Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[jimmy olsen]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this big wet shit on the democratic process hasn't made more news, or that Languishites aren't making a bigger deal of it.

Maybe because Languishites aren't fond of banning movies or books.

Not a big deal? Visit some left wing websites, they're screaming about a judicial coup and the comments are filled with "we have to kill the judges to save the republic" type comments. They're reacting like the right did to Roe vs. Wade.

[Faeelin]

I love how Tim immediately reaches for "Maybe Languishites aren't fascists," as if the issue is a black and one question of tyranny versus freedom.

[Razgovory]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this big wet shit on the democratic process hasn't made more news, or that Languishites aren't making a bigger deal of it.

Maybe because Languishites aren't fond of banning movies or books.

Not a big deal? Visit some left wing websites, they're screaming about a judicial coup and the comments are filled with "we have to kill the judges to save the republic" type comments. They're reacting like the right did to Roe vs. Wade.

Which left wing websites are these?  In particular where does that quote come from.

[grumbler]

I love how Tim immediately reaches for "Maybe Languishites aren't fascists," as if the issue is a black and one question of tyranny versus freedom.

Given that the case had nothing to do with banning anything, it is natural that, if one wants to try to make it into something world-ending (or wants to make one's opponents look like that) one talks about banning (or stopping the same).  It is called Languish.

[jimmy olsen]

I love how Tim immediately reaches for "Maybe Languishites aren't fascists," as if the issue is a black and one question of tyranny versus freedom.

Given that the case had nothing to do with banning anything, it is natural that, if one wants to try to make it into something world-ending (or wants to make one's opponents look like that) one talks about banning (or stopping the same).  It is called Languish.

The case was specifically about whether "Hillary the Movie" could be banned.

[grumbler]

The case was specifically about whether "Hillary the Movie" could be banned.

No, it was not.

[Razgovory]

I love how Tim immediately reaches for "Maybe Languishites aren't fascists," as if the issue is a black and one question of tyranny versus freedom.

Given that the case had nothing to do with banning anything, it is natural that, if one wants to try to make it into something world-ending (or wants to make one's opponents look like that) one talks about banning (or stopping the same).  It is called Languish.

The case was specifically about whether "Hillary the Movie" could be banned.

Where do you get your information.

[jimmy olsen]

I love how Tim immediately reaches for "Maybe Languishites aren't fascists," as if the issue is a black and one question of tyranny versus freedom.

Given that the case had nothing to do with banning anything, it is natural that, if one wants to try to make it into something world-ending (or wants to make one's opponents look like that) one talks about banning (or stopping the same).  It is called Languish.

The case was specifically about whether "Hillary the Movie" could be banned.

Where do you get your information.

The movie makers were challenging the Federal Election Commission who banned the distribution of their movie. What do you think the case was about? 

[Razgovory]

It was about using advertising of a film.

[Martinus]

While I share concerns about allowing corporations to donate indiscriminately to political campaigns, because it distorts the process and allows interest groups too much of a say, I must say I can't see a formal difference between that and corporations that pay people to exercise their right to free speech (e.g. corporations that own media networks and pay their journalists to say stuff on the air).

I think I can see a point of having a ban on corporate donations etc. in a situation where the media is politically neutral at least to some degree (e.g. like having BBC in the UK, which is supposedly neutral and should present different views equally - and this balance could be upset if private corporations could buy up all their advert time for one political party or something) but in the US, I don't see the difference between Texaco buying a pro-Republican ad on Fox News or Fox News being pro-Republican on their own on Glenn Beck show. I think the opposition comes from the ideal of "simpler, better times" of supposed media objectivity.

[CountDeMoney]

OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. 

Banning Maureen Dowd would be simply in good taste.

[grumbler]

[The movie makers were challenging the Federal Election Commission who banned the distribution of their movie. What do you think the case was about?

I'd say you need to read some news coverage of the case, because wherever you got your information from is wrong.  The issue was whether or not the film amounted to a political ad, not whether its distribution could be banned.

[chipwich]

[The movie makers were challenging the Federal Election Commission who banned the distribution of their movie. What do you think the case was about?

I'd say you need to read some news coverage of the case, because wherever you got your information from is wrong.  The issue was whether or not the film amounted to a political ad, not whether its distribution could be banned.

Certainly restricting advertising strongly affects a film's distribution.

[The Minsky Moment]

OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. 

Media companies were exempted.  Please review statute before commenting.

[The Minsky Moment]

Having said that, I am in favor of the minimum possible government regulations (and, in fact, am in favor of forcing government to remove an existing restriction for each new one they emplace) so this ruling, per se, doesn't bother me much.  What bothers me is the ease with which the bureaucratic charlatans in the unions and corporations can get to spend the money of their "constituents" pursuing the political interests of the charlatan.

The business judgment rule is going to give a lot of shelter to those corporate boards that want to use shareholder money to push favored candidates and electoral outcomes.  The only real check is a proxy contest; good luck with that.