[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads

[C. G. Estabrook]

Not exactly a special case in a society in which the rich are getting richer at 
an accelerating pace, is it?

Most of the money collected for political campaigns goes to buy advertising, 
mostly radio & TV.  That was true even in the little Green party campaign for 
Congress that you and I were involved in some years ago.

Why not reduce the effectiveness of money in politics by making (prime) air time 
- and other advertising outlets - free to candidates?


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <mailto: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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

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