So much for Campaign Finance Reform: SCOTUS Rules Anew [Archive]

Jaltus

January 21st 2010, 12:44 PM

JusticeMachine

January 21st 2010, 12:55 PM

joel

January 22nd 2010, 05:25 PM

Woo hoo! Down with McCain-Feingold!

I am of two minds about it. Yes, corporations deserve free speech. At the same time, I think the law made sense and that corporations are not political individuals in that they have no right to vote and therefore no right to interfere in politics.

What do you think?
The only problem as far as corporations is any legal separation between stockholders and the corporation, considering it as a separate entity. Without the legal fiction, a corporation is just the collection of stockholders and their joint assets and activities. There is no separate "entity." The proper question is not what "the corporation" has the right to do (indeed, "the corporation" has zero rights), but what do those people have the right to do.

The point is that the stockholders have the right to free speech. People have the right to pool their funds and use them to speak a message. A sole proprietor has the right to use his assets for speech. Likewise for partners and shareholders.

There is no justification for restricting political speech.
(The real solution is to attack the root of the problem: to limit the power of government.)

Also, from what I have heard, McCain-Feingold's (and other campaign finance laws') actual effects were the opposite of its supposed intent. It benefited insiders and the rich at the expense of the common man and grassroots efforts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UgJPWxT0bw

NormATive

January 22nd 2010, 10:39 PM

There is no justification for restricting political speech.
(The real solution is to attack the root of the problem: to limit the power of government.)

AMEN!!!!

If there were REAL limits to political power, [INSERT NAME OF MAJOR CORPORATION HERE] would not feel it necessary to pour billions of dollars to buy the best candidates.

Time to overturn the credit card machines in the Temple (Capital Hill).

NORM

Conductor42

January 23rd 2010, 01:57 AM

NeilUnreal

January 23rd 2010, 11:03 AM

Pilgrim

January 23rd 2010, 01:15 PM

The Supreme Court has all but overturned McCain-Feingold with today's ruling that corporations and other for-profit entities can give unlimited amounts to campaigns. This essentially emasculates the reform championed a few years ago by McCain and Feingold to keep politics to individuals and overturns about 24 different states' laws.

I am of two minds about it. Yes, corporations deserve free speech. At the same time, I think the law made sense and that corporations are not political individuals in that they have no right to vote and therefore no right to interfere in politics.

What do you think?

They contradict themselves because they define corporations as individuals but don't prosecute them for crimes as they would individuals. How do you put a corporation in jail?

it's just silly and its an indication that our benches increasingly rule from political ideology rather than precedent and sound law. Conservatives have been complaining about this kind of thing for years now and they were right to do so. But now the conservative leadership seems to be embracing this sort of thing. Yesterday the filibuster and activist judges were immoral and irresponsible according to the political right, today they are just tools to be used casually.

On the other hand, if that's really the way they want to play it, as soon as Pres. Obama can appoint a new justice someone will sue in the oppisite direction and this ruling will be over turned.

Sheepdog

January 24th 2010, 01:07 PM

They contradict themselves because they define corporations as individuals but don't prosecute them for crimes as they would individuals. How do you put a corporation in jail?

they have the right to defend themselves in civil litigation just like any private individual does. there are other areas of law where corporations can be treated as individuals. frankly the idea of tying free speech to criminal code (aside from obvious "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" issues") is a frightening idea.

it's just silly and its an indication that our benches increasingly rule from political ideology rather than precedent and sound law. Conservatives have been complaining about this kind of thing for years now and they were right to do so. But now the conservative leadership seems to be embracing this sort of thing. Yesterday the filibuster and activist judges were immoral and irresponsible according to the political right, today they are just tools to be used casually.

why don't you just out and say it: we should feel ashamed of ourselves for being Conservatives. you still seem to be incapable of participating in a thread without sullying others you disagree with. may as well say what you mean and mean what you say.

On the other hand, if that's really the way they want to play it, as soon as Pres. Obama can appoint a new justice someone will sue in the oppisite direction and this ruling will be over turned.

... because, the Constitution be damned.

NeilUnreal

January 24th 2010, 01:22 PM

This ruling is so obviously a bad idea that I understand even a number of major corporations and influential CEOs have come out against it.

