex Hilton, LittleGreenFootballs and The Wolf Web are all the press? I often wonder (and to be honest have never seen an analysis) as to whether our interpretation of "freedom of the press" is a result of changes to the english language. Perhaps out founding fathers meant the press in a more literal sense, that the government could not restrict not only free speech in the sense of speaking, but also freedom of the press in the sense of the published word.

Quote :

"Two "everyday Americans" have difficulty raising $5,000? What world is this guy living in? Corporate pockets could easily marginalize that kind of contribution, thus "choking off" the voices of everyday Americans."

You misread the statement (so did I the first few times). The complain is not that two people have difficulty raising that money, but that once they do, suddenly, they are subject to an overabundance of regulations that 500 people who raised $4,999 are not subject to.

Quote :

"You can't change human nature, but you can make laws to limit it. Granted, there are ways around it, but that doesn't rationalize against a law that essentially has no downside."

There is a huge downside to authorizing the government to decide arbitrarily which group of people gathered together for profit or not are allowed to spend money on political causes and which ones are not.

Quote :

"True, but its beside the point, which was that a business is a fundamentally different entity than any other group."

I don't really think it is. It's a collection of individuals formed to work together towards a common goal. That the goal is making money selling computers, or raising awareness of polar bears or Moving On should not change whether or not those individuals are allowed to make a political statement as a collective.

1/23/2010 12:13:24 PM

What of the power of voting when it is illegal to speak to the voters?

1/23/2010 12:15:27 PM

It doesn’t make sense for corporations to be granted first amendment privileges in the way the court has ruled, even though corporations are treated as entities in certain situations. If the CEO wants to use his own salary to promote a candidate, then fine. But a corporation shouldn’t be able to use their money to put out commercials saying “vote for candidate X” because democracy is about people, not corporations. If you want me to get all tea-bagger on you, the Founding Fathers™ never intended for things to be this way, and this is not how the constitution is written.

1/23/2010 12:22:32 PM

^The left is wasting no time seizing on that idea. Maddow is saying that it could bring some libertarians, some independents, and maybe some tea party folk over if the left keeps fighting this and the GOP leadership keeps cheering it on.



Petition supporting Dem legislative attempts to fight this: http://www.savedemocracy.net
President Obama/OFA link to contact your representatives: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fairelections/
MoveOn.org: http://pol.moveon.org/fairelectionsnow/?r_by=18673-9072683-wvUiPcx&rc=confemail

Not that e-mail campaigns & online petitions are the most effective way of doing campaigns for a cause, and I'm sure they aren't all there is too this, but all 3 of these ended up in my inbox within 24 hours of the SCOTUS decision.

1/23/2010 12:36:17 PM

Again though, do people have a right to pool their money together to promote a single political message? Why is it Trader Joe's can't publish commercials against corn subsidies, but NC Policy Watch gets a 5 minute segment on air every day for a "commentary"? I mean if we want to go with the founding fathers, the first amendment also says they can't restrict freedom of assembly. Is a corporation not an assembly?

1/23/2010 12:39:38 PM

doesn't matter. the issue is settled and there's no way to reverse it for years to come.

1/23/2010 12:47:45 PM

^^^ can MSNBC not find a more charismatic commentator than Maddow, with competent writers?

It’s no wonder they are taking a beating from Fox. Maddow has a fairly shrill talking style, and her diatribes are too long winded. She needs to be more succinct, and use more on-screen graphics that exaggerate her points in order to drive them home.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 12:53:47 PM

"Until today, we had the right to free speech, and the right to assembly, but not the right to free speech when we were assembled. The Supreme Court has thankfully corrected that absurdity."

moron, I posted the text, that does indeed seem to be exactly how the constitution is written. If you find the text explaining that "people assembled in large numbers here-by revoke their rights" let us know.

And why should a CEO spend his own money defending the interests of shareholders? It seems to me such a requirement would naturally under-provide such speech, just as a requirement for individuals to own a printing press before they can legally speak to fellow voters would do so.

But, just as the text I quoted said, many companies went ahead and bought a printing press. GE owns MSNBC, so GE is free to speak to the electorate at large using shareholder dollars. GE's competitor Siemens does not own a TV network, so they cannot speak to voters on matters of policy without their CEO spending his own money. Does anyone believe this is just? GE has used this monopoly on speech to great effect, as "GE Capital was bailed out by the taxpayers. GE CEO Jeff Immelt is a close adviser to President Obama, and GE would profit from Obama policies such as cap-and-trade."

