Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictions

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictions
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictions

Article here.

Quote:

Imagine power companies spending millions of dollars on ads in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections accusing congressmen who supported climate change legislation of trying to increase electric rates and urging votes against them, or unions buying airtime to support primary challenges to conservative Democratic senators who opposed the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act. Or even healthcare companies saturating the airwaves with messages urging voters to deny President Obama a second term.

All those ads would be illegal under current election law. But the Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that challenges decades of restrictions on corporations and unions spending unlimited cash on just those sorts of ads. Even more broadly, the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, gives the court�s conservative majority a chance to fundamentally redefine the role of corp[[o]]rations and unions in American politics.

Campaign finance experts predict the court, which has demonstrated an inclination towards incremental loosening of rules restricting the flow of money into politics, will expand the types of ads corporations and unions can pay for. Their only question is just how much the justices will open the floodgates.

Sounds like exactly what our society doesn't need: more corporate meddling in politics. If anything, corporations need to be shut out of politics entirely, not given more influence. Time and time again the corporate character has been shown, and it's an ugly, deceptive thing.

Quote:

McConnell, now the Senate minority leader, opposed the law as an infringement on First Amendment rights, partly because it prohibited corporations and unions from spending unlimited funds on broadcast, cable and satellite ads that even mentioned federal candidates in the run-up to elections, let alone explicitly supported or opposed their election.

Anyone who thinks corporations deserve to protections under the First Amendment has a massive agenda, and that agenda is not friendly to the average citizen.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictio

Fox wrote:

Anyone who thinks corporations deserve to protections under the First Amendment has a massive agenda, and that agenda is not friendly to the average citizen.

The Supreme Court regards corporations as citizens under the law. Thus, they have 1st Amendment rights. Its probably more complicated than just that, but it makes sense to me.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictio

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

Anyone who thinks corporations deserve to protections under the First Amendment has a massive agenda, and that agenda is not friendly to the average citizen.

The Supreme Court regards corporations as citizens under the law. Thus, they have 1st Amendment rights. Its probably more complicated than just that, but it makes sense to me.

Well, my understanding is that corporations being treated as citizens has been fairly inconsistent; they enjoy some protections and benefits citizens enjoy, but not others. The Nike First Amendement case springs to mind as an example of a way corporate "free speech" is more limited.

Regardless, corporations shouldn't be treated as citizens. We don't benefit from our society being influenced by ageless, intangible, ultra-wealthy "beings" whose interests differ immensely from -- are are immensely narrow in scope compared to -- those of the average man.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictio

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

Anyone who thinks corporations deserve to protections under the First Amendment has a massive agenda, and that agenda is not friendly to the average citizen.

The Supreme Court regards corporations as citizens under the law. Thus, they have 1st Amendment rights. Its probably more complicated than just that, but it makes sense to me.

Yes. Corporate personhood. Which has a rather nefarious past:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/sysk/35433-how-corporate-personhood-works-video.htm

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictio

Fox wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

Anyone who thinks corporations deserve to protections under the First Amendment has a massive agenda, and that agenda is not friendly to the average citizen.

The Supreme Court regards corporations as citizens under the law. Thus, they have 1st Amendment rights. Its probably more complicated than just that, but it makes sense to me.

Are you talking about the distinction between "commercial speech" versus other free speech, or what?

The Nike case wasn't heard at the Supreme Court level.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictio

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

Anyone who thinks corporations deserve to protections under the First Amendment has a massive agenda, and that agenda is not friendly to the average citizen.

The Supreme Court regards corporations as citizens under the law. Thus, they have 1st Amendment rights. Its probably more complicated than just that, but it makes sense to me.

Are you talking about the distinction between "commercial speech" versus other free speech, or what?

To some extent, but I'm not sure if Nike's actions in this case should be considered true commerical speech. Nike certainly wanted to assert that they were indulging in non-commerical speech in this case, and to be frank I can see their point to some extent. Their lies revolved around creating a false image of the company and its ethics, not around any particular product. It still shouldn't be allowed, though.

Commercial speech laws ultimately amount to a de facto way to deny corporations full freedom of speech rights anyway.

Kuros wrote:

The Nike case wasn't heard at the Supreme Court level.

Right, the appeal was simply dismissed and the California Supreme Court ruling stood.

The unfortunate way we sometimes do do business aside, however, do you feel corporations should be treated as persons, Kuros? Do you feel it's beneficial to our society?

