[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Sun Jan 24 16:15:38 CST 2010
OK, let's attack corporations, not speech.
Let's subject investment decisions to democratic control, nationalize banks, and
redistribute wealth; let's not tell people that they can't say/broadcast/publish
something.
unionyes wrote:
> Carl,
>
> I am for free speech for PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATIONS !
> Especially when these same corporations have a strangle hold control on
> our media and our government !
>
> And on a practical level, how in the hell can we organize if the
> corporations control the main sources of information and access to it ?
>
> That is the bottom line !
>
> Not to mention the ever increasing power this ruling gives to
> corporations to further undermine what little democracy we have left by
> unleashing them to spend even more money on bribing and threatening
> elected officials.
>
> Not to mention how this ruling will also allow government entities like
> Burma, China, the coup government of Hondurus, Columbia, etc. to set up
> shell corporations in Deleware with a Post Office box and a bank account
> to influence our domestic elections.
>
> I have to deal with and try to survive in the real world, and this
> ruling is going to make it that much more difficult for myself and other
> citizen activists and democracy in general.
>
> David J.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook"
> <galliher at illinois.edu>
> To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net>
> Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "John W."
> <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
>
>
>> I don't think I'm suggesting that all things are equal - just the
>> opposite. American business does with propaganda what more primitive
>> totalitarian societies did with prisons and the knout.
>>
>> But the way to fight it is by talking to people and organizing, not by
>> trying to restrict what our enemies can say publicly! The cure for
>> bad speech is more speech, not less.
>>
>> We complain about administrations that ignore the Constitution (as we
>> should) but then we're ready to throw out the First Amendment! As
>> Chomsky says, if we don't believe in free speech for people and ideas
>> we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
>>
>>
>> unionyes wrote:
>>> That is EXACTLEY the bottom line point John !
>>> I was going to respond to Carl's statement but you beat me to it.
>>> Yes Carl, I have always agreed and embraced your statement of " let
>>> a thousand flowers bloom " in regards to free speech.
>>> However, let's look at the cruel reality here in the U.S. instead of
>>> the theoretical all things being equal arguement.
>>> Things are not equal to even allow a thousand flowers to bloom, and
>>> this recent 5 - 4 Supreme Court ruling will only make things much
>>> worse than they already are.
>>> The American people are fed a 24-hour 365 day a year non-stop
>>> propoganda barrage of lies and disinformation on multiple channels
>>> that ALL bascily agree with each other in the " range of allowable
>>> debate ", as you so well describe.
>>> For the average American, especially those without the internet (
>>> and there still are quite a large percentage ) there is NOTHING to
>>> counter the lies and disinformation.
>>> As Hitler's Propoganda minister Goebels stated " A lie repeated often
>>> enough will eventually become a truth to most people "
>>> This is as true today in corporate controlled America as it was in
>>> Nazi Germany.
>>> We have an iron curtain of disinformation in this country.
>>> Europeans and citizens of most other countries can access are media
>>> if they choose via cable T.V., but we cannot access their media via
>>> T.V.. The BBC America does not count because it is an " American "
>>> version and not what is shown in the U.K..
>>> Only on the internet ( IF one knows where to search ) can an American
>>> find non-corporate and foreign news sources.
>>> And even the internet is under attack by corporate interests who want
>>> more control of what you can access.
>>> Free Speech T.V., Link T.V., is only available on DISH sattelite
>>> network and not available on DIRECT TV or Comcast or most other cable
>>> televison.
>>> And the corporate interests around the country have already begun a
>>> successful attack so far upon public access T.V..in many communities.
>>> Beyond the control of our media, the corporate interests in this
>>> country control our government. Our elected officials, our laws, and
>>> of course by extension the police, the courts, and the military which
>>> they can use and do use against us and other people of the world. As
>>> most of you know, they do this via the system of legalized bribery
>>> called " campaign contributions " and they further this via Lobbying,
>>> Congressional perks like speaking fee engagements and golf trips to
>>> the Carribean, etc. and then there is the " revolving door " of
>>> lucrative corporate jobs waiting for those elected officials who are
>>> good corporate team players.
>>> So with the above as our current reality, this latest Supreme Court
>>> ruling IS a blow to what little democracy we have left in this country.
>>> It is a step in the wrong directions and will only make things worse.
>>> Finally Corporations are NOT human beings or any living life form.
>>> They do NOT deserve free speech rights, especially considering the
>>> harm they have done to us alraedy as a result of their influence and
>>> control.
>>> Organizations of free associations of individuals that are 501c3's
>>> etc. are NOT the same as money making and profit taking entities and
>>> therefore should be allowed free speech. Unless it can be proven that
>>> they are a corporate front groups.
>>> David Johnson
>>> So that is why I DO think this ruling is a disaster, which will ONLY
>>> make the situation in this ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* John W. <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* C. G. Estabrook <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
>>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 24, 2010 6:52 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads
>>>
>>>
>>> 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* <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.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list