Corporations and Political Speech
Moderator: Global Moderator
Corporations and Political Speech
Recalling a recent thread addressed to getting the money out of politics, I found it interesting that the overriding concern of the left-leaning folks was on silencing the political speech of conservative organizations--not on ending the quid pro quo culture that has made Congress the bought-and-paid-for tool of the corporatist elite (both left and right). The takeaway, I think, is that the progressive Left, unprincipled almost by definition, is just fine with the proposition of Congress as a whore so long as it's their whore.
And no, I don't think the term "fascism" is a misnomer. If you broaden the idea of nationalism to include lock-step allegiance to a subculture rigidly defined by a set of political ideals, it's a perfect fit.
And no, I don't think the term "fascism" is a misnomer. If you broaden the idea of nationalism to include lock-step allegiance to a subculture rigidly defined by a set of political ideals, it's a perfect fit.
Last edited by Maddy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
That's a completely incorrect portrayal of my views on money and politics, and I'm one of the "left-leaning" folks on here.Maddy wrote: Recalling a recent thread addressed to getting the money out of politics, I found it interesting that the overriding concern of the left-leaning folks was on silencing the political speech of conservative organizations--not on ending the quid pro quo culture that has made Congress the bought-and-paid-for tool of the corporatist elite (both left and right). The takeaway, I think, is that the progressive Left, unprincipled almost by definition, is just fine with the proposition of Congress as a whore so long as it's their whore.
And no, I don't think the term "fascism" is a misnomer. If you broaden the idea of nationalism to include lock-step allegiance to a subculture rigidly defined by a set of political ideals, it's a perfect fit.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Ditto.jafs wrote:That's a completely incorrect portrayal of my views on money and politics, and I'm one of the "left-leaning" folks on here.Maddy wrote: Recalling a recent thread addressed to getting the money out of politics, I found it interesting that the overriding concern of the left-leaning folks was on silencing the political speech of conservative organizations--not on ending the quid pro quo culture that has made Congress the bought-and-paid-for tool of the corporatist elite (both left and right). The takeaway, I think, is that the progressive Left, unprincipled almost by definition, is just fine with the proposition of Congress as a whore so long as it's their whore.
And no, I don't think the term "fascism" is a misnomer. If you broaden the idea of nationalism to include lock-step allegiance to a subculture rigidly defined by a set of political ideals, it's a perfect fit.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
You were describing a scenario where groups of everyday people are forbidden by government from getting together to distribute a message, but "the media" is allowed to say whatever it wants about the candidates.jafs wrote:That's a completely incorrect portrayal of my views on money and politics, and I'm one of the "left-leaning" folks on here.Maddy wrote: Recalling a recent thread addressed to getting the money out of politics, I found it interesting that the overriding concern of the left-leaning folks was on silencing the political speech of conservative organizations--not on ending the quid pro quo culture that has made Congress the bought-and-paid-for tool of the corporatist elite (both left and right). The takeaway, I think, is that the progressive Left, unprincipled almost by definition, is just fine with the proposition of Congress as a whore so long as it's their whore.
And no, I don't think the term "fascism" is a misnomer. If you broaden the idea of nationalism to include lock-step allegiance to a subculture rigidly defined by a set of political ideals, it's a perfect fit.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
* Under the umbrella of corporate limited liability.Xan wrote:You were describing a scenario where groups of everyday people are forbidden by government from getting together to distribute a message*, but "the media" is allowed to say whatever it wants about the candidates.jafs wrote:That's a completely incorrect portrayal of my views on money and politics, and I'm one of the "left-leaning" folks on here.Maddy wrote: Recalling a recent thread addressed to getting the money out of politics, I found it interesting that the overriding concern of the left-leaning folks was on silencing the political speech of conservative organizations--not on ending the quid pro quo culture that has made Congress the bought-and-paid-for tool of the corporatist elite (both left and right). The takeaway, I think, is that the progressive Left, unprincipled almost by definition, is just fine with the proposition of Congress as a whore so long as it's their whore.
And no, I don't think the term "fascism" is a misnomer. If you broaden the idea of nationalism to include lock-step allegiance to a subculture rigidly defined by a set of political ideals, it's a perfect fit.
Unlike the media, which is organized as a series of for-profit corporations. Wait, what?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Jafs,
With all due respect, your focus for the majority of that discussion was on the control of speech. Although you appeared to acknowledge, later on in the debate, the more general issue of corruption in politics and the role of campaign contributions in the peddling of influence, even then you continued to focus predominately on speech as the problem and of the control of speech as the antidote. Your central premise was that the guy with money "can speak louder," and that allowing unlimited amounts of money to be spent on "political speech" makes for an unlevel playing field in favor of the wealthy. You repeatedly made the point that freedom of speech is not absolute and that we have to weigh the value of allowing more speech in politics against its potential to cause harm.