-Neil

Sheepdog

January 24th 2010, 01:26 PM

This ruling is huge in terms of how much it could change the political landscape; I'm surprised so few people are talking about this. The ramifications a few decades from now could be larger than for any other Supreme Court decision in the last hundred years.

it is not as though McCain-Feingold has been around since the start of the country. It was only a matter of years ago that it was passed, and if we were under an oligarchy before then, i don't see what is different now.

Even as a near-absolutist on free speech, I'm frightened of where this may eventually take us. It's one thing when a citizen makes a purposeful decision about how to "speak" politically with his or her money. It's another thing when the board of a for-profit company (or union for that matter) makes a decision on behalf of individuals with only miniscule power to affect that decision.

then apply the law consistently across organizations.

look, i am more or less neutral here, in my personal opinion. there are many corporations who are left-wing, because they perceive a centralized government as beneficial to their financial interests. see, for example, GE, which bank rolls MSNBC, "green" energy, and health care data systems. a successful Democrat Congress and White House would be extremely good for GE's bottom line.

More importantly, you seem to just glance by an important incoherence in the logic of McCain Feingold. Why are for-profits regulated here, but not unions? how about non-profits? Why are churches still not allowed any free political speech, but religious and secular non-profits are? why does ACORN get a pass? some organizations, it seems to me, are more "equal" than others.

media conglomerates were exempt from McCain-Feingold. after all, they have to be able to report political "news."

In addition, congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, meaning they may be able to place restrictions on corporations that choose to influence elections across state lines.

that wasn't the purpose of the Commerce Clause. elections, after all, are not commerce. but far be it from me, that I disagree with the rule of federal courts. what they say is constitutional is constitutional, no matter how it contradicts other rulings, or makes an incoherent mess of the Constitution.

I'm surprised conservatives are hailing this ruling. If conservatives mistrust big government, why are they so ecstatic about the idea of giving up their rights to big corporations?

what rights are we giving up? what rights are we giving up that we already don't have because of "big corporations"?

speaking for myself, i trust big corporations only marginally more than big governments, big unions, and big media. but then, it seems the only purpose for Civics 101 is to bash conservatives en masse.

NeilUnreal

January 24th 2010, 02:29 PM

...it seems the only purpose for Civics 101 is to bash conservatives en masse...

First off, I apologize if it seems like I'm doing that. There are a number of conservatives who are against this ruling (most obviously, John McCain). And there are a number of conservatives and liberals who are in favor of this ruling on principle alone, in spite of the recognition of potential consequences. (Being a strong free-speech advocate, I come close to being in this latter group.)

However, I'm puzzled that many rank and file conservatives who are in favor of it ignore the consequences. They certainly don’t seem to champion free speech when it comes to “wardrobe malfunctions” during the Super Bowl, or ideas like targeting cigarette advertising at children. This shows that they are willing to consider the consequences of coporate free speech when they desire.

Or consider this hypothetical case I heard one pundit put forward: Suppose U.S.-based Citgo, a business unit of the Venezuelan state-owed Petróleos de Venezuela, decided to pump (pardon the pun) billions of dollars into advertising for U.S. congressional candidates who favored Hugo Chavez. Would conservatives favor this use of corporate free speech? Because this ruling actually makes it possible; not someday, but starting now, at primetime, on a TV set near you.

Second, I don't believe in a total political gag order on groups, even if those groups are for-profit corporations. I just think limits are appropriate, and that those limits can be adjusted according to the type of entity: for-profit, non-profit, publicly-traded, interstate, union, religious, etc.

Organizations comprise citizens, but they are not individuals in the same sense as are citizens. They are legal entities that exist by virtue of law (even churches which claim tax-exempt status are legal entities). That these laws accord certain privileges to corporate entities not given to individuals (e.g. I cannot claim myself as a "church" to avoid income tax), allows for the idea that other laws may place restrictions on the freedom of corporate entities.

I think we should always err on the side of freedom. But it is also my opinion that a generous, but not infinite, upper limit on corporate spending can safeguard freedom while avoiding oligarchy.

-Neil

rogue06

January 24th 2010, 02:59 PM

FWIW, I’ll just throw this from OpenSecrets.org, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics into the mix since it seems pertinent: Top Industries Giving to Members of Congress, 2010 Cycle (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010). It’s a list of the top 50 industries contributing to members of the 111th Congress during the 2009-2010 election cycle and who received the most from the industry. It even allows you to check the Top Republican Industries and the Top Democrat Industries.

