You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics
Why do some people fear a less restricted debate?
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
GoogleAs Democrats headed for what promised to be a midterm election fiasco of historic proportions, a pre-emptive excuse began to circulate: It was all the Supreme Court’s fault. In an August Washington Post column, Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, said Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the January decision in which the Court overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations, had created a “very alarming” situation in which democracy (not to mention Democrats) would be swept away by “a flood of corporate campaign cash” because “there is no way private citizens can match the resources available to corporations to make their voices heard.” In a radio address around the same time, President Barack Obama dreaded “a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” unleashed by a ruling that “allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.”
In September a front-page New York Times story seemed to confirm these antediluvian prophecies. The paper reported that “outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television.” The Times worried that “a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going.” It said “Democratic officials” believed “corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes,” were trying to “buy the election.” In short, the spending patterns seemed to be “a fulfillment of Democrats’ worst fears after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.”
Except that, as the Times conceded in the next paragraph, “it is not clear…whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm.” Other factors—“notably, a political environment that favors Republicans”—might be at work. In fact, the spending cited in the story was mostly by rich individuals or by groups organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which were legal before Citizens United.
An October story in The Washington Post likewise suggested that Citizens United helped explain the Republicans’ spending lead but was hazy as to how. “The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate,” a campaign finance expert told the Post. “Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there’s great interest to spend money to influence the election.”
When you get beyond the scaremongering about deluges of dollars, the practical consequences of Citizens United so far seem to be much less dramatic than its critics predicted. But how could they not be? “The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation,” Justice John Paul Stevens warned in his dissent. “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” The New York Times said the “radical” and “disastrous” decision “strikes at the heart of democracy.” Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Citizens United was “the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott,” because “it leads us all down the road to serfdom.”
President Obama managed to outdo them all, declaring that he “can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” To Obama, apparently, the prospect of a less restricted political debate was more horrifying than an economic collapse, a military coup, or a nuclear war. Although it’s too early to predict exactly what will happen as a result of Citizens United, it seems safe to say that plenty of things are more harmful to the public interest. Among them are laws that seek to silence some so that others may be heard.
Everything Is Incorporated
The over-the-top reactions to Citizens United reflect a view of corporations as giant, soulless automatons that are fine for producing goods and services in a regulated environment but bound to wreak havoc if let loose in the halls of political power. That view obscures the fact that corporations, no matter how large or profit-driven, are by definition associations of individuals who have joined together for a common purpose. It also misleadingly suggests that behemoths such as Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil are typical corporations, when in fact the vast majority of the 6 million or so corporations registered in the United States are small businesses or nonprofits.
“In 2010 almost everything is incorporated,” notes Allison Hayward, a former George Mason University law professor who recently became vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors deregulation of political speech. “Anything you want to do as a group with other people—apart from the context where partnerships might work, like practicing law—you’re going to do through a corporate form of some kind.” Civil society, including churches, charitable organizations, and grassroots political groups of every interest and ideology, consists largely of corporations.
For an illustration, one need look no further than the case the Supreme Court decided. Citizens United, founded by the conservative activist Floyd Brown in 1988, is not a huge corporation seeking subsidies or permission to pollute. It is a nonprofit, ideological organization with an annual budget of $12 million that wanted to run a documentary about Hillary Clinton on pay-per-view TV. It was forbidden to do so, under threat of fine and imprisonment, because a) Clinton was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and b) the documentary made her look bad. The movie therefore violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, which banned “electioneering communications,” defined as TV or radio ads sponsored by unions or corporations that mention a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Contrary to all the rhetoric about corporations drowning out the voice of the people, corporations are the voice of the people—people who pool their resources because they hate Hillary Clinton, love the rainforest, worry about the national debt, support gay marriage, think abortion is murder, oppose gun control, or even believe that corporations have too much influence on politics. McCain-Feingold told these groups they were not allowed to talk about their issues close to an election if the discussion happened to mention any politicians running for federal office.
The ban on electioneering communications was supposed to strengthen a pre-existing ban on spending by unions or corporations “in connection with” a federal election. That prohibition, originally imposed by Congress in 1947, was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, which Congress amended in 1974 following the Watergate scandal to impose new restrictions on contributions and spending, require detailed recordkeeping and reporting by political committees, and create the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee the new regulatory system.
In the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld FECA’s limits on campaign contributions (such as the ceiling on how much you can give a particular candidate during one election cycle) but overturned its limits on spending by candidates and independent spending by individuals and groups, which it said “place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.” The Court did not directly address the ban on election-related expenditures by unions and corporations. But to avoid unconstitutional vagueness, it ruled that the election-related speech covered by the law should be limited to “express advocacy”—messages explicitly advocating a candidate’s election or defeat. According to a footnote in the decision, that meant “communications containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for Congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’ ‘reject.’ ” This definition, as interpreted by lower courts and the FEC during the next two decades, gave rise to “issue ads,” the target of the McCain-Feingold ban on electioneering communications.