The problem of corruption, and the fact our Congress is now nearly entirely controlled by special interests, is not a consequence of the exercise of free speech. If it were, I would expect you to be equally troubled by the fact that articulate, well-educated people enjoy an unfair advantage in expressing their political views. Or that good-looking people who drive Corvettes, speaking of Hollywood personalities, influence elections with a single tweet. That fact notwithstanding, it's nearly always the alleged dangers of unbridled speech upon which the progressives focus. Could it be that they're more interested in controlling the content of public discourse than they are in curbing the corrupting influence of money in politics?
I do give you credit for eventually coming around to the idea that "corruptibility is the root problem." But on this point, I'd venture to say that you have a more in common with the Trump supporters than your liberal peers.
With all due respect, your focus for the majority of that discussion was on the control of speech. Although you appeared to acknowledge, later on in the debate, the more general issue of corruption in politics and the role of campaign contributions in the peddling of influence, even then you continued to focus predominately on speech as the problem and of the control of speech as the antidote. Your central premise was that the guy with money "can speak louder," and that allowing unlimited amounts of money to be spent on "political speech" makes for an unlevel playing field in favor of the wealthy. You repeatedly made the point that freedom of speech is not absolute and that we have to weigh the value of allowing more speech in politics against its potential to cause harm.
The problem of corruption, and the fact our Congress is now nearly entirely controlled by special interests, is not a consequence of the exercise of free speech. If it were, I would expect you to be equally troubled by the fact that articulate, well-educated people enjoy an unfair advantage in expressing their political views. Or that good-looking people who drive Corvettes, speaking of Hollywood personalities, influence elections with a single tweet. That fact notwithstanding, it's nearly always the alleged dangers of unbridled speech upon which the progressives focus. Could it be that they're more interested in controlling the content of public discourse than they are in curbing the corrupting influence of money in politics?
I do give you credit for eventually coming around to the idea that "corruptibility is the root problem." But on this point, I'd venture to say that you have a more in common with the Trump supporters than your liberal peers.
Last edited by Maddy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
God, you guys really missed my point quite a bit.
My main point was, and always has been, that money is a corrupting influence in politics, in many ways, and that we should get it out of there. That's why I said no campaign contributions, no "revolving door" between politics/business/etc.
The turn towards speech came from questions that I was asked about that. And, even there, my point again was that money tilts the playing field and allows those with money to have a disproportionate effect on the process.
My main point was, and always has been, that money is a corrupting influence in politics, in many ways, and that we should get it out of there. That's why I said no campaign contributions, no "revolving door" between politics/business/etc.
The turn towards speech came from questions that I was asked about that. And, even there, my point again was that money tilts the playing field and allows those with money to have a disproportionate effect on the process.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The media is a bit tricky, because the 1st amendment protects the freedom of the press. But, just as with speech, it's probably not an absolute right (I'd have to look up some court cases), and if the media is hurting the process in an analogous way to money, then I'd certainly consider ways to curtail that.Pointedstick wrote:* Under the umbrella of corporate limited liability.Xan wrote:You were describing a scenario where groups of everyday people are forbidden by government from getting together to distribute a message*, but "the media" is allowed to say whatever it wants about the candidates.jafs wrote: That's a completely incorrect portrayal of my views on money and politics, and I'm one of the "left-leaning" folks on here.
Unlike the media, which is organized as a series of for-profit corporations. Wait, what?
Basically, I just want our system to work as intended, and right now it's not working that way.
- Ad Orientem
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
- Location: Florida USA
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Freedom of the Press and Speech in modern times have been interpreted very liberally by the courts. The only generally accepted exceptions are slander and libel (where there is a fairly high bar for proof), pornography, direct incitement or solicitation to commit a crime, and the much debated but usually narrowly construed "clear and present danger" rule.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
How do we determine who comes within the definition of "media?" Does it include a conservative blogger who runs a website out of his home on a shoestring budget and who, sheerly as the result of the popularity of his views, gains an appreciable following?jafs wrote: The media is a bit tricky, because the 1st amendment protects the freedom of the press. But, just as with speech, it's probably not an absolute right (I'd have to look up some court cases), and if the media is hurting the process in an analogous way to money, then I'd certainly consider ways to curtail that.
How do we determine whether the media is "hurting the process" or advancing it? Might the answer to this question ordinarily be in the eye of the beholder? Similarly, is there any truly objective, principled way of determining when speech is acting deleteriously, "in an analogous way to money?"
