The Best Democracy Money Can Buy?

Here are some interesting thoughts from others.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". That's all speech, by all people, including aggregations of people, which includes corporations (which are made up of people) and unions (which are also made up of people) -- or any other group of people."

"It was a win for the Constitution of the United States, a document that is often run rough-shod over these days."

"The whole McCain-Feingold Law was really just another manifestation of the Federal nanny state, based on the flawed assumption that, if too many groups are allowed free speech, the people won't be smart enough to decide for themselves what the truth is; therefore, the Federal Beast needed to be empowered to determine who can speak during elections and who can't. Unsurprisingly, the Washington establishment constructed this unconstitutional law so as to favor incumbents and unions. SCOTUS did the right thing in throwing this thing out. We need more free speech (with full disclosure on who's speaking it during campaigns), not less."

Now consider this scenario....

I wonder what the reaction of those that dislike this ruling would be if the following scenario occurred. Let's assume that in the upcoming elections in 2010, a candidate or several candidates were running on a platform of limiting the sale and distribution of violent video games and/or perhaps limiting participation in on-line gaming to 21 years of age. I would think that the game manufactures and on-line gaming hosts would be opposed to those restrictions, as would many of the members of GS. Now assuming that the game manufacturers and on-line gaming hosts decided to run political ads opposing those candidates, would those that oppose the Supreme Court's decision, also oppose these corporations running these ads?

Another thought for those that are concerned that ads have too much influence on the voters. In the recent MA Senate election, Coakley out spent Brown by two or three to one. In spite of all of that spending on Ads, it sure didn't "influence" the people the way Coakley had planned.

Just some thoughts.

blackregiment

I watched Olberman spend his hour of TV time last nite railing against this decision. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Here is a man with an hour of TV time every week night to spout off about how evil republicans are and he spends it last nite disparaging the freedom of speech of others.

Don't get me wrong. I know that Fox has Hannity, Beck, et al. MSNBC has Olberman, Maddow, Mattews, et al. Talk radio has Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, et al.

My question is this: How is the unlimited political speech of all these media figures somehow sacred and beyond restriction, but its OK to limit the political speech of a corporation, union, or advocacy group?

Do those of you that are so against this ruling want the government to limit all this political speech? Or just the speech of those you deem unworthy of the protection of the first amendment?

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Here are some interesting thoughts from others.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". That's all speech, by all people, including aggregations of people, which includes corporations (which are made up of people) and unions (which are also made up of people) -- or any other group of people."

"It was a win for the Constitution of the United States, a document that is often run rough-shod over these days."

"The whole McCain-Feingold Law was really just another manifestation of the Federal nanny state, based on the flawed assumption that, if too many groups are allowed free speech, the people won't be smart enough to decide for themselves what the truth is; therefore, the Federal Beast needed to be empowered to determine who can speak during elections and who can't. Unsurprisingly, the Washington establishment constructed this unconstitutional law so as to favor incumbents and unions. SCOTUS did the right thing in throwing this thing out. We need more free speech (with full disclosure on who's speaking it during campaigns), not less."

Now consider this scenario....

I wonder what the reaction of those that dislike this ruling would be if the following scenario occurred. Let's assume that in the upcoming elections in 2010, a candidate or several candidates were running on a platform of limiting the sale and distribution of violent video games and/or perhaps limiting participation in on-line gaming to 21 years of age. I would think that the game manufactures and on-line gaming hosts would be opposed to those restrictions, as would many of the members of GS. Now assuming that the game manufacturers and on-line gaming hosts decided to run political ads opposing those candidates, would those that oppose the Supreme Court's decision, also oppose these corporations running these ads?

Another thought for those that are concerned that ads have too much influence on the voters. In the recent MA Senate election, Coakley out spent Brown by two or three to one. In spite of all of that spending on Ads, it sure didn't "influence" the people the way Coakley had planned.

Just some thoughts.

Vandalvideo

The premise of your argument is based in a fallacy in that it attempts to equate the act of running of a political ad for or against a candidate with things like criminal syndicalism, libel, slander, etc. If a political ad violates those separate legal doctrines or laws prohibiting them, then they should be addressed as doing so, not by banning all ads. Using that premise, driving should be banned because some drivers commit offenses such as DWI, or all guns should be banned because some people use them to commit crimes.

No one is advocating "free speech" such as yelling fire in a crowded theater or that which is criminal, libelous, or slanderous.

An interesting observation is that many support Court decisions reflecting legislating from the bench when that legislating promotes the progressive agenda, yet oppose it when a Court ruling upholds Constitutional principles, such as free speech, that our nation was founded on.

Good....as good meaning as the law was it wasn't constitutional....limiting free speech based on wealth is wrong.....just becaue people are in a corperation it doesn't mean that their right to express themselves should be limited......finally...somone actually following the law instead of making it......Omni-Slash

.... That is false when it comes to campaigning laws there are very specific things that occur.. For instance 527 committees are forbidden to support one canidate or the other in their promotions.. This isn't about free speech with this what so ever, and I think it disingenious to suggest it does when this kind of tool has been used for decades now to help curb certain abuses..

