Big deal IMO. I mean, you had to assume it was already happening, just through backdoor channels. Might as well let companies be honest about their donations, and let the transactions be transparent so customers know and can boycott a company if they disagree with their lobbying initiatives.
QuoteSupreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns
FOXNews.com
In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.
Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.
The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.
The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.
Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.
Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold.
"Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.
Fox News' Lee Ross and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Worrisome.
What does it entain, in reality? Does it mean that moral persons, PACs, and lobbying groups are now free to donate as much money they want to candidates, even to the point of bankrolling the latters' whole campaign without them needing donations from private citizens?
Quote from: Caliga on January 21, 2010, 10:55:14 AM
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday
woops
Drakken: I think the donation limits are still in place and what this means is that corporations and whoever can spend as much as they want on "issue" (campaign) ads of their own.
As yi says, the decision has no effect on bans on direct corporate contributions, which remain intact. It only impacts restrictions on "indepedent expenditures" - where an entity funds its own advertisements without any direct coordination with a candidate's campaign. How much this distinction really matters in terms of practical effect is another question.
Two interesting and unusual features of this case:
1) It directly and openly overruled a recent prior precedent, contrary to the principle of stare decisis . Roberts' concurring opinion in particular seemed to rein back somewhat on the stare decisis doctrine. Could this be a prelude to a renewed assault on some of the remnants of the Warren Court precedents?
2) The plaintiffs had brought the case as an "as applied" challenge to the federal law. I.e. they were not arguing for the law to be striken; they were just arguing that the law could not be applied to their specific case in a constitutional manner. They specifically dropped a "facial" challenge attacking the entire law as unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court on its own decided the case as a facial challenge and struck the whole offending part of the statute from the books. This is unusual both because it goes outside the questions formally presented by the parties and because the Court usually prefers a narrower basis of decision (an as applied challenge) where a broader one can be avoided.
It was particularly interesting to see the majority talking about the need to address the matter as a facial challenge because of possible future chilling effects on speech which could not be resolved by case-by-case adjudication. That struck me as someone at odds with my vague recollection of those justices' views as expressed in prior cases. Interesting to see whether this comes back to bite in another context where these Justices may be less sympathetic to the precise interest at stake.
Where money rules there can be no true democracy. :thumbsdown:
G.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2010, 12:21:01 PM
2) The plaintiffs had brought the case as an "as applied" challenge to the federal law. I.e. they were not arguing for the law to be striken; they were just arguing that the law could not be applied to their specific case in a constitutional manner. They specifically dropped a "facial" challenge attacking the entire law as unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court on its own decided the case as a facial challenge and struck the whole offending part of the statute from the books. This is unusual both because it goes outside the questions formally presented by the parties and because the Court usually prefers a narrower basis of decision (an as applied challenge) where a broader one can be avoided.
It was particularly interesting to see the majority talking about the need to address the matter as a facial challenge because of possible future chilling effects on speech which could not be resolved by case-by-case adjudication. That struck me as someone at odds with my vague recollection of those justices' views as expressed in prior cases. Interesting to see whether this comes back to bite in another context where these Justices may be less sympathetic to the precise interest at stake.
It is a rather bald-faced example of judicial activism, given that even the plaintiffs were not calling for it. I am guessing, though, that the supporters of these justices will be back to moaning about the horrors of judicial activism before the ink dries on this decision.
One of these things that puzzle me is the US obsession with limits on campaign finance. Most European countries have some sort of limit, yes, but for the most part these are minimal. The real limit is the inability of money to have any real effect. Most, if not all, money goes through either central or local political parties. So no single donor can be large enough to outweigh the collective interests of all the other donors, not to mention outside interests can't overpower internal institutional inertia/interests. Tammany Hall, yes.
I can't help thinking that if there were unlimited donations to the RNC and DNC which then funnelled that money down to the local parties then money would buy less influence, leaving the power in the hands of local political apparatchiks like we have in europe.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 12:38:40 PM
It is a rather bald-faced example of judicial activism, given that even the plaintiffs were not calling for it. I am guessing, though, that the supporters of these justices will be back to moaning about the horrors of judicial activism before the ink dries on this decision.
Before ever getting to the First Amendment question at issue, Kennedy dedicates 15 pages to explaining why what he is doing is proper despite the seeming violation of traditional precautionary principles, in the course of which he debunks the arguments made to the contrary by the very same party that he ultimately rules for. Basically, he is telling the plaintiff that it wins more than it asked for and indeed more than the plaintiff itself conceded it could legitimately ask for.
