Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

[KoihimeNakamura]

3rd thread on this. Look here and here

 

[cisco]

3rd thread on this. Look here and here

One of those has a non-descriptive title and one is 4 months old.

 

[Beerina]

Wow, you guys are really screwed.

Because...we don't permit our government to censor anybody, especially about politics?

I'll take that scenario over the alternative, thanks.

 

[Beerina]

I haven't seen the Hillary movie. Is it a "hack job" or is it lies? If it lies then it is not protected speech under the first amendment.

Don't know, haven't seen it either, and the article that discussed it didn't get into it.

Having said that, political speech is given extreme leeway because what's a lie and what's an interpretation are not easy to discern sometimes, and free speech is given the benefit of the doubt, again a First Amendment thing.

 

[KingMerv00]

Hell and no! Neither the appearance of corruption, nor corruption itself, is more important than freedom of speech.

Bribery is a crime and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Your statement brings up an interesting question though. Should bribery be illegal? If I pay the president $1,000,000 to veto a bill, is that an expression of my free speech?

 

[Beerina]

And, on a more immediate note, if you thought seeing wall-to-wall, non-stop campaign commercials & ads was bad in 2008, with this new ruling in place, just wait until the races for 2010 get going. You ain't seen nothing yet

This is already happening the past few presidential elections. Bush/Kerry spent way more than before, and Obama this time spent more than Bush and Kerry put together did. Over $300 million for his campaign. That's with these laws.

George Will counters that this is on the order of the size of the maraschino cherry industry, and isn't who's president at least as important?




And now, a prediction! There will not be all this GLOOM AND DOOM. Many organizations are also open to counter these adds fully. It's not just corporations this applies to.

Since that will happen, I predict people, when faced with the incorrectness of their memetic narratives telling them this is DOOM will come up with this or that reason we "got lucky" or somesuch. Just not that they were wrong.

 

[Praktik]

Bribery is a crime and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment.

right, guess it depends on how you define bribery..

A little tongue in cheek here, but isn't it interesting that the senators who pushed for things beneficial to the health industry were the ones getting big donations and face time with their lobbyists?

That ain't bribery though I guess its politics.. Things just worked out that way!

 

[Beerina]

Bribery is a crime and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Your statement brings up an interesting question though. Should bribery be illegal? If I pay the president $1,000,000 to veto a bill, is that an expression of my free speech?

Yes, bribery is, correctly, a crime. But that bribes might, or do, happen, does not give the government the power to censor otherwise legitimate communications to prevent the opportunity for a bribe. That is the point.

As for your example, the politicians must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and, most importantly, it contains something to the effect that the are taking the office without reservation or with a hidden agenda. Planning to take bribes is definitely a hidden agenda.

If some cornball ran on the basis of "Hey, I plan to take bribes!" and the people still elect him, well, sure, I suppose it's fine

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes, bribery is, correctly, a crime. But that bribes might, or do, happen, does not give the government the power to censor otherwise legitimate communications to prevent the opportunity for a bribe. That is the point.

As for your example, the politicians must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and, most importantly, it contains something to the effect that the are taking the office without reservation or with a hidden agenda. Planning to take bribes is definitely a hidden agenda.

If some cornball ran on the basis of "Hey, I plan to take bribes!" and the people still elect him, well, sure, I suppose it's fine

The presidential oath is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing about hidden agendas.

 

[JCL]

Some congressmen should put a sign on their forehead saying 'to rent' -- but should not forget to add, 'unfurnished'.

It should work more like NASCAR sponsorship. The more money they receive, the larger the patch on their suit and decal on their home/office/car. Once all the space it taken up they can receive no more $$.

Then outlaw silent sponsorship, that is any $$ that is not directly tied to the size and location of a patch/decal is legally defined as a bribe, and everything will be out in the open.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your statement brings up an interesting question though. Should bribery be illegal? If I pay the president $1,000,000 to veto a bill, is that an expression of my free speech?

Two totally different questions. Bribing an official to vote a particular way is not a form of free speech. It's a monetary transaction. Restrictions on bribery therefore don't violate, or really even involve, the 1st amendment. Whether or not one chooses to outlaw bribery is a different question - there's certainly a popular consensus on the issue (one I agree with), but whatever your opinion of that question might be, it's just not a free speech issue.

 

[johnny karate]

Many organizations are also open to counter these adds fully. It's not just corporations this applies to.

And exactly which non-corporate entities have the deep pockets of a large corporation?

