Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

[MattusMaximus]

#1) This is a great decision

I disagree.

#2) It will have nowhere near the effect the Chicken Little's think it will

The more I think about it, the more I think you are correct. I think it will have an impact, but I think the impact can, and will, be blunted to a certain degree by anti-establishment candidates going gangbusters on fundraising via the Internet from millions of small donations as they take on entrenched politicos. Just look at how much dough Obama was able to raise over the Internet, using it to whallop Clinton in the Dem primaries.

Take a deep breath and relax.

Done. The decision still bugs me, but I've ceased freaking out about it. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[The_Animus]

What's unbelievable is that 4 Supreme Court justices see an asterix in there.

What is unbelievable is when people quote 200 year old rules as if society hasn't changed at all in that amount of time. New problems and issues tend to come up as humanity progresses and old rules need to be continually reexamined in the context of today's world.

The real question is whether allowing corporations unlimited free speech in the form of political advertisements would have serious adverse effects on the political system. If it doesn't, then silencing them would serve no benefit and would indeed be a violation of free speech. If it does, then silencing them is no difference than silencing someone from falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

It seems to me that most political ads I've seen in the past are pure spin, containing strawmen, thinly veiled lies, and other misrepresentations with the purpose of confusing the issues and manipulating public opinion. They are anything but educational and informative.

I think this already has serious adverse effects on our political system and the recent ruling will only exacerbate this problem.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Doesn't seem logical at all. Should we also color code shares based upon how much each investor wants the board to spend on R&D?

Not the same, that's a business decision and business is exactly what a shareholder is asking to have done by proxy when he/she buys shares. If my assets are going to be used in support of the Obama campaign rather than in an attempt at capital gains I rather think that should be clearly disclosed. This seriously blurs the line between investments and political contributions.

Consumer choices can now become politically charged as well, loyal republicans only eat republican macaroni shaped like elephants. Each box comes with free stick-on devil horns or Hitler mustache, you know where to put them!

Can't wait to see what Captain Crunch thinks about health-care legislation..

 

[Ziggurat]

What is unbelievable is when people quote 200 year old rules as if society hasn't changed at all in that amount of time.

The rules don't change just because society does. If society wants the rules to change, then society should change the rules. It's not like we're lacking a mechanism to do so. But until the rules change, then quoting 200 year old rules is very relevant if we're at all interested in the rule of law. Yes, I suppose that's an antiquated concept as well, but hey, call me old fashioned.

New problems and issues tend to come up as humanity progresses and old rules need to be continually reexamined in the context of today's world.

You can reexamine them all you want to, but unless you change the rules, they're still the same.

The real question is whether allowing corporations unlimited free speech in the form of political advertisements would have serious adverse effects on the political system.

You seem to be unaware of the role of the supreme court, because that question isn't relevant to their decision.

If it does, then silencing them is no difference than silencing someone from falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Oh, but you're quite wrong there. And for just one of the reasons you're wrong, look up "prior restraint".

It seems to me that most political ads I've seen in the past are pure spin, containing strawmen, thinly veiled lies, and other misrepresentations with the purpose of confusing the issues and manipulating public opinion. They are anything but educational and informative.

I think this already has serious adverse effects on our political system and the recent ruling will only exacerbate this problem.

According to you, the existing restrictions on speech weren't stopping bad speech. In fact, you seem to think that almost all political speech was bad speech. So why on earth do you think those restrictions did any good to begin with?

 

[WildCat]

What is unbelievable is when people quote 200 year old rules as if society hasn't changed at all in that amount of time.

So tell me, how old does a law have to be before it can be ignored?

 

[corplinx]

Done. The decision still bugs me, but I've ceased freaking out about it. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Funny, the world worked fine before McCain-Feingold.

 

[The_Animus]

So tell me, how old does a law have to be before it can be ignored?

It's not about how old a law is, it is about how relevant it is to the current situation.

Doing something simply because "such and such says so" is ridiculous. You should do something because it is reasonable and relevant to the context of a situation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Doing something simply because "such and such says so" is ridiculous. You should do something because it is reasonable and relevant to the context of a situation.

Yeah! I mean, what's with laws in general? Why do we even need to obey them? Just do what feels right, I always say! If you don't like a law, don't bother to get it changed, just break it. And if something is unconstitutional, don't bother changing the constitution, just ignore it.

 

[The_Animus]

You seem to be unaware of the role of the supreme court, because that question isn't relevant to their decision.

From the textbook Business Law I: "A judge's function is not to make the laws -- that is the function of the legislative branch of government -- but to interpret and apply them. It is their job to interpret the law and determine where it applies and where it doesn't. In the past application of free speech law has been centered around whether or not the speech causes undue harm as in the case of slander, lible, and the shouting fire example. So if there is a question as to whether or not allowing unlimited corporate political advertisement would cause undue harm to the political system is relevant.

