Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

[johnny karate]

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!".

To wit:

Move to China or something. They are big on that kind of thing there.

It's intelligent, thoughtful responses like this that keeping me coming back to JREF.

 

[WildCat]

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

Was someone arguing otherwise?

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!".

In other words, someone might say something that you disagree with, or advocate policies you don't want.

Is your motto "I disagree with what you are saying, and I will fight to take away your right to say it"?

What the hell is happening in this country?

****************************************************

And how's this for irony: the justices who dissented in this case (except for Sotomayor who wasn't yet a justice) voted for the government in the Kelo v. New London case in which it is now OK for the government to confiscate private property and give it to a corporation in order to increase tax revenues.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I think it is fair as long as those supporting also agree that all restrictions against foreigners giving money in support of candidates be removed. If rich non citizens get to have their money go to support a candidate than the poor and middle class non citizens should have the same freedom.

 

[corplinx]

Your commitment to freedom is tested when it is used in ways you find obscene. Yes, there will be negatives. With freedom, you get positives and negatives.

There will be corporations who can use the power of the airwaves to fight other corporations who have congressmen in their pockets. There will be corporations who use the power of the airwaves to mislead and derail otherwise good things.

That's freedom for ya bucko!

 

[fullflavormenthol]

No...it...isn't.

 

[johnny karate]

Was someone arguing otherwise?

You appeared to be when you said this:

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

In other words...

Since everything that followed was once again your manufactured version of my position, I'm not going to bother to quote it or respond to it.

 

[johnny karate]

Your commitment to freedom is tested when it is used in ways you find obscene.

Oh, the irony.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Sorry it is the very definition of freedom to those small minded enough to believe that might equals right.

 

[corplinx]

Oh, the irony.

No, that isn't irony at all. Its okay though, Alanis misinformed many people about what irony means.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, that isn't irony at all. Its okay though, Alanis misinformed many people about what irony means.

Oh, the meta-irony.

 

[johnny karate]

No, that isn't irony at all. Its okay though, Alanis misinformed many people about what irony means.

Oh, the meta-irony.

It's ironic because someone championing unfettered freedom of speech asserted that freedom should be pushed to the point of obscenity, when in fact doing so would result in a restriction of that freedom due to anti-obscenity laws.

This is an example of "an incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result".

It's sad that I have to explain it.

 

[INRM]

Most investors buy stock to make money, not to make a political statement. The political apathy with which market participants make investment decisions is extremely relevant here because the assets and the executives belong to them.

Mandate that shareholders vote to approve any political endorsement and I may change my tune. Right now though I foresee the free speech of a large number of shareholders being laundered through a small number of executives who may or may not serve the interests of the owners of the assets being spent on the political theater.

Turns out the shareholders couldn't trust the executives of AIG, good thing those execs weren't also speaking for them the whole time, right?.... right?

Very good point

 

[Frank Newgent]

speech (spch)
n.

1.
a. The faculty or act of spending money.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions through the spending of money.

2. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as a word or a phrase in a paid political commercial.

3. Letters and syllables considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

You think donating to certain candidates for certain favorable legislation isn't a business decision? Seriously?

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.

Should they clearly disclose which rock concerts they are planning to sponsor?

This seriously blurs the line between investments and political contributions.

It really, really doesn't.

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..

Huh?

 

[Frank Newgent]

This seriously blurs the line between investments and political contributions.

It really, really doesn't.

If you do not meet the more than 50% political-use test, you are limited to the straight line method of political contributions depreciation under the Alternative Political Contribution Depreciation System (APCDS). You also may not claim the Section 179 APCDS deduction.

 

[corplinx]

It's ironic because someone championing unfettered freedom of speech asserted that freedom should be pushed to the point of obscenity, when in fact doing so would result in a restriction of that freedom due to anti-obscenity laws.

This is an example of "an incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result".

It's sad that I have to explain it.

Let me explain this to you young padawan (much to learn).

What you said I said:

It's ironic because someone championing unfettered freedom of speech asserted that freedom should be pushed to the point of obscenity

What I actually said:

Your commitment to freedom is tested when it is used in ways you find obscene

Since you are having trouble comprehending this idea. Let me explain it by example:
I support free speech. I think flag burning is wrong and it is obscene to me. However, I support free speech over my objection to the wrongness of burning the flag.

Or

I support free speech, but my neighbor is part of an LLC running ads against Obama for extending federal bank bailouts. I find negative political ads distasteful, but I support their right to free speech

There are many people who say they support the first amendment. However, many of them falter or fall when it is used in ways they find obscene. Thus:

Your commitment to freedom is tested when it is used in ways you find obscene.

Reading comprehension issues are not ironic at all.

Perhaps you should go watch a very informative episode of Futurama that could explain this to you in cartoon form.

 

[Cardinal Direction]

I think this is a terrible decision for several reasons.

It re-enshrines the ridiculous notion that corporations are the equal of 'people.' I sincerely doubt when the founding fathers wrote "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," they intended this to apply to legal fictions, but rather to real natural persons. Can a corporation exercise its freedom of religion? Can it go to church on Sunday? Can a corporation freely 'assemble' to demonstrate against the government?

Furthermore, before someone claims "but corporations are just associations, and we have the freedom of association," it might behoove them to realize that modern corporations are, by and large , involuntary associations. In any other kind of association for political purposes, all contributing members are equal, and fundamentally agree with the positions being advocated (even if the individual members may disagree about one or two minor issues.) If an individual decides they no longer wish to support the causes the association advocates for, they suffer no intrinsic harm by leaving the association (which can hardly be said for losing your job.)