All in all it’s a bit of an eye-opener.

seanD

January 24th 2010, 04:50 PM

We can all be confident that Obama is mister "good cop" in all this, and he's mad that the big bad supreme court is pushing him around...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHwk6yurrxk&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

Seriously, this scripted crap is getting ridiculously insulting.

technomage

January 24th 2010, 06:04 PM

Second, I don't believe in a total political gag order on groups, even if those groups are for-profit corporations.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpswi/2010/wpswi100122.gif

John Reece

January 24th 2010, 06:19 PM

The major media are owned by corporations (see here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019260028244470.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion)).

Why should such powerful corporations be exempt from any campaign finance restrictions ― and have freedom to endorse or oppose political candidates all the way through election day ― while, under McCain-Feingold, average citizens could not band together to pool resources to influence elections for the final 90 days of an election cycle?

Michael Moore's propaganda films are exempted by the FCC as being products of a "media corporation" and therefore exempt from campaign finance restrictions.

However, the producer of a documentary about Hillary Clinton was threatened with a monetary fine and imprisonment if he simply advertised his documentary film during the run-up to an election.

That, by the way, is the case that was just ruled on by the Supreme Court.

technomage

January 24th 2010, 06:31 PM

Michael Moore's propaganda films are exempted by the FCC as being products of a "media corporation" and therefore exempt from campaign finance restrictions.
Dunno about any of his other films, but his 9/11 film was not considered "exempt"--it had a McCain-Feingold complaint against it in 2004. IIRC, Moore voluntarily agreed to stop advertising during the run-up to the election. ETA: My apologies, the FTC did, indeed, find that the ads for 9/11 did not violate McCain-Feingold.

John Reece

January 24th 2010, 06:51 PM

Dunno about any of his other films, but his 9/11 film was not considered "exempt"--it had a McCain-Feingold complaint against it in 2004. IIRC, Moore voluntarily agreed to stop advertising during the run-up to the election. ETA: My apologies, the FTC did, indeed, find that the ads for 9/11 did not violate McCain-Feingold.

:thumb:

An astute explanation of the case ― including an interview with the man who sued the FEC in this case ― is here (http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#) (click on the 1-21-2010 audio rewind).

joel

January 24th 2010, 07:24 PM

Even as a near-absolutist on free speech, I'm frightened of where this may eventually take us. It's one thing when a citizen makes a purposeful decision about how to "speak" politically with his or her money. It's another thing when the board of a for-profit company (or union for that matter) makes a decision on behalf of individuals with only miniscule power to affect that decision.

The thought frightens me too. But the solution is not to restrict free speech, it is to limit the power of government. Don't merely try to treat the symptom; kill the disease.

Give us a hypothetical example of what you are afraid of. If you are worried about politicians granting special privileges to corporations in exchange for bribes, the solution is not to try to restrict political speech. The correct solution is to address the root problem: make special privileges illegal. If you are worried about corporations controlling the economy by controlling the government, the correct solution is to make it illegal for the government to control the economy. Simply abolish the unjust power that people want to wield, rather than merely try to restrict the ways people can try to wield it.

I'm surprised conservatives are hailing this ruling. If conservatives mistrust big government, why are they so ecstatic about the idea of giving up their rights to big corporations?
You are surprised because you are misconceiving the problem--holding a false dilemma.

technomage

January 24th 2010, 07:49 PM

limit the power of government.
The only tool in Joel's toolbox is this one worn-out hammer. No wonder he sees all problems as nails.

What Joel fails to realize is that the "power of the government" that he decries is the very thing that enforces the freedom of speech that he approves of. The absence of government that the anarchists proclaim, and the reduction in government that the minarchists advocate, will do far less in protecting one's rights to free speech, or to the other rights that we the people have given ourselves through the mechanism of the government.

technomage

January 24th 2010, 08:02 PM

:thumb:

An astute explanation of the case....

What you call "astute," I would probably call "grossly slanted." Levin is every bit as dishonest as Moore--the only difference is the direction of the political slant.

NeilUnreal

January 24th 2010, 08:10 PM

Give us a hypothetical example of what you are afraid of.

