[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads

Sun Jan 24 10:45:03 CST 2010

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 08:53:20AM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 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?

For that matter, why not consider votes to be speech (after all, they're
expressions of opinion), and sell them on the open market?  

For those who haven't been watching Joe Futrelle's facebook threads,
he and others have been bouncing around some ideas.  Protected corporate
speech can go far.  How about a flag-burning company with toasted
star-and-striped marshmallows as its logo?  Or, "corporate literature"...
Wuthering Heinz, or All Quiet on the Best Western Front, or ...  well, go and see:
    http://www.facebook.com/joefutrelle

More seriously there's a proposal from at least People for the American Way
for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not persons.

This makes an even more compelling reason to do a performance of
Gilbert and Sullivan's Utopia, Limited.  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia,_Limited
Maybe at a People's Pot Luck, or an AWARE film event, or something.
(I heard of this from Ron Szoke, who was listening to it one day.
Favorite quote, said in horror:  "He's no longer a person.  He's a
corporation, and so long as he sticks to his charter, we can't touch him!")

You can't revoke the charter of a person, but it should be possible to
do so for a badly-behaving corporation.

>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.