According to you, the existing restrictions on speech weren't stopping bad speech. In fact, you seem to think that almost all political speech was bad speech. So why on earth do you think those restrictions did any good to begin with?

Logic fail. Restrictions don't prevent all bad speech, but it can make it so there is less of it. Removing the restrictions, as I already stated above, will only lead to greater 'bad speech' as you put it.

Yeah! I mean, what's with laws in general? Why do we even need to obey them? Just do what feels right, I always say! If you don't like a law, don't bother to get it changed, just break it. And if something is unconstitutional, don't bother changing the constitution, just ignore it.

Hyperbole, sarcasm, and strawmen aren't arguments.

 

[corplinx]

I am still dismayed that somehow an issue that is basically pro or anti censorship has become a democrat-republican issue. With somehow the democrats taking the pro-censorhip view after a good run usually taking anti-censorship positions (since Tipper Gore's record label fiasco as I remember).

 

[Ziggurat]

In the past application of free speech law has been centered around whether or not the speech causes undue harm as in the case of slander, lible, and the shouting fire example.

You didn't look up "prior restraint", did you? Well, look it up now. Then try to figure out why it's relevant to this discussion. If you can figure that out, you'll see why you're wrong. If you can't, well, just ask and I'll tell you.

 

[The_Animus]

You didn't look up "prior restraint", did you? Well, look it up now. Then try to figure out why it's relevant to this discussion. If you can figure that out, you'll see why you're wrong. If you can't, well, just ask and I'll tell you.

If you actually have an argument please present it instead of this continual posturing.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you actually have an argument please present it instead of this continual posturing.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't figure it out on your own. None of the examples you gave involve prior restraint. Not a single one of them. In contrast, campaign finance laws impose a prior restraint on speech. The constitutional limitations to prior restraint of speech are significantly stricter than the limits on post-speech remedies, and you cannot expect arguments which apply to post-speech remedies to suffice to justify prior restraint. That these issues are not obvious to you does not speak well to your understanding of constitutional law.

 

[johnny karate]

What's unbelievable is that 4 Supreme Court justices see an asterix in there.

Probably because there is one.

Now once all the legal scholars in this thread stop pretending the First Amendment is absolutely inviolable, maybe we can have a grown-up discussion about this ruling.

 

[corplinx]

Probably because there is one.

Now once all the legal scholars in this thread stop pretending the First Amendment is absolutely inviolable, maybe we can have a grown-up discussion about this ruling.

No. We are talking about powerful politicians trying to silence dissent from people who disagree with them.

That is the heart of what "freedom of speech" is meant to protect against.

You will get no concessions about "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" here.

 

[johnny karate]

No. We are talking about powerful politicians trying to silence dissent from people who disagree with them.

That is the heart of what "freedom of speech" is meant to protect against.

You will get no concessions about "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" here.

If you're going to bend so far over backwards to the characterize the debate in terms favorable to your position, why not just claim to be Freedom Fighters battling the naked evil of fascism?

 

[WildCat]

Probably because there is one.

All of those exceptions are for violations of the rights of others. This is not even remotely the case in this instance.

Now once all the legal scholars in this thread stop pretending the First Amendment is absolutely inviolable, maybe we can have a grown-up discussion about this ruling.

Feel free to explain how your desired exception is consistent with the others. Be sure to explain in detail how a corporation or union speaking out for their favored candidate violates the rights of other individuals or groups.

 

[corplinx]

If you're going to bend so far over backwards to the characterize the debate in terms favorable to your position, why not just claim to be Freedom Fighters battling the naked evil of fascism?

Politicians trying to silence dissent. Does it sound any better in short form? There isn't a really good way to spin that at all without losing what it actually is. I am sorry of the truth hurts.

I could wrap it up in some working class "the people in charge of the country are trying to control the influence of those evil corporations who are ruining our lives" but then I would sound like some two-dimensional villain from Ayn Rand.

 

[corplinx]

Here is some tough love.

When the politicians have convinced you that silencing dissenters is in your best interest, you have failed at your citizenship. You are the weakest link. Move to China or something. They are big on that kind of thing there.

 

[johnny karate]

All of those exceptions are for violations of the rights of others. This is not even remotely the case in this instance.

I wasn't making a comparison, but merely pointing out that exceptions to the First Amendment do exist.

Feel free to explain how your desired exception is consistent with the others. Be sure to explain in detail how a corporation or union speaking out for their favored candidate violates the rights of other individuals or groups.

I never claimed it did. Nor have I suggested that anyone's right to free speech should be infringed upon.

What I have suggested is that this ruling might have negative repercussions worth discussion. And that maybe these negative repercussions are worth responding to with something other than mindless flag-waving and chants of "Free Speech! Free Speech!".