[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads

Sun Jan 24 13:44:58 CST 2010

If the "serious proposal" succeeds, & a constitutional amendment declares that 
corporations are not persons, you're still going to have to invade some real 
person's First Amendment rights to prevent the broadcast of a film that's 
unpleasant about Hillary.

It might be better to restrict corporations seriously by statute - national 
charters, limited time and purpose, strict fiduciary responsibility, etc.

Stuart Levy wrote:
> 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.