 

[psychictv]

This should send the tea party, libertarians and the "JOOOS own the govt" crowd ballistic, but it should scare all of us!

Why would libertarians care about this? This is precisely the kind of thing they support. They should be ecstatic.

 

[dudalb]

Because...we don't permit our government to censor anybody, especially about politics?

I'll take that scenario over the alternative, thanks.

Since as a Libertarian you beleive the Rich should run the country, naturally you like this ruling.

 

[ktesibios]

Darn you, JCL- I thought of the same thing, and wrote it up- back in December of 1999, or so says the date on the .txt file.

Having just searched for and found that old file, I'm gonna paste it in here:

A Modest Proposal on Campaign Finance Reform
and how campaign financing can be made both more useful and more entertaining.

Nowadays, the hot subject of reforming our present "legal bribery" system of financing campaigns for elected office seem to be bogged down in a fixation on somehow getting corporate money out of the electoral process, and somehow ending the candidates' dependence on super-expensive broadcast media, thus theoretically freeing them from the need to suck up PAC money like Dracula after a stroll through the Gobi. This is a great idea, and as long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony and an ice cream soda, please.

It should be obvious that our glorious elected leaders are never going to take any action that might make the free-flowing money tit inaccessible to them, or might make the political playing field even the tiniest bit less tilted towards them that's already got. It's just not gonna happen, folks.

What we really need to be asking is whether this ideal of an honest campaign between unbought politicians based on their beliefs about the best way to deal with the issues facing our society is what we want. I don't think it is.

First, there is no such thing as an unbought politician. There never has been. The only reason the way these clucks sell themselves has intruded into the national consciousness is that the market has undergone an inflation that would have been noteworthy in Berlin in 1923. It attracts our attention the same way that the stock market does- by becoming so overpriced that the ordinary viewer just has to marvel at the wonder of it all.

Second, no modern politician has any beliefs about the issues. If one does have deeply and sincerely held opinions it's an almost sure sign that he's some sort of nutcase who's fanatical enough to have acquired the sort of immunity to modern opinion poll pimping that Rasputin had to the cyanide in the teacakes.

So, if we can't depend on our leaders to think for themselves instead of having their relevant opinions spoon-fed to them by their sponsors and the irrelevant ones by pollsters, then how can we evaluate what they're likely to do if elected? That surely is the relevant question- "If we give this guy the keys to the national T-bird, we know he isn't going to the library like he said, but where is he going to go, and what'll it cost us to get the car back from the cops?"

The likely answer is to find out WHO OWNS HIM. Mark Twain's Sammy had it right when he said "You tell me where a man gits his corn pone an' I'll tell you what his 'pinions is". Knowing whether we're voting for Archer Daniels Midland or for Philip Morris would be a much better predictor of what policies we're likely to get. The trouble with this approach under our present system is digging up the information. Sure, you can find out a lot through FEC filings, but finding and interpreting the relevant data is mighty dry work. Who among the voting public really wants to spend their time shoveling through FECes for nothing? Hell, isn't that sort of thing what we have illegal aliens for?

Fortunately, there really is a simple solution, one which can be seen at any golf tournament or stock car race. Have you ever noticed how every available square inch of a racing car, it's driver and pit crew is covered with company logos? Or that some golf pros actually sell space on their shoes, so that when the camera zooms in on the ball as they make a putt it gets a good look at the sponsor's logo? It's a simple deal- the driver/player gets the money to pursue their activity and the sponsor gets it's chosen image displayed on something that a lot of people are going to be looking at. It's really just another billboard- nothing to get exercised about, right?

So let‚s make the politicians do the same thing. Cut off all- and I do mean ALL- campaign "contributions". No more money from that source, boys. In return, give the candidates completely unlimited rights to sell advertising space, on themselves, their staffs, their bodyguards, their podium- anything that might get some camera time. And while we're at it, let's let the parties do the same thing. The usual boring convention footage might be enlivened if the entire hall were covered with advertising signs the way a racetrack or ballfield is. And just imagine, say, Al Gore with a nice big, say, "Microsoft" logo on his back. Or on his forehead. It might actually make Ol' Plastic Man watchable, especially if modern technology could animate it, which nothing on earth could ever do for him.

Accomodating the money-stuffed individuals who have been among our biggest customers at the pol-buying market could be a little difficult. After all, most indivdual investors don't have personal logos or other convenient trademarks. The way to deal with this can be seen at pretty much any hospital or educational institution. Those "The Myron J. and Shirlee F.X. Fenstergoobler Cancer Pavilion" (or library, gymnasium, etc.) signs can be adapted into a tasteful bronze plaque reading something like "The Marvin Hackleshmackle Memorial Presidential Candidate" For smaller donors, a little enameled metal plate like the ones on the benches in Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square, identifying the donor or person memorialized should fill the bill.