Quote from: Viking on January 21, 2010, 12:48:44 PM
leaving the power in the hands of local political apparatchiks like we have in europe.
There - you answered your own question. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 21, 2010, 12:49:47 PM
Before ever getting to the First Amendment question at issue, Kennedy dedicates 15 pages to explaining why what he is doing is proper despite the seeming violation of traditional precautionary principles, in the course of which he debunks the arguments made to the contrary by the very same party that he ultimately rules for. Basically, he is telling the plaintiff that it wins more than it asked for and indeed more than the plaintiff itself conceded it could legitimately ask for.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if everyone accepted that the same principals apply even when their own oxen are being gored.
I never saw such a strong argument for stare decisis anyway. I mean, the court can make a mistake. Suggesting that those mistakes can never be corrected is a limitation I'd rather not shackle the court with.
I came across this footage from the SC session: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2010, 04:01:32 PM
I never saw such a strong argument for stare decisis anyway.
The argument is for consistency and predictability. That we should be able to rely on what past precedents have said, and not constantly re-litigate the same battles over and over.
Now sometimes mistakes happen, and they need to be corrected. A 2006 SCC case (R v Khelawon) had the following comment which I found to be amusing "As I will explain, I have concluded that the factors to be considered on the admissibility inquiry cannot be categorized in terms of threshold and ultimate reliability. Comments to the contrary in previous decisions of this Court should no longer be followed." Which seemed to be a rather understated way of saying that a previous decision was seriously wrong. :lol:
But that being said, that should be the very rare exception, and not the rule.
But BB, shouldn't it be reserved to decisions from the judiciary which were either gross blunders or constitutionally unfounded in the first place, and not to strike down laws and jurisprudence which were duly approved by the legislative and/or had been deemed to pass any threshold of constitutionality by earlier decisions?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2010, 04:01:32 PM
I never saw such a strong argument for stare decisis anyway. I mean, the court can make a mistake. Suggesting that those mistakes can never be corrected is a limitation I'd rather not shackle the court with.
A big concern is predictability and reliance. Rule of law sort of loses its some meaning if you don't really know what the law is going to be in crucial areas from day to day.
I agree that too much emphasis can be placed on it, and I actually agree with the tenor of Roberts' opinion. I do think it signals a subtle shift that in light of recent personnel changes (O'Connor was a big fan of stare decisis) suggests that we might seem some more shaking up of older precedents.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
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.
It's hard to get excited about something that isn't really important.
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2010, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
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.
It's hard to get excited about something that isn't really important.
Destroying what is left of the electoral process by granting corporations
carte blanche for political contributions? No, not at all.
You're such a fucking Communist.
Quote from: The Brain on January 24, 2010, 02:05:19 PM
You're such a fucking Communist.
[boris]
Government of the pipples, by the pipples, for the pipples and moose and squirrel.
[/boris]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 01:32:58 PM
Destroying what is left of the electoral process by granting corporations carte blanche for political contributions? No, not at all.
Are political contributions bad for the electoral process?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
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.
So you believe the gov't should have the power to ban books and movies it finds objectionable? The FEC's affirmative response whether they have the power to ban books in libraries is what prettty much doomed the gov't's case.
Quote from: Neil on January 24, 2010, 02:25:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 01:32:58 PM
Destroying what is left of the electoral process by granting corporations carte blanche for political contributions? No, not at all.
Are political contributions bad for the electoral process?
Political contributions from entities not allowed to vote (foreigners, foreign governments, all corporations, all labor unions, all Boy Scout Troops, and the Secret Order of the Illuminati) are bad for the electoral process, just as is the limit on individual contributions from those who are allowed to vote.
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
It was always a retarded law aimed at restricting political speech outside of the duopoly of the established political parties.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
Why would we want to have banned the publication of a newspaper? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
Why would we want to have banned the publication of a newspaper? :huh:
Because it is corporate political speech.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 05:57:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
Why would we want to have banned the publication of a newspaper? :huh:
Because it is corporate political speech.
Why are you still banging that drum? Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation. I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people. A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2010, 07:05:18 PM
Why are you still banging that drum? Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation. I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people. A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.
By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 07:08:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2010, 07:05:18 PM
Why are you still banging that drum? Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation. I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people. A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.
By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.