This was the entire reason for "PAC"s in the first place. The vast majority of real persons who comprise a corporation, including its workers and investors, will have no say in or over how such funds are directed. These decisions will be made by a small handful of people whose political speech might not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of shareholders or workers. (And might not even actually be in the real interests of the company as a whole!)

And while one can glibly say "well a shareholder can simply divest if they don't care for the speech," that ignores the fact that most investors don't invest directly in corporations, but rather in funds (pension, retirement, etc.) which further distances and insulates the corporation from being responsible to the funders of the speech. I don't know about you, but I suspect that most workers who rely on their pensions aren't interested in ceeding other essential rights to some hedge fund manager. Furthermore, by the time you find out that some corporation has supported some candidate or issue you don't agree with, it's usually too late and your rights have already been trampled upon.

The same involuntary aspect can be said to apply almost equally to unions. Which is one of the primary objections conservatives have to unions in the first place!

Corporations are not human beings, and it is only by the equivocation of them with natural persons that allows this decision to make any sense. Corporations have no natural life-span, have no intrinsic morals or empathy, have no motives other than the profit motive. Furthermore, what interests a corporation has may be in direct opposition to real persons. It may be in a corporation's interest to fund a candidate who supports their position on squelching pollution regulation, for example. While this is fine for the corporation, it does little to soothe those living downwind who will have to bear with the pollution, and who will never be able to match the war chests of a large company. This becomes particularly galling if that corporation is based in another country than America. (And no, there is no magical percentage of a company that must be owned by Americans before they have speech rights.) Why would Sony care about some plebes in East Overshoe?

And of course, as has been pointed out, no single individual has the financial resources to draw upon that a corporation does, yet they are somehow supposed to be equivalent in rights. Bill Gates is worth 50 Billion (or so.) There is only one Bill Gates. Corporate profits measure in the trillions every year. You do the math.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This was the entire reason for "PAC"s in the first place. The vast majority of real persons who comprise a corporation, including its workers and investors, will have no say in or over how such funds are directed. These decisions will be made by a small handful of people whose political speech might not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of shareholders or workers. (And might not even actually be in the real interests of the company as a whole!)

So? "A small handful of people" (the BoD) voted to have Time Warner merge with AOL. This did not reflect the "real interests of the company as a whole", although that was not evident to them until years later. Should all corporate decisions be subject to a popular vote because sometimes the BoD makes poor decisions?

And while one can glibly say "well a shareholder can simply divest if they don't care for the speech," that ignores the fact that most investors don't invest directly in corporations, but rather in funds (pension, retirement, etc.) which further distances and insulates the corporation from being responsible to the funders of the speech. I don't know about you, but I suspect that most workers who rely on their pensions aren't interested in ceeding other essential rights to some hedge fund manager.

If it is that important to them, then I would suggest they stop investing via funds, and start investing directly in companies, or, to be even safer, not investing at all.

Furthermore, by the time you find out that some corporation has supported some candidate or issue you don't agree with, it's usually too late and your rights have already been trampled upon.

Oh puh-leez. No ones rights are being trampled. The drama department is over that way ====>.

Furthermore, what interests a corporation has may be in direct opposition to real persons.

And it may not.

It may be in a corporation's interest to fund a candidate who supports their position on squelching pollution regulation, for example. While this is fine for the corporation, it does little to soothe those living downwind who will have to bear with the pollution, and who will never be able to match the war chests of a large company.

Then the people living down wind should vote for someone else.

This becomes particularly galling if that corporation is based in another country than America. (And no, there is no magical percentage of a company that must be owned by Americans before they have speech rights.) Why would Sony care about some plebes in East Overshoe?

Well, for one reason, the people of East Overshoe are current or potential customers.

 

[corplinx]

The humorous thing is, I think we got more negative political ads on TV post McCain-Feingold since it created the 527-proxy-loophole.

 

[johnny karate]

What you said I said:

It's ironic because someone championing unfettered freedom of speech asserted that freedom should be pushed to the point of obscenity

I didn't say you said that. It was my interpretation of what you said. There's a significant difference.

Since you are having trouble comprehending this idea. Let me explain it by example:
I support free speech. I think flag burning is wrong and it is obscene to me. However, I support free speech over my objection to the wrongness of burning the flag.

Not at all at odds with my interpretation of your statement. You believe flag-burning to be an obscenity, but you more strongly believe in freedom of speech. (So much so that I think it would be fair to say you are "championing unfettered freedom of speech".) Therefore, you believe that freedom of speech "should be pushed to the point" of allowing the "obscenity" of flag-burning.

I support free speech, but my neighbor is part of an LLC running ads against Obama for extending federal bank bailouts. I find negative political ads distasteful, but I support their right to free speech

Kind of at odds with my statement, but only because you decided to change "obscene" to "distasteful" (the words are not synonymous). See, it was your use of the word "obscene" that was key.

There are many people who say they support the first amendment. However, many of them falter or fall when it is used in ways they find obscene.

Like the Supreme Court, for instance.

Look, had you not used the word "obscene", you'd probably have a case. But since you chose that very specific word, it gave me the opening to say what I said.

So if you want to carry on with your disingenuous semantic contortions, pretending as if I used your statement as the foundation for my thesis "Irony and its Uses in Modern Political Discourse" as opposed to making a glib remark on an internet forum, you go right ahead.

I'm done with this particularly tedious derail.