Try to remember what we are talking about here: there was no law restricting the right of corporations to spend money on candidates or lobbying politicians. All the law that was struck down did was restrict the right of corporations to spend money appealing to voters. If anything, this ruling will divert money from the Washington political machine and into the nations media outlets, in effect diverting corporate efforts from politicians and toward voters. Sounds like a good thing to me.

"But what about BB&T buying an ad in the Washington Post pleading to the American People against being forced to take Tarp money? How can anyone argue that this speech should not be legal?"

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/23/2010 12:54:14 PM

exactly. the political machine is freaking out over this, because money will be diverted from them and to the people.

god forbid.

1/23/2010 12:59:26 PM

why did they ban businesses from having free speech like that in the first place?

1/23/2010 1:24:57 PM

to consolidate power

1/23/2010 1:27:11 PM

^ lol?

Power has greatly shifted more in the directions of the great and benevolent corporations.

Quote :

"why did they ban businesses from having free speech like that in the first place? "

businesses at one point argued, sometimes still argue, that certain humans were property, people didn’t need safe working conditions, children didn’t need educations, animals don’t need clean environments to thrive in, customers didn’t need foods made in sanitary ways, the environment doesn’t need to be maintained, or it wasn’t their job to make sure their claims were factual.

Why would you give an entity like this broad power to influence the public opinion?

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 1:48:34 PM

yea, instead of allowing it to make its case publically, force it to funnel its resources privately to the people who actually pass laws.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 1:57:02 PM

Quote :

"And why should a CEO spend his own money defending the interests of shareholders? It seems to me such a requirement would naturally under-provide such speech, just as a requirement for individuals to own a printing press before they can legally speak to fellow voters would do so. "

huh?

Why would anyone spend any money to defend anyone else’s interest? Shareholders can spend their own money defending their own interests. A CEO can spend his money defending his own interests. If the shareholders’ interest align with the CEO’s interest, then good for them.

A company spending money to push the company’s political interest is PRESUMING that the company’s political interest is what the shareholder’s want. This is a flawed and arrogant presumption.

Let shareholders defend their interests, and let CEOs defend their interests. Don’t allow a company to presume what the interests of their customers and clients are.

Quote :

"But, just as the text I quoted said, many companies went ahead and bought a printing press. GE owns MSNBC, so GE is free to speak to the electorate at large using shareholder dollars. GE's competitor Siemens does not own a TV network, so they cannot speak to voters on matters of policy without their CEO spending his own money. Does anyone believe this is just? GE has used this monopoly on speech to great effect, as "GE Capital was bailed out by the taxpayers. GE CEO Jeff Immelt is a close adviser to President Obama, and GE would profit from Obama policies such as cap-and-trade.” "

No one believes this is just, and the ruling being discussed takes a step closer to making it just.

Quote :

"Try to remember what we are talking about here: there was no law restricting the right of corporations to spend money on candidates or lobbying politicians. All the law that was struck down did was restrict the right of corporations to spend money appealing to voters. If anything, this ruling will divert money from the Washington political machine and into the nations media outlets, in effect diverting corporate efforts from politicians and toward voters. Sounds like a good thing to me. "

This is not at all what we’re talking about. No one was arguing that our system was perfect before, but removing this laws takes us a step backwards, not forwards.

Quote :

"Solinari: yea, instead of allowing it to make its case publically, force it to funnel its resources privately to the people who actually pass laws. "

"No one was arguing that our system was perfect before, but removing this laws takes us a step backwards, not forwards."

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 1:59:06 PM

sometimes when you've reached a dead-end, you have to backtrack a little

1/23/2010 2:04:21 PM

haha

you’re saying we reached a dead end in terms of finance reform?

That is a very unimaginative view, but conservatives aren’t really known for thinking outside the box.

1/23/2010 2:14:50 PM

well I guess I don't see a place for "creative thinking" or "outside the box" solutions when it comes to following the constitution.

nevertheless, that you can't conceive of a solution that is compatible with the first amendment and also strengthens our democracy, in light of this ruling, perhaps may also betray a lack of imagination on your part.

then again, liberals aren't really known for imagining any solution that did not involve massive government regulation and intervention.


[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 2:19:25 PM

^ you’re wrong that this is what is prescribed in the constitution. Corporations aren’t people under the constitution.