[/quote
This is true, but corporation aren't people. They aren't born with rights. They aren't born at all. The only way they could have rights is that someone gives them to them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 07:08:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2010, 07:05:18 PM
Why are you still banging that drum? Speech and money aren't the same thing, otherwise employers could just bitch at their employees all day and call it compensation. I dislike giving rights to things that aren't people. A corporation can't be called up for jury duty, tossed in a jail, etc, why should it be able to have the rights of a citizen.
By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.
You are correct. The Bill of Rights as a whole merely recognizes certain pre-existing rights in the form of banning government interference in them.
Having said that, I have never heard a corporation speak, so government restrictions on them isn't restricting "speech" in the sense that we understand the word. People in corporations should be free to speak, of course, but the extension of things like the concept of 'speech" to non-persons needs to be done in a very careful manner.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 24, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 24, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 10:17:36 PM
The case was specifically about whether "Hillary the Movie" could be banned.
No, it was not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 10:17:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 24, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2010, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 10:17:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 24, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
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?
It was about using advertising of a film.
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
Banning Maureen Dowd would be simply in good taste.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 10:33:55 PM
[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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 07:27:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 10:33:55 PM
[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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
Media companies were exempted. Please review statute before commenting.
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 08:04:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 07:08:07 PM
By my reading of it the First Amendment doesn't give rights from people - that would be presumptuous - it bans from Congress the ability to make laws that restrict speech.
At the same time, corporations are mere creatures of state law. The state can grant them or withhold whatever powers it wishes. Most states do that these days through general incorporation law, but it used to be the case that each corporation was chartered individually through an act of the legislature, which could (and sometimes did) insert whatever special clauses or limitations it wished.
So now we have the odd result that something the government could do on a corporation-by-corporation basis (insert a charter restriction to prevent the company from engaging in political advocacy) cannot be done as a general matter through general legislation. That seems to me rather hard to explain.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2010, 11:57:14 AM
Media companies were exempted. Please review statute before commenting.
That's not how we do things around here, son.
Quote from: chipwich on January 25, 2010, 10:29:32 AM
Certainly restricting advertising strongly affects a film's distribution.
Restricting the sources of the money for advertising, I believe you mean.
For actual films, of course, this isn't an issue. For political ads masquerading as movies, it is (because the political ads don't turn profits). I thought it was kinda funny that the USSC basically decided that the government was right on the issues in dispute, but that it was going to overturn the whole law instead of allowing the government to "benefit" from being right as a matter of law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2010, 12:08:02 PM
So now we have the odd result that something the government could do on a corporation-by-corporation basis (insert a charter restriction to prevent the company from engaging in political advocacy) cannot be done as a general matter through general legislation. That seems to me rather hard to explain.
Also, the limited liability corporation could be banned entirely or could be barred from interstate commerce. It strikes me as odd that the federal government would have the power to eliminate the corporate form but not to limit its speech rights.
Perhaps you could work around the problem by requiring corporations to surrender rights in order to be privileged to engage in interstate commerce - ala consent to warrantless searches as a condition of supervised release.
Quote from: ulmont on January 25, 2010, 01:49:04 PM
Perhaps you could work around the problem by requiring corporations to surrender rights in order to be privileged to engage in interstate commerce - ala consent to warrantless searches as a condition of supervised release.
Never thought of that, but it is an interesting compromise.
Smaller in-state corporations wouldn't be subject to the restriction, but, being smaller, would be more accountable to the ownership.
What about unions and other voluntary non-commercial organizations, though?
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2010, 02:07:22 PM
Quote from: ulmont on January 25, 2010, 01:49:04 PM
Perhaps you could work around the problem by requiring corporations to surrender rights in order to be privileged to engage in interstate commerce - ala consent to warrantless searches as a condition of supervised release.
Never thought of that, but it is an interesting compromise.
Smaller in-state corporations wouldn't be subject to the restriction, but, being smaller, would be more accountable to the ownership.
What about unions and other voluntary non-commercial organizations, though?
I hadn't gotten that far yet. I suspect they engage in sufficient interstate commerce to be broadly regulable in much the same way, though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2010, 11:57:14 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 24, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
OTOH, the New York Times is a corporation so maybe we could've banned its publication 30 days prior to an election. :lmfao:
Media companies were exempted. Please review statute before commenting.