Political advertising on TV will change as well, although the idea of an advertisment paid for by selling ad space might seem a little incongruous. The important thing is that each candidate or party's ads clearly identify who is sponsoring the campaign, the exact method can be left up to the candidate. Some might go for a low-key, PBS-like approach.e.g. "This candidate is brought to you by Mobil Corporation, who invite you to join them in supporting public policymaking", in a phony quasi-British accent. Others might find more inspiration in the "Crazy Eddie" genre. It's up to them- quiet sponsorship message or screaming ad within an ad, the point's the same.

The point is that when we look at a candidate for office, we'll know just what interests they really represent and just who's getting set for a rush to the public trough if they win. And, all of this can be accomplished in a way that's clear, unambiguous, entertaining, promotes the improvement of commercial art and graphics, will probably make most of the candidates look a LOT better and shouldn't run afoul of the current "buying politicians is a form of free speech" mindset of our judiciary. After all, we won't be preventing moneyed interests from participating in the great slave market of ideas, we won't be imposing a pile of niggling regulations and their attendant loopholes or doing anything else that even Chief Justice Freisler could find a coherent objection to. What is freer speech than buying space on a billboard- even a walking one?

So let's do it. When the pols have to wear their ownership on their sleeves, literally, not only will we be a lot better informed about what we‚re voting for, but perhaps some of them might even wind up exercising some good taste in whom they sell out to.

 

[The_Animus]

Corporations should never have been declared legal persons in the first place.

They should not be funding spin campaigns with advertising. They should not be polluting the environment. They should not cause and maintain instability and misery in third world countries.

Businesses should be for the benefit of society. They are supposed to be there to supply needed goods and services in the interest of the people and the community.

Instead corporations act as if they were entities separate from government, communities, and the people. Their ultimate purpose is to benefit themselves at any means they can legally (and sometimes not even legally) get away with.

There are basically two parallel factors in any democracy. One is one person, one vote. The other is one dollar, one vote. And those two are mixed together. So, although the people do have some say, there are usually a lot more dollars out there than people, and they find ways of prevailing in the end, unless the people become aggressive and disruptive and demanding and threaten to shake the system so that big concessions are made. -Allan Nairan

Corporations are essentially authoritarian organizations. The more influence corporations have over government the closer we get to an authoritarian state all the while being able to pretend democracy with the illusion that business and government are separate entities.

Law is determined by who has the power to enforce it. Power to enforce anything is based on economic strength, military strength. Military strength is a function of economic strength and number of people. So most power today comes from economic strength.

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html
In 2000:

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

What happens when corporations start claiming spots in the top ten, end up employing more people than most countries federal governments employ, and attain greater worldwide recognition and use than most governments?

 

[KingMerv00]

Two totally different questions. Bribing an official to vote a particular way is not a form of free speech. It's a monetary transaction. Restrictions on bribery therefore don't violate, or really even involve, the 1st amendment. Whether or not one chooses to outlaw bribery is a different question - there's certainly a popular consensus on the issue (one I agree with), but whatever your opinion of that question might be, it's just not a free speech issue.

How do you tell the difference between a bribe and a campaign donation? If a company donates money directly in hopes that you will support them, it seems like the only difference is a wink and nod.

I don't have an answer to this. It is a difficult issue to figure out.

 

[INRM]

To make it worse only 10% of the 784 billion dollar stimulus package has been spent, and the law requires all the money to be spent. I speculate that this year, and in 2012 all that money will be flooded into election campaigns

BTW: Ever heard of the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

 

[Drysdale]

To make it worse only 10% of the 784 billion dollar stimulus package has been spent, and the law requires all the money to be spent. I speculate that this year, and in 2012 all that money will be flooded into election campaigns

BTW: Ever heard of the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

You know I've wondered about this also. But because of my suspicious nature I've kinda just pushed it into the back of my mind. Is the specifics of how the money is being spent going to be available for all? Any idea?

 

[Drysdale]

But to the OP I'm not sure I see a problem with it. There's so much under the table money anyway does it really matter?

And as some have pointed out, the unions were'nt affected by the prior rules nor was the media who maybe though not necessarily donating sure gave free pub to their preferred candidate.

This just evens it out does'nt it?