I watched Olberman spend his hour of TV time last nite railing against this decision. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Here is a man with an hour of TV time every week night to spout off about how evil republicans are and he spends it last nite disparaging the freedom of speech of others.

Don't get me wrong. I know that Fox has Hannity, Beck, et al. MSNBC has Olberman, Maddow, Mattews, et al. Talk radio has Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, et al.

My question is this: How is the unlimited political speech of all these media figures somehow sacred and beyond restriction, but its OK to limit the political speech of a corporation, union, or advocacy group?

Do those of you that are so against this ruling want the government to limit all this political speech? Or just the speech of those you deem unworthy of the protection of the first amendment?

collegeboy64

:| This has little to do with free speech, businesses already have their own interest groups, PACs and 527 committees.. This was not needed to be overturned what so ever.. Furthermore Obama is the president of the United States, so I don't quite get your point he was on tv..

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I watched Olberman spend his hour of TV time last nite railing against this decision. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Here is a man with an hour of TV time every week night to spout off about how evil republicans are and he spends it last nite disparaging the freedom of speech of others.

Don't get me wrong. I know that Fox has Hannity, Beck, et al. MSNBC has Olberman, Maddow, Mattews, et al. Talk radio has Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, et al.

My question is this: How is the unlimited political speech of all these media figures somehow sacred and beyond restriction, but its OK to limit the political speech of a corporation, union, or advocacy group?

Do those of you that are so against this ruling want the government to limit all this political speech? Or just the speech of those you deem unworthy of the protection of the first amendment?

sSubZerOo

:| This has little to do with free speech, businesses already have their own interest groups, PACs and 527 committees.. This was not needed to be overturned what so ever.. Furthermore Obama is the president of the United States, so I don't quite get your point he was on tv..

Read more carefully. I didn't mention President Obama. I'm talking about these "media" political commentators that have their own shows where they can advocate for or against political candidates, policies, etc etc with no government infringement on their political speech.

You're not answering the fundemenatal question. The first amendment protects speech, political speech first and foremost. How are these restricitions on advertising anything other than the government choosing what is good political speech and what is bad political speech? How can Olberman (not Obama), Maddow, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Ed Shultz, etc etc etc, have an unfettered right to voice their political speech on tv, but corporations, unions, and advocacy groups don't?

As for the PACs and 527s: This is nothing more than the government dicatating how citizens must organize themselves in order to be considered worthy of protection under the first amendment.

I've always been a proponent of campaign finance reform. I think we need a level playing field. It's just not a good thing when one candidate can spend 20 times more on advertising or their campaign than the other.

This represents a huge lurch towards Third-World-style politics.

Next step: Government-protected monopolies and/or price-fixing with government connivance.

The government, of course, will be a major shareholder in those "screw the consumer" companies, just like the ANC government in South Africa. :(

IMO this is not democry, we are voteing for a king, real Democry is when everyone over 18 votes on what policys will happen, not promises.Mellosinferno

It's an oligarchy.

I agree with the decision.

When it comes right down to basics, why is a corporation any different than a person? It's a collective. If their board agrees to run an ad, then let them run their ad. The government has no place to tell them they they can't.

Another right-infringing law owned, score!

The premise of your argument is based in a fallacy in that it attempts to equate the act of running of a political ad for or against a candidate with things like criminal syndicalism, libel, slander, etc. If a political ad violates those separate legal doctrines or laws prohibiting them, then they should be addressed as doing so, not by banning all ads. Using that premise, driving should be banned because some drivers commit offenses such as DWI, or all guns should be banned because some people use them to commit crimes.No one is advocating "free speech" such as yelling fire in a crowded theater or that which is criminal, libelous, or slanderous.An interesting observation is that many support Court decisions reflecting legislating from the bench when that legislating promotes the progressive agenda, yet oppose it when a Court ruling upholds Constitutional principles, such as free speech, that our nation was founded on.blackregiment

Well, I know debates on Health Care reform have been pretty much sucking up all the oxygen out of the board where political discussions are concerned, but there ARE other things going on in the U.S. aside from just that one (admittedly huge) issue. The U.S. Supreme Court just issued their 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case. This ruling overturns a 1990 decision that stated that corporations could not run ads outright advocating the defeat of certain political candidates. Voting in the majority were judges Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, generally considered to be the most conservative judges on the court. Voting in the minority were Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated: [quote="Justice Kennedy"] Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter's special advantages of e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may "have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas." Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. nocoolnamejim

The lst Amendment applying to corporations has a VERY long legal precedent so from a completely objective perspective, the law is unconstitutional based on past precedent that has established a corporation's right to freedom of speech. Considering the courts are supposed to be objective, I think they made the right decision.

The lst Amendment applying to corporations has a VERY long legal precedent so from a completely objective perspective, the law is unconstitutional based on past precedent that has established a corporation's right to freedom of speech. Considering the courts are supposed to be objective, I think they made the right decision.HomicidalCherry

IMO this is not democry, we are voteing for a king, real Democry is when everyone over 18 votes on what policys will happen, not promises.Mellosinferno