And you missed the point completely. If the law is constitutional then the gov't could go back at any time and unexempt the media in order to ban political speech. Unless you can make an argument that somehow media corporations have more constitutional rights than non-media corporations, in which case the matter would then swithc to who has the authority to declare a corporation a media company vs. a non-media company. For a lawyer you sure can be obtuse at times.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 08:34:09 AM
And you missed the point completely. If the law is constitutional then the gov't could go back at any time and unexempt the media in order to ban political speech. Unless you can make an argument that somehow media corporations have more constitutional rights than non-media corporations, in which case the matter would then swithc to who has the authority to declare a corporation a media company vs. a non-media company. For a lawyer you sure can be obtuse at times.
Except that freedom of the press presupposes a communal entity, doesn't it?
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 08:34:09 AM
And you missed the point completely. If the law is constitutional then the gov't could go back at any time and unexempt the media in order to ban political speech.
Then you would have a new law, a new challenge, and a new analysis.
But that is all hypothetical. The Court is supposed to decide cases based on the law that actually exist, not some hypothetical law that could exist but never will. Unless of course the Court chooses to indulge in (*gasp*) activism.
QuoteUnless you can make an argument that somehow media corporations have more constitutional rights than non-media corporations, in which case the matter would then swithc to who has the authority to declare a corporation a media company vs. a non-media company. For a lawyer you sure can be obtuse at times.
As a lawyer, I know the difference between a facial and as applied challenge, which is an advantage you may lack. Thus, what seems to you to be obtuseness may in fact simply be superior techical knowledge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 09:18:25 AM
Except that freedom of the press presupposes a communal entity, doesn't it?
It assumes a publisher, which was probably the original understanding. "Media corporations" are a relatively late historical development.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 08:34:09 AM
Unless you can make an argument that somehow media corporations have more constitutional rights than non-media corporations...
:huh: What corporations have "constitutional rights?" And what, exactly, are "constitutional rights?"
If you are going to accuse others of being obtuse, you should avoid being obtuse yourself.
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2010, 03:08:21 AM
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.
This is true. I mean in the aftermath of the whole Joe Wilson 'you lie' thing I saw Sean Hannity note that Democrats were raising money off of the back of it. On his own website (front page) was a giant 'Support Joe Wilson' logo that took you through to a fundraising site.
But I think the BBC has very strict rules on what it can and can't report on election day and in the run up to an election must (by its charter) give equal time to all major parties (depending on region). We also don't have TV ads. We have party election broadcasts. Each party is given a certain number of slots based on the number of representatives they have, none of the timeslots are for the parties to choose. We've killed the problem by legally requiring party election broadcasts to be 5 minutes long, so they kill us with boredom. The ones that don't are insane (a particular favourite of mine was a UKIP ad that showed a giant purple octopus with the EU flag on its forehead emerging from the Thames and tearing down Big Ben).
However our newspapers are virulent during an election. This is a particularly famous election day edition of the Sun:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bl.uk%2Flearning%2Fimages%2Ffront%2520page%2FIf%2520Kinnick%2520Wins-st.jpg&hash=6d4b48cf7afae02cb2a84fd1c7f281a0545f21ad)
QuoteSo now we have the odd result that something the government could do on a corporation-by-corporation basis (insert a charter restriction to prevent the company from engaging in political advocacy) cannot be done as a general matter through general legislation. That seems to me rather hard to explain.
True enough.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2010, 09:46:01 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 08:34:09 AM
And you missed the point completely. If the law is constitutional then the gov't could go back at any time and unexempt the media in order to ban political speech.
Then you would have a new law, a new challenge, and a new analysis.
But that is all hypothetical. The Court is supposed to decide cases based on the law that actually exist, not some hypothetical law that could exist but never will. Unless of course the Court chooses to indulge in (*gasp*) activism.
QuoteUnless you can make an argument that somehow media corporations have more constitutional rights than non-media corporations, in which case the matter would then swithc to who has the authority to declare a corporation a media company vs. a non-media company. For a lawyer you sure can be obtuse at times.
As a lawyer, I know the difference between a facial and as applied challenge, which is an advantage you may lack. Thus, what seems to you to be obtuseness may in fact simply be superior techical knowledge.
Or more likely three years of law school has taught you how to ignore such simple declarative sentences such as "Congress shall make no law..." :lmfao:
Next you'll argue that corporations distributing pornography is constitutionally protected free speech while corporations distributing political speech isn't. :lmfao:
Sorry, that is a rather pathetic line of reasoning.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 06:12:40 PM
Next you'll argue that corporations distributing pornography is constitutionally protected free speech while corporations distributing political speech isn't. :lmfao:
Sorry, that is a rather pathetic line of reasoning.
I would have thought that you had learned from Syt's example that telling a person what they are going to say next always ends in tears.