"If you want me to get all tea-bagger on you, the Founding Fathers™ never intended for things to be this way, and this is not how the constitution is written.”

and how is this not compatible with the first amendment:
"Why would anyone spend any money to defend anyone else’s interest? Shareholders can spend their own money defending their own interests. A CEO can spend his money defending his own interests.”

Quote :

"then again, liberals aren't really known for imagining any solution that did not involve massive government regulation and intervention. "

lol, that doesn’t make any sense, but you can have an “A” for the effort.



[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 2:25:11 PM

if only people are afforded the right to free speech, then why did mccain feingold make an attempt to comply with the constitution when they explicitly exempted major media corporations from their law?

1/23/2010 2:26:43 PM

Quote :

"Why would you give an entity like this broad power to influence the public opinion?"

Because it's better than giving the power to decide who is and is not allowed to speak to an entity that at various times has argued that certain people are property, certain people are not eligible for legal protections, certain pictures and speech is illegal, certain acts between consenting adults is illegal, and that they don't have to follow the laws.

Quote :

"Shareholders can spend their own money defending their own interests. A CEO can spend his money defending his own interests. If the shareholders’ interest align with the CEO’s interest, then good for them. "

Wouldn't shareholders be spending their own money defending their interests in allowing or directing the company to spend its money on those interests?

Quote :

"A company spending money to push the company’s political interest is PRESUMING that the company’s political interest is what the shareholder’s want. This is a flawed and arrogant presumption."

Then the answer is to put such political speech to a shareholder vote, not to blindly restrict the ability of shareholders to speak as a group.

Quote :

"This is not at all what we’re talking about. No one was arguing that our system was perfect before, but removing this laws takes us a step backwards, not forwards."

You just said removing the law took as a step closer to being more just, how is that not a step forward?

Quote :

"and how is this not compatible with the first amendment: "Why would anyone spend any money to defend anyone else’s interest? Shareholders can spend their own money defending their own interests. A CEO can spend his money defending his own interests.”"

That is compatible with the first amendment; what isn't, and what is at discussion, is the law declaring that shareholders can not assemble to defend their interests, they must do so individually.

1/23/2010 2:44:00 PM

Quote :

"A company spending money to push the company’s political interest is PRESUMING that the company’s political interest is what the shareholder’s want. This is a flawed and arrogant presumption."

^ what he said in response to this, and I'll also point out that liberals in general don't have a problem taking away the voice of blue collar workers when their unions engage in political campaigns using their dues. Suddenly we care so much about the poor shareholders political hackery ITT

1/23/2010 2:46:53 PM

Quote :

"Yet we all know that there are exceptions. "

no, we've all been suckered in to believing there are exceptions so that Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants

1/23/2010 6:07:46 PM

1/23/2010 6:56:43 PM

http://www.slate.com/id/2242210

Slate has a good article on this issue

1/23/2010 8:34:29 PM

^ there is so much fucked up shit in that article it makes me want to cry.

Example:

Quote :

"But some perspective: We limit speech—when it has nothing to do with wealthy people spending money—in many ways.... You famously can't shout fire in a theater. You not-so-famously can't break the theater's rules, including rules about speaking, because you don't really have any First Amendment rights in a privately owned theater or at work. The First Amendment limits only government."

Seriously? god almighty... Private businesses having control over speech within their property gives us perspective on the first amendment??

The whole article is riddled with stupid shit like this. Try again.

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 8:42 PM. Reason : s]

1/23/2010 8:42:03 PM

^ you're reading it with the lens of a Palin supporter instead of the lens of legal comprehension. They are referring to specific legal precedences there.

1/23/2010 8:54:56 PM

I like how the recent well reasoned decision of the supreme court of the united states of america is now getting the "OMG SARAH PALIN ITT" treatment.

Also, since you care so much about precedence. How about the precedent the court just set?

1/23/2010 8:56:56 PM

like with Plessy vs. Ferguson, we'll realize our folly one day, hopefully soon.

1/23/2010 8:58:19 PM

all it takes is the death of a conservative justice

1/23/2010 8:58:58 PM

is that a threat?

1/23/2010 9:02:26 PM

Quote :

"Power has greatly shifted more in the directions of the great and benevolent corporations."

..and Trade Unions too.

...and two or more private citizens who scrap up $5000 or more.

1/23/2010 9:30:35 PM

Quote :

" This means that the pittance you and I give is going to be dwarfed by corporations who think $500k bonuses are too small"

1/23/2010 9:33:36 PM