Finally, who should we trust to make these determinations? The same bought-and-paid-for legislators whose corruption is at the root of the problem?
Last edited by Maddy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Actually, we could disallow corporate ownership of the media, based on the same argument that corporations don't have constitutional rights.
I hadn't thought of that until now, but it would be fine with me.
Those are all good questions, Maddy, and I don't have definitive answers. But, again, my main point was about money, not speech, and this is sort of a sideline. What if it's a liberal blogger
Disallowing corporate ownership of media would probably do a bit of good, just on it's own, I would think. But, of course, it doesn't solve all of the problems, because rich folks would still be able to own media outlets and have more of an effect than the average guy/gal. The internet is a bit of an equalizing force, to be sure, but it also means we have a lot of information and no quality controls, and so people get overwhelmed and/or lose the ability to sort through information and determine what's fact and what's fiction.
Ideally, the media should have to tell the truth, in my view, and make it clear when something is just opinion, not fact.
I hadn't thought of that until now, but it would be fine with me.
Those are all good questions, Maddy, and I don't have definitive answers. But, again, my main point was about money, not speech, and this is sort of a sideline. What if it's a liberal blogger
Disallowing corporate ownership of media would probably do a bit of good, just on it's own, I would think. But, of course, it doesn't solve all of the problems, because rich folks would still be able to own media outlets and have more of an effect than the average guy/gal. The internet is a bit of an equalizing force, to be sure, but it also means we have a lot of information and no quality controls, and so people get overwhelmed and/or lose the ability to sort through information and determine what's fact and what's fiction.
Ideally, the media should have to tell the truth, in my view, and make it clear when something is just opinion, not fact.
Last edited by jafs on Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
It's better (in an economic sense) to be rich than to be poor: the rich can buy more things, be better shielded against disaster, and have more influence. That's a fact that the left wants to remove, but doing so ushers in all the horrors of totalitarian collectivism.
In this case, however much money anybody has, the voters have the final say. So it's impossible for money to have any effect on an election unless the voters allow it.
In this case, however much money anybody has, the voters have the final say. So it's impossible for money to have any effect on an election unless the voters allow it.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The problem is that they are intrinsically intertwined and there is no clean way to separate the two.jafs wrote: Actually, we could disallow corporate ownership of the media, based on the same argument that corporations don't have constitutional rights.
I hadn't thought of that until now, but it would be fine with me.
Those are all good questions, Maddy, and I don't have definitive answers. But, again, my main point was about money, not speech, and this is sort of a sideline.
So how should the New York Times be operated? The Nation? The Washington Post?jafs wrote: Disallowing corporate ownership of media would probably do a bit of good, just on it's own, I would think.
Human life begins at conception: opinion or fact?jafs wrote: Ideally, the media should have to tell the truth, in my view, and make it clear when something is just opinion, not fact.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy: opinion or fact?
Unions raise wages and employment: opinion or fact?
Gun control reduces gun homicide: opinion or fact?
Transgender people are the victim of greater violence per capita than cisgendered people: opinion or fact?
Global warming: opinion or fact?
The basic reason why you are getting such pushback here, jafs, is because you want to see the matter of money and speech as a lot cleaner and simpler than it really is. Only by discounting and avoiding considering all of these things that we are bringing up are you able to hold a simplistic view that getting money out of speech is either feasible or desirable.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Yeah. Which candidates are the big money rooting for during this election? Who's winning so far? I have yet to see how you can really buy an election. Legislation, maybe, but not an election.Xan wrote: It's better (in an economic sense) to be rich than to be poor: the rich can buy more things, be better shielded against disaster, and have more influence. That's a fact that the left wants to remove, but doing so ushers in all the horrors of totalitarian collectivism.
In this case, however much money anybody has, the voters have the final say. So it's impossible for money to have any effect on an election unless the voters allow it.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Let me lay it out real clearly.
Constitutionally, "speech" isn't really just "speech, it's "free expression." This is backed up by loads of Supreme Court precedent.
Free expression in virtually any capacity requires money. Generally, the more money you have, the greater your capacity to express yourself.
Many forms of self-expression benefit from or even require being organized under a corporate charter of some sort. Operating a business, for example. You need to become or own a company to get a business license.
Prohibiting any form of free expression by the business amounts to prohibiting that free expression by its owner or owners. Since most forms of free expression are constitutionally protected, this is unconstitutional.
It has nothing to do with "corporate personhood" and everything to do with "free expression." If a corporation is not permitted to express itself freely, the people who constitute that corporation are the ones denied that right.