It’s tempting to use a “big example” like the example of Venezuela I cited earlier, but that’s not what worries me. I don’t think we’re going to see the immediate imposition of corporate oligarchy in 2010. If nothing else, there would be enough outcry and blowback to make it infeasible for a corporation to try it. What I worry about is a situation where corporate oligarchy creeps across our culture until, in the year 2100, we simply consider it the norm. Several generations will have grown up with it by then, and it will be all they know; we will have entered a corporate ruled dystopia like those envisioned by science fiction writers.

…make special privileges illegal…

That’s exactly the problem; the current SCOTUS decision allows it to happen with no enforceable restrictions on special privilege. None. If there is a corporation or corporations interested in XYZ, and a field of candidates, one of whom is in favor of XYZ* and the others of whom are not, there is nothing to keep those corporations from spending billions of dollars advertising on behalf of the one candidate in favor of XYZ and against the others. Nothing. There need be no collusion, no money changing hands, not so much as a phone call, not even a wink and a nod. And yet magically, that candidate now has an advantage to the tune of billions of dollars, wins the election, and XYZ is an accomplished fact.

-Neil

*Where XYZ is something not able to be tied to a particular company, like a loosening of evironmental standards, a lessening of automotive, industrial, or product safety regulations, looser border controls for those who would import labor, lower quality standards for food cleanliness and preservation, etc. (I'm not saying these specific industries would do this, just giving examples of where it could be done.)

John Reece

January 25th 2010, 04:09 AM

What you call "astute," I would probably call "grossly slanted." Levin is every bit as dishonest as Moore--the only difference is the direction of the political slant.

We are talking about facts related to the ruling just issued by the Supreme Court, with regard to which I challenge you to document the dishonesty you allege to be true of Levin in this case. (I listen to Levin every day and have never heard him utter a false statement ― but that goes far off the topic of the OP).

For newcomers to the thread, the facts at issue in this case are presented via audio rewind here (http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#) (click on 01/21 The Mark Levin Show).

Pilgrim

January 25th 2010, 11:09 AM

they have the right to defend themselves in civil litigation just like any private individual does. there are other areas of law where corporations can be treated as individuals. frankly the idea of tying free speech to criminal code (aside from obvious "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" issues") is a frightening idea.

Their ruling was based on the majority opinion that corporations should be considered individuals regardless. That's where I'm coming from.

why don't you just out and say it: we should feel ashamed of ourselves for being Conservatives. you still seem to be incapable of participating in a thread without sullying others you disagree with. may as well say what you mean and mean what you say. I said exactly what I meant. The fact that many conservatives and liberals actually agree that this is a bad thing might indicate to you that perhaps we don't have to trade barbs along party lines here? The actions of one party here echo the other. If the Dems were in power I imagine they would do the same way. I mean one only has to look at the last few years of rulings to see that in almost every instance the ruling is straight down part lines. For both sides its about ideology and politics too often, rather than about precedent and sound law.

... because, the Constitution be damned.
Indeed that's the lesson the current court seems to be teaching.

joel

January 25th 2010, 02:29 PM

The only tool in Joel's toolbox is this one worn-out hammer. No wonder he sees all problems as nails.

What Joel fails to realize is that the "power of the government" that he decries is the very thing that enforces the freedom of speech that he approves of. The absence of government that the anarchists proclaim, and the reduction in government that the minarchists advocate, will do far less in protecting one's rights to free speech, or to the other rights that we the people have given ourselves through the mechanism of the government.
There are numerous misunderstandings in the above.

The tool under discussion here is the use of force, particularly the government. The question is over the usage of force. My position is that this tool (force) is useful (and moral) only for certain uses. It is others who seem to want to use this one tool for everything--to think practically everything should be solved by the use of physical force.

On the other side, you are mistaken in thinking that I want all force eliminated--as if I opposed defense of rights and reparation. I want rights to be protected. It makes no sense to say that protecting rights will do far less in protecting rights.

Thus, my point still stands. If we don't want corporations wielding governmental force in unjust ways, then make those unjust uses of force illegal. Your arguments above are completely off-target.

joel

January 25th 2010, 03:01 PM

That’s exactly the problem; the current SCOTUS decision allows it to happen with no enforceable restrictions on special privilege. None. If there is a corporation or corporations interested in XYZ, and a field of candidates, one of whom is in favor of XYZ* and the others of whom are not, there is nothing to keep those corporations from spending billions of dollars advertising on behalf of the one candidate in favor of XYZ and against the others. Nothing. There need be no collusion, no money changing hands, not so much as a phone call, not even a wink and a nod. And yet magically, that candidate now has an advantage to the tune of billions of dollars, wins the election, and XYZ is an accomplished fact.