The Unbearable Cacophony
Issue ads, which became especially conspicuous in the mid-1990s, avoided express advocacy by eschewing the “magic words” that the Supreme Court had identified as forbidden. Many of them nevertheless managed to communicate an opinion about the merits of electing particular candidates. A 1997 report by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center estimated that political parties, labor unions, and interest groups spent about $150 million on issue ads during the 1996 campaign, compared to about $400 million in advertising by the candidates themselves.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
Is there a better experiement or demonstration of unintneded consequences than plotting number of campaign finance laws against quality of candidates? Every few years, more campaign finance laws, and I would say worser and worser candidates.
-
I thought that was the intended consequence.
-
by the way, with technology (cookies) I would think I would see my name as a donor when I am on the site...maybe flashing with gold stars around it, and a little emoticon with a big wang waving about with a FREEDOM banner tied at the top. not that I need any recognition
-
I think it's pretty clear what Reason's stance on flashing text and images is....
-
And embedded videos.
-
Yup pretty clear indeed
-
Having actually run for office, the Texas State Legislature, I know firsthand what a pain in the ass campaign finance regulation can be. The paperwork alone can be enough to dissuade good people who might otherwise would have run for office. I'm not saying candidates should be allowed to bribe the electorate or receive contributions from the local Mob Boss, but some of these ristrictions are pretty unnecessary.
-
I think by public interest he meant the discernment of the public interest, the public discourse so to speak and his point was that having shadowy groups pump the media with misinformation is a great threat to that. Democracy is like capitalism in that both only work the way they are supposed to with an informed public.
-
Democracy is like capitalism in that both only work the way they are supposed to with an informed, intelligent public.
-
1) If these groups are “shadowy” why do they have websites and make other efforts to tell people who they are? One of the main “evil corporations” targeted by Mc-F was the National Rifle Association. No shadows there.
2) As soon as any group puts out “misinformation” (in the sense that their statements are incorrect) everybody else in the media has a target to shoot at, and absent Mc-F, plenty of ammo.
3) The whole point of advertising, whether by candidates, campaigns, parties, or independent groups, is to inform the public. How can limiting the amount of information available enhance public knowledge? -
"The whole point of advertising, whether by candidates, campaigns, parties, or independent groups, is to inform the public"
Do you not watch tv? I'm pretty sure, at least judging by the last election, the whole point of advertising is to lie in the most blatant way possible while maintaining a single shred of truth that provides a veneer of honesty completely at odds with the reality of the ad. One could reasonably say that the entire purpose of advertising is to misinform and confuse as to the issues. But be my guest to equate advertising with truth.
-
Do you not watch tv? I'm pretty sure, at least judging by the last election, the whole point of advertising is to lie in the most blatant way possible while maintaining a single shred of truth that provides a veneer of honesty completely at odds with the reality of the ad. One could reasonably say that the entire purpose of advertising is to misinform and confuse as to the issues. But be my guest to equate advertising with truth.
Do you not watch TV? What you describe matches, to a T, every political debate and interview of elected officials. Shall we limit their speech as well, since we can't trust them to tell the truth or refrain from obfuscation?
-
Do you not watch tv?
I watch tv, and yet I didn't see a single political ad this season. Not one. Not a single one. Ask me how I did that?
-
Truth-in-advertising laws should be enforced when a politician makes promises on the campaign trail, then lies his/her ass off when they get in/get reelected.
And make it *hurt*. At least five years, no parole, in the nastiest prison available.
-
If I were king of everything, as my one and only act I would hold an election, and everyone who showed up to run for office would get arrested.
-
Better idea. Too bad we can't implement it.
-
As opposed to non shadowy groups like unions? Moron!
-
"Citizens United, founded by the conservative activist Floyd Brown in 1988, is not a huge corporation seeking subsidies or permission to pollute."
No, it's just likely funded by same.
-
[Citation Please]
-
And remember we already know, and I have Shrike to back me up on this, America's top-tier capitalists are all leftys...
-
Other than the Kochs, yep. Although if you're talking about Fortune 500 corporations (as an aggregate), you're not going to find a lot of bleeding heart liberals among them.
-
-
Unless you are talking about media corporations
-
Of course they dance right past the real reasons politicians are corrupt. They don't want to discuss the immense power that politicians have to barter for cash, because that would lead to suggestions that government shouldn't have all the power that it does; that's a place they just don't want to go.
Then there's the plain fact that all that power tends to draw large numbers of corrupt parasitic scumbags. I doubt that many of them have to be pushed into taking a bribe (in whatever form it comes); pfah, most of them demand bribes. "Nice little business you've got here; be a shame if anything happened to it."
-
Good points. I've often thought the most compelling arguments to be made to leftists about keeping government small and less powerful is simply to point to their own rhetoric about the tremondous influence the wealthy inevitably have over government.
-
The problem is that the lefty answer is always "Hang the Rich!" instead of "Less Government Power!".
It's simply a matter of having the right people in charge, you see...
-
Many politicians were not inclined to share, finding the cacophony unbearable