More generally, the left wants to separate rights from money. In their eyes, seemingly, once you add money, everything is polluted and rights no longer apply.
For example: you may have freedom of association personally, but your business should have no freedom of association and may be required to associate with certain entities whom its owners do not prefer to associate with. You can exercise your religion personally, but your explicitly religious business should have no freedom of religion in the context of its goods and services. You can express yourself personally, your free-expression-based business should be able to be censored by the government if deemed necessary by the powers that be. Etc.
Constitutionally, "speech" isn't really just "speech, it's "free expression." This is backed up by loads of Supreme Court precedent.
Free expression in virtually any capacity requires money. Generally, the more money you have, the greater your capacity to express yourself.
Many forms of self-expression benefit from or even require being organized under a corporate charter of some sort. Operating a business, for example. You need to become or own a company to get a business license.
Prohibiting any form of free expression by the business amounts to prohibiting that free expression by its owner or owners. Since most forms of free expression are constitutionally protected, this is unconstitutional.
It has nothing to do with "corporate personhood" and everything to do with "free expression." If a corporation is not permitted to express itself freely, the people who constitute that corporation are the ones denied that right.
More generally, the left wants to separate rights from money. In their eyes, seemingly, once you add money, everything is polluted and rights no longer apply.
For example: you may have freedom of association personally, but your business should have no freedom of association and may be required to associate with certain entities whom its owners do not prefer to associate with. You can exercise your religion personally, but your explicitly religious business should have no freedom of religion in the context of its goods and services. You can express yourself personally, your free-expression-based business should be able to be censored by the government if deemed necessary by the powers that be. Etc.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The point is to get money out of politics.Pointedstick wrote:The problem is that they are intrinsically intertwined and there is no clean way to separate the two.jafs wrote: Actually, we could disallow corporate ownership of the media, based on the same argument that corporations don't have constitutional rights.
I hadn't thought of that until now, but it would be fine with me.
Those are all good questions, Maddy, and I don't have definitive answers. But, again, my main point was about money, not speech, and this is sort of a sideline.
So how should the New York Times be operated? The Nation? The Washington Post?jafs wrote: Disallowing corporate ownership of media would probably do a bit of good, just on it's own, I would think.
Human life begins at conception: opinion or fact?jafs wrote: Ideally, the media should have to tell the truth, in my view, and make it clear when something is just opinion, not fact.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy: opinion or fact?
Unions raise wages and employment: opinion or fact?
Gun control reduces gun homicide: opinion or fact?
Transgender people are the victim of greater violence per capita than cisgendered people: opinion or fact?
Global warming: opinion or fact?
The basic reason why you are getting such pushback here, jafs, is because you want to see the matter of money and speech as a lot cleaner and simpler than it really is. Only by discounting and avoiding considering all of these things that we are bringing up are you able to hold a simplistic view that getting money out of speech is either feasible or desirable.
And, that spending money is not equivalent to speech.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
A corporation is legally distinct from the people involved with it.Pointedstick wrote: Let me lay it out real clearly.
Constitutionally, "speech" isn't really just "speech, it's "free expression." This is backed up by loads of Supreme Court precedent.
Free expression in virtually any capacity requires money. Generally, the more money you have, the greater your capacity to express yourself.
Many forms of self-expression benefit from or even require being organized under a corporate charter of some sort. Operating a business, for example. You need to become or own a company to get a business license.
Prohibiting any form of free expression by the business amounts to prohibiting that free expression by its owner or owners. Since most forms of free expression are constitutionally protected, this is unconstitutional.
It has nothing to do with "corporate personhood" and everything to do with "free expression." If a corporation is not permitted to express itself freely, the people who constitute that corporation are the ones denied that right.
More generally, the left wants to separate rights from money. In their eyes, seemingly, once you add money, everything is polluted and rights no longer apply.
For example: you may have freedom of association personally, but your business should have no freedom of association and may be required to associate with certain entities whom its owners do not prefer to associate with. You can exercise your religion personally, but your explicitly religious business should have no freedom of religion in the context of its goods and services. You can express yourself personally, your free-expression-based business should be able to be censored by the government if deemed necessary by the powers that be. Etc.
As long as that's the case, then the people have constitutional rights, but the corporation doesn't have them.
It's not at all true that the people lose them if the corporation does - all of the individuals involved are still able to exercise their rights. It's just the corporation as a separate entity that has no constitutional rights.
For example, the CEO, all of the people who serve on the board of directors, all of the employees, shareholders, and customers have constitutional rights and are free to exercise them.