But, is XYZ unjust? If XYZ is good, then there's no problem.
On the other hand, if XYZ is unjust, then make it illegal. Amend the constitution if necessary.

(Also, if XYZ does not benefit the shareholders by more than the billions of dollars, then why would they do it? If the government were not wielding trillions, then the above scenario would likely not occur.)

*Where XYZ is something not able to be tied to a particular company, like a loosening of evironmental standards, a lessening of automotive, industrial, or product safety regulations, looser border controls for those who would import labor, lower quality standards for food cleanliness and preservation, etc. (I'm not saying these specific industries would do this, just giving examples of where it could be done.)
I would be in favor of all those changes, because those laws are unjust and harmful. (voluntary standards are better.) Give me an example of something that I would be worried about.

Also, such regulations are usually special privileges pushed for by some firms that benefit from the restricted competition.

Their ruling was based on the majority opinion that corporations should be considered individuals regardless. That's where I'm coming from.

It seems that I disagree with the reasoning, but I agree with the conclusion. I disagree with the thinking that makes a corporation be a person or have rights or be a separate entity from the owners. But none of that thinking is necessary. Individuals have the right to pool their assets (including in a structured manner such that, e.g., ownership and control are proportional to the contributed assets--i.e., a "corporation"), and use them to publish political speech. There is no need for such organizations to be called persons, and there is no reason to restrict people's rights just because they have pooled their assets in a certain kind of agreement.

sc_q_jayce

January 25th 2010, 03:07 PM

Did anyone read the actual decision? (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf)

themuzicman

January 25th 2010, 03:12 PM

The problem is that McCain and Feingold are idiots for not realizing that the problem isn't corporations. No corporation may vote. None. As much money as they can throw around, it doesn't buy a single vote.

The American people get exactly what they vote for. Yes, money can get your message out more effectively. But if your message isn't what your voters want, all the money in the world isn't going to change that.

To be honest, I'm fairly sure that McCain's involvement in all this is just a guilt trip from the whole Keating-5 scandal.

Anyway, if you want to solve the problem, make the American people care about politics.

technomage

January 25th 2010, 06:09 PM

We are talking about facts related to the ruling just issued by the Supreme Court, with regard to which I challenge you to document the dishonesty you allege to be true of Levin in this case.

I've watched Fahrenheit 9/11: I do not have to watch another Michael Moore movie to know that he is dishonest. I've read Liberty and Tyranny, and again, I do not need to expose myself to more from Levin to know that he is dishonest.

(I listen to Levin every day and have never heard him utter a false statement

One does not have to make a false statement to deceive. Indeed, Michael Moore made no direct false statements in 9/11--the deception came in what he did not show, what he did not tell, and in how he slanted what he did discuss.

That's the ultimate art of deception, John: when one can never make a false statement, and yet deceive the people. I've been subjected to such behavior too many times before to wish to expose myself to it again.

John Reece

January 25th 2010, 08:41 PM

That's the ultimate art of deception, John: when one can never make a false statement, and yet deceive the people. I've been subjected to such behavior too many times before to wish to expose myself to it again.

So, your allegations of dishonesty and deception on the part of Mark Levin are mere allegations sans any presentation of evidence at all.

I have exposed myself to Mark Levin's writings and verbal teaching for countless hours and have never ever discerned the slightest bit of any dishonesty or deception; quite the contrary.

Mark Levin is not the topic of this thread, so I trust we can discontinue commenting on him here.

technomage

January 25th 2010, 09:08 PM

So, your allegations of dishonesty and deception on the part of Mark Levin are mere allegations sans any presentation of evidence at all.

I do not feel an obligation to expound on Levin's deception any more than I feel an obligation to expound on Moore's. Both are in the business of selling swill to sheeple. If you choose to buy into it, that's fine--I do not, but I feel no obligation to attempt to dissuade you from your choices, any more than I feel the obligation to dissuade a Truther from theirs.

I have exposed myself to Mark Levin's writings and verbal teaching for countless hours and have never ever discerned the slightest bit of any dishonesty or deception; quite the contrary.