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject:

How long until parties are openly sponsored, or massive conglomerates run themselves in races? :) Problem is, it'll undermine elections which in turn will undermine appointments to the SCOTUS which in turn will undermine elections which in turn.... Good documentary about corporations being treated as people - 'The Corporation'. Last edited by RufusW on Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: Re: Supreme Court to Reconsider Corp. Campaign Ad Restrictio

Fox wrote:

The unfortunate way we sometimes do do business aside, however, do you feel corporations should be treated as persons, Kuros? Do you feel it's beneficial to our society?

I don't know.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:22 am Post subject:

Freedom of speech is an absolute. Any individual or group of individuals should be able to spend any amount to promote their views. This includes: corporations, unions, political parties, candidates, candidate committees, girl scout troops, boy scout troops, the PTA, and every TV station, radio station, newspaper, broadsheet, magazine, internet company, website, phone company, cable company, DVD maker, film maker, song writer ...

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:33 am Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

Freedom of speech is an absolute.

Any individual or group of individuals should be able to spend any amount to promote their views. This includes: corporations, unions, political parties, candidates, candidate committees, girl scout troops, boy scout troops, the PTA, and every TV station, radio station, newspaper, broadsheet, magazine, internet company, website, phone company, cable company, DVD maker, film maker, song writer ...

I disagree. The limited liability corporation is a creation of government. I don't know if it should exist or not. But it isn't a natural entity like a human is. It does not deserve 'free speech'. I am a free speech fundamentalist for humans but for GE or RBC? No.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:29 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

ontheway wrote:

When you deny the right of any group of individuals to speak as a group, then only those individuals who have enough money to buy access to the means of mass communications alone will be able to utilize their freedom of speech.

When we deny unions, corporations and other groups the right to full access to freedom of speech, we kill freedom of speech for all but the rich who can buy access anyway, loonies who gain temporary exposure as part of the daily circus, and the government itself, which along with its cronies, powerbrokers and sycophants will dominate the media.

Corporations are groups of individuals who have the right to pool their resources to deliver a message. This is no different than a political party or a candidate's campaign that relies on donations from supporters.

This problem has manifested itself in many ways detrimental to a free society.

The campaigns of Ross Perot are a perfect case in point. Though he may have been better than some, Perot, and the nation, would have been better off had he donated millions of dollars to a better qualified, saner, more respected candidate than he. This he would have done gladly, except for the fact that it would be illegal. By restricting his freedom of speech right to donate to the speech of others, in this case, some other candidate who might have sought the Presidency, he had no way to speak out except by spending his own money on himself as a candidate. The campaign finance laws prevented him from funding one of the thousands of better candidates who were, and are, available to run but for a lack of funds. As a result, only the candidates of the government party, the Ds and Rs, are generally able to secure the necessary funding to support a campaign. The freedom of speech of every other individual in America is denied by denying that freedom to all, especially corporations and unions. Every individual or group, no matter how biased we may be against any one of them, must be allowed full speech rights and full access to any media they can afford. A fully free and unregulated marketplace of ideas benefits all but the fascist-socialist ruling class.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:03 am Post subject:

I strongly disagree. Special interests, be they for profit firms or NGO's have captured the state. The needs and concerns of common people are not important. I don't care what the perfect ideal is. The state is far too powerful for it to be the playing thing of industry and hucksters.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:16 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

I strongly disagree. Special interests, be they for profit firms or NGO's have captured the state. The needs and concerns of common people are not important. I don't care what the perfect ideal is. The state is far too powerful for it to be the playing thing of industry and hucksters.

The biggest special interest group is the state itself. The Government has captured itself.

It would take a concerted effort by every group and individual to wrest control of the government from its own bureaucracy and return it to the people. As long as we restrict our own freedoms by imposing limitations on the groups that exist and the groups we need to form to take back the power from the government, the government will continue on its own way controlled by only its own whim.

The "special interests" that you fear are private groups of individuals that have no power and little influence. The government uses them for its own ends.

It is in the interest of the state to limit the free speech rights of groups of free individuals, for without the ability to form groups to challenge the state, we have little chance of changing it.

When you succumb to the fear of freedom itself, when you succumb to the myth of the power of special interests, other than the state itself, you end up supporting the State, and lose any hope of rational change.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:21 am Post subject:

Quote:

The biggest special interest group is the state itself. The Government has captured itself.

I'd like to see an extremely limited government. Hardly anybody would agree with me so I'll never get it. But, "the people" get what they want, so my political opinions have to change. Right now the oligopoly is in control, both in Canada and the United States.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

I can certainly understand the sentiment. However, I fear that when you start making laws like this the larger corporations will hire the high powered lawyers and lobbyists to exempt them and screw their competition. Then you get GS donating (wink, wink, nod, nod) $1m to Obama's campaign while Joe's plumbing has to fill out endless forms just to donate a few bucks to a campaign. It's better that free speech be viewed absolute.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe