[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Sun Jan 24 15:51:38 CST 2010
The point is that you shouldn't invade anyone's First Amendment rights to
prevent the broadcast of a film that's unpleasant about Hillary. Political
censorship is wrong (as well as unconstitutional).
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, struck down this week as it should
have been, was a fig-leaf that obviously didn't prevent corporate money from
directing campaigns, however much it inconvenienced civic groups.
It was an example of what Balzac had in mind when he spoke of laws that are
"spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught."
Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> 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.
>
> First, this is true; but we do it everyday. It is unavoidable and part
> of the compromises that one must be willing to make and accept in order
> to have a functioning society. Secondly, the implications of defining
> corporations (actually any incorporated group or association - unions,
> civic associations, as well as businesses) as persons extends far
> beyond First Amendment rights or free speech. Can corporations in the
> form of their representatives run for and hold public office, can
> corporate entities be declared by the courts and insane or mentally
> challenged, can corporate entities and their officers, shareholders, and
> employees be fined and jailed for the same criminal and civil acts as
> you or I? Thirdly, corporations are already considered a special class
> of person different from you or I when it comes to the tax codes, to
> legal and civil liability regulations and codes, to zoning regulations,
> and a number of other areas. Treating them as if they were a different
> type of person than you or I raises the question of discrimination and
> special treatment for one class of person over the other.
>
> One can avoid these issues by not making corporate entities legal
> persons. As for invading real person's rights or dealing with violations
> by real persons, that can be handled by the traditional processes on an
> individual basis as has been done in the past. At least in that way
> real individuals can be held accountable for their actions - direct or
> indirect - on their own behalf or on the behalf of corporate entities
> without being freed of liability on the basis that the corporate person
> is liable not the real people who are making the decisions and acting on
> behalf of the corporation.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:44 PM
> To: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list