Happy for you. May you continue to enjoy his show.

Mark Levin is not the topic of this thread, so I trust we can discontinue commenting on him here.
You brought it up. I'm glad to drop it.

technomage

January 25th 2010, 09:28 PM

Thank you--I hadn't taken time to read it through.

On its face, Roberts is precisely correct: since corporations are counted as legal entities that have the power of speech, restricting that speech is a violation of the First Amendment.

On a deeper reading, he's cut through a lot of the clutter that has grown around the issue, and even at that, he's right on the ball.

It's most certainly not a decision I am comfortable, with, but it is the right decision.

John Reece

January 25th 2010, 09:42 PM

I do not feel an obligation to expound on Levin's deception any more than I feel an obligation to expound on Moore's.Both are in the business of selling swill to sheeple. If you choose to buy into it, that's fine--I do not, but I feel no obligation to attempt to dissuade you from your choices, any more than I feel the obligation to dissuade a Truther from theirs.

I was not asking you to attempt to dissuade me of my choices.

You grossly slandered Levin; I simply asked to see if you could justify your slander in terms that an objective reader of this thread would recognize as a valid basis for your accusations.

You comparison of me to a Truther is on a par with your slander of Levin; the latter is no more valid than the former.

John Reece

January 25th 2010, 09:45 PM

Yes, corporations deserve free speech. At the same time, I think the law made sense and that corporations are not political individuals in that they have no right to vote and therefore no right to interfere in politics.

Under the law, unions were free to channel unlimited sums of money into all kinds of political influence, free of all the restrictions that bound average citizens banded together. The Obama takeover of two major auto companies (GM and Chrysler) and the illegal defrauding of investors in those two companies (in a transfer to the UAW of what was unlawfully taken from investors) is just one example of the consequence of unions having unlimited power to influence elections and (and consequently those elected) under McCain-Feingold law. Why should unions have such unrestricted power, when average citizens banded together in small corporations (by far, the vast majority of corporations are relatively small) were threatened with fines and imprisonment for any political advocacy in the final two monthe of an election cycle?

General Electric (a corporation) owns NBC (a corporation), and NBC as a corporation owned by a much larger corporation was free under McCain-Feingold to influence elections in countless ways completely unrestrained by any law.

Why should unions and media corporations be completely unrestrained in their power to influence elections, and average citizens joining together in small corporations be subjected to threats of fines and imprisonment for seeking to influence elections during the final two months of an election cycle?

A video that sums things up rather nicely is here (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Want-to-know-what-campaign-finance-reform-is-really-about-Watch-this-video-82443382.html).

technomage

January 25th 2010, 10:00 PM

I was not asking you to attempt to dissuade me of my choices.

Good!

You grossly slandered Levin; I simply asked to see if you could justify your slander in terms that an objective reader of this thread would recognize as a valid basis for your accusations.

Can I? Yes.

Will I? Not at this time, and I am not likely to do so in the future. Doing so would require delving back into that cesspool, and I do not choose to re-expose myself to it.

You comparison of me to a Truther...

Would you prefer I compared you to a Birther? Or would you just prefer that I refer to you as a Sheeple, and leave the comparisons to the side. I see no difference--following one lie is much like following any other. The content of the lie does not matter when those who follow them are deceived.

If Mark Levin is your particular grapefruit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Doyle_%28radio_host%29#Radio_show), I certainly wish you the joy of him.

NeilUnreal

January 25th 2010, 10:40 PM

But, is XYZ unjust? If XYZ is good, then there's no problem.

Who decides what's just?

At one point, a majority in many parts of this country thought that slavery was just. The writers of our constitution compromised on the decision that slaves were equal to three-fifths of a person. The Dred Scott decision by the SCOTUS affirmed the idea of slavery. In my own lifetime, African Americans were legally denied the right to the same services as other Americans in some parts of the country.

-Neil

John Reece

January 26th 2010, 02:16 PM

Would you prefer I compared you to a Birther? Or would you just prefer that I refer to you as a Sheeple, and leave the comparisons to the side. I see no difference--following one lie is much like following any other. The content of the lie does not matter when those who follow them are deceived.

You have certainly revealed a lot about yourself during this exchange, but nothing about me or Mark Levin that is based in reality.

joel

January 26th 2010, 03:33 PM

Who decides what's just?