Also, that's not really the left's position on businesses as I understand it. The position is that if you run a business that's "open to the public", then you have certain obligations based on our anti-discrimination laws. Historically, those are based on widespread discrimination against black people, Jews, women, gay/lesbians, etc. So we decided as a nation that people shouldn't be denied housing/employment/mortgage loans/etc. based on some of those.
The alternative would be to allow business owners to discriminate based on whatever they happen to dislike.
Last edited by jafs on Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The point that I have made, that you seem to be ignoring, is that speech (= "free expression") and money are intimately intertwined and cannot be cleanly separated the way you wish they could be. If it were even possible to have politics without money (I believe it is not), then a consequence of doing so would be that the ability of a great many people to freely express themselves about political topics would be severely curtailed owing to the need for money to express oneself (= "speech") in modern American society.jafs wrote: The point is to get money out of politics.
And, that spending money is not equivalent to speech.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
There is really no such thing as a corporation. It is a fictional concept that only exists in our imaginations. We created it to grant certain legal protections to groups of people. It's the groups of people that matter.jafs wrote: A corporation is legally distinct from the people involved with it.
As long as that's the case, then the people have constitutional rights, but the corporation doesn't have them.
It's not at all true that the people lose them if the corporation does - all of the individuals involved are still able to exercise their rights. It's just the corporation as a separate entity that has no constitutional rights.
When you say "a corporation has no constitutional rights" what you are really saying is "people who are acting together under a corporate charter have no constitutional rights connected to their activity with the corporation."
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
I can think of a number of things that would address the root problem--and none of them has anything to do with the suppression of speech. For starters, how about actually enforcing the anti-trust laws intended to prevent monopolistic concentrations of power?jafs wrote: The point is to get money out of politics.
Last edited by Maddy on Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation; all we need is the. . . right major crisis. . . and the nation will accept the. . . new world order." David Rockefeller (1994)
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Well, first we should deal with the simple case.Pointedstick wrote:The point that I have made, that you seem to be ignoring, is that speech (= "free expression") and money are intimately intertwined and cannot be cleanly separated the way you wish they could be. If it were even possible to have politics without money (I believe it is not), then a consequence of doing so would be that the ability of a great many people to freely express themselves about political topics would be severely curtailed owing to the need for money to express oneself (= "speech") in modern American society.jafs wrote: The point is to get money out of politics.
And, that spending money is not equivalent to speech.
Giving money to a politician isn't speech or free expression, right?
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
Sure it is. Just like donating money to NPR is free expression.jafs wrote: Well, first we should deal with the simple case.
Giving money to a politician isn't speech or free expression, right?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The first part is right.Pointedstick wrote:There is really no such thing as a corporation. It is a fictional concept that only exists in our imaginations. We created it to grant certain legal protections to groups of people. It's the groups of people that matter.jafs wrote: A corporation is legally distinct from the people involved with it.
As long as that's the case, then the people have constitutional rights, but the corporation doesn't have them.
It's not at all true that the people lose them if the corporation does - all of the individuals involved are still able to exercise their rights. It's just the corporation as a separate entity that has no constitutional rights.
When you say "a corporation has no constitutional rights" what you are really saying is "people who are acting together under a corporate charter have no constitutional rights connected to their activity with the corporation."
But the second isn't - I'm saying that a fictional concept doesn't have constitutional rights.
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
That sounds good to me.Maddy wrote:I can think of a number of things that would address the root problem--and none of them has anything to do with the suppression of speech. For starters, how about actually enforcing the anti-trust laws intended to prevent monopolistic concentrations of power?jafs wrote: The point is to get money out of politics.
- Cortopassi
- Executive Member
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
- Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html
Re: Corporations and Political Speech
The "check this box to give $3 to the election fund" on your tax form was supposed to be public money for candidates who chose that route, right? But no one does nowadays because they can get a lot more from PACs, as I understand it.
Why couldn't we get nearer to where jafs is? Does it overstep freedoms to force a select number of major TV stations (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN) and radio stations to give exact and equal set amounts of time to candidates for say, 6 months prior to an election? And that is all they can do TV and radio-wise? I certainly see there are ways to game this system, sure, but the majority of the money I assume is spent on TV. If that is regulated, would that not go a long way?
Why couldn't we get nearer to where jafs is? Does it overstep freedoms to force a select number of major TV stations (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN) and radio stations to give exact and equal set amounts of time to candidates for say, 6 months prior to an election? And that is all they can do TV and radio-wise? I certainly see there are ways to game this system, sure, but the majority of the money I assume is spent on TV. If that is regulated, would that not go a long way?
Test of the signature line