[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads

[John W.]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:


> [I don't like this guy's politics much, but I think he may be right about
> why there has been so much weeping and gnashing of teeth about the SC
> decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  The one clear if perhaps questionable
> contribution of the American 20th c. to human civilization since the
> Neolithic was PR; the fear of the NYT editorialists et al. is that this SC
> decision in its madly consequent way may upset the apple cart.  OTOH with
> Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd c. CE, I say, "Let a hundred flowers bloom;
> let a thousand schools of thought contend." (I realize the image has been
> used by others.) --CGE]
>

That isn't what happens with PR, Carl.  No flowers are blooming when the
corporate PR  machine spins out lie upon lie upon lie.

To me this decision equates "political speech" with "justice".  In both
cases, in the United States at least, you're entitled to as much speech and
as much "justice" as you can afford to pay for.





>
>        Understanding Liberal Rage Over Citizens United
>        by Brian Garst
>
> On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal
> issue.  First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when
> a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those
> speaking truth to power.  Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision.
>  So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?
>
> It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all
> things corporate.  But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like
> a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on
> corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment
> because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the
> corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by
> those of the unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the
> ruling just the same.  The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting
> that their opposition isn’t political in nature.  Neither is it based on the
> merits. Rather, it is philosophical.
>
> Consider the following reactions to the decision from the left. The New
> York Times editorialized the decision as a “blow to democracy,” and a
> “disastrous 5-to-4 ruling” that “has thrust politics back to the
> robber-baron era of the 19th century.”  Talk about overwrought.
>
> President Obama decried the “stampede of special interest money” that will
> somehow “[undermine] the influence of average Americans.”  Senator Patrick
> Leahy warned that the decision would “change the course of our democracy.”
>  And the ever-contemptible Rep. Alan Grayson must have been hyperventilating
> when he declared that “this is the worst Supreme Court decision since the
> Dred Scott case. It leads us all down the road to serfdom.”
>
> As if these politicians aren’t bad enough, the liberal blogosphere is even
> worse, as frantic left-wing bloggers and their readers have been busy
> declaring an end to democracy as we know it ever since the ruling came down.
> The apocalyptic – and not to mention apoplectic – nature of their criticism
> suggests an answer as to why the decision irks them so.  Liberals think you
> are all idiots.  American voters are simply too stupid to filter so much
> information and then reach the right decision.  And as they well know, the
> right decision is unquestionably to adopt the liberal position.  They, as
> the learned among us, know best and so ought to be the only ones allowed to
> tell you what you should think and why you should think it.  That way you
> don’t get confused by all those other pesky views and opinions.  One wonders
> how we ever survived as a nation before the great heroes John McCain and
> Russ Feingold came along to save us from ourselves.
>
> At the heart of the liberal philosophy of government is a belief that
> people are too stupid to fend for themselves, manage their own affairs or
> vote for the right candidates.  Democracy itself will be destroyed because
> of a few extra ads targeting voters before elections? Voters, it seems, just
> aren’t sophisticated enough to handle that much information.
>
> Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution recognizes rights that all
> citizens have, regardless of how intelligent the editorial board of the New
> York Times thinks a person from Kansas really is.  It turns out that “make
> no law” really means that “Congress shall make no law,” even if that law
> would advance the liberal agenda.
>
>
> http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/23/understanding-liberal-rage-over-citizens-united/
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100124/f466413f/attachment-0001.html>