No one. That's like asking who decides what the speed of light is.
It is something that we must discover/discern.

But we can easily come up with scenarios upon which we both agree.
Suppose we were worried that corporations would bribe government officials to allow them to engage in child sex slave trade. (I think we'd both agree that this would be bad.) The solution is not to restrict political speech in an attempt to address the symptom. The solution is for the slave trading to be illegal, and to be able to prosecute officials who "look the other way". (As a rule of thumb, we should focus our efforts on the bribe-taker. More specifically, we should focus on the actual infringement of rights. If we come down hard enough on the side of protecting rights, then people won't be so willing to infringe rights in exchange for bribes. And if anyone does, they would be forced to make reparation to the victim.)

(Or if we want to get really 'crazy,' we could legalize competing protection organizations, which could step in and enforce laws against slavery if the 'government' fails to do so.)

At one point, a majority in many parts of this country thought that slavery was just....

Then they were (horribly) mistaken.

NeilUnreal

January 26th 2010, 04:02 PM

No one. That's like asking who decides what the speed of light is. It is something that we must discover/discern.

I agree. I'm sorry if my last post came across as a rant directed at you. It was more in the nature of a general musing, prompted more by the words themselves than by your intent.

-Neil

Darth Executor

January 27th 2010, 12:21 AM

I'm surprised conservatives are hailing this ruling. If conservatives mistrust big government, why are they so ecstatic about the idea of giving up their rights to big corporations?

"Corporations" are a liberal boogey man, not a conservative one. Try the media.

Oh wait, the media are corporate run and get special privileges in this matter. Or at least they did until now.

I think it's a fair trade. Money itself does not elect politicians, votes do. If people don't like influence peddling (they do, otherwise congress wouldn't be full of openly corrupt prostitutes), they can vote against candidates who accept massive sums of money from corporations. I think being able to give politicians lots of money is a good countermeasure to the public's ability to pretty much do whatever it wants thanks to its money. Corporations, the general public and the government need to keep a balance of power between them to prevent abuse from their respective quarters. Corporations need protection from the population should the latter decide to pretty much bankrupt them for short term gain. They get that through collective cash infusions into political campaigns. The population needs protection from corporate abuse. They get that through direct ability to affect who gets elected by voting.

Plus, if there's one kind of speech the 1st amendment was meant to protect, it's political speech. If that can be outright banned on congress's whim, what's the point of having it?

joel

January 28th 2010, 08:29 PM

Okay, after looking through the court decision, I don't know where people are getting this idea that the argument of majority opinion was that a corporation is a person and therefore has the right to free speech under the 1st Amendment.

On the contrary, the opinion (by Justice Kennedy) consistently argues on the basis of individual rights.
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
This ruling overturns a previous SC ruling Austin, which could have been used to "to ban the political speech of millions of associations of citizens." The present ruling found that the law arbitrarily restricted speech in the case of only certain associations of individuals. "And wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech." Whereas, "Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it."

Thus again the reasoning is based solidly on individual rights.

It also points out some of the consequences of not overturning Austin. For example, it would have allowed the Congress to ban the film Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. "Under Austin...officials could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress." (Hillary is the title of the suppressed film in the present case.)

Scalia, in his consenting opinion reaffirmed the argument in terms of individual rights (not rights of corporations):
"The dissent says that when the Framers “constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” Post, at 37. That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf.”
(Italics in original)

Sheepdog

January 28th 2010, 11:19 PM

You have certainly revealed a lot about yourself during this exchange, but nothing about me or Mark Levin that is based in reality.

You certainly dealt with this guy better than i could have. Bravo!

John Reece

January 29th 2010, 08:54 AM

Here is an excerpt from George Will's article on the Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance reform:

Last week's Supreme Court decision that substantially deregulates political speech has provoked an edifying torrent of hyperbole. Critics' dismay reveals their conviction: Speech about the elections that determine the government's composition is not a constitutional right but a mere privilege that exists at the sufferance of government.

How regulated did political speech become during the decades when the court was derelict in its duty to actively defend the Constitution? The Federal Election Commission, which administers the law that rations the quantity and regulates the content and timing of political speech, identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of "speakers." The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages. The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Read the entirety of Will's article in the Washington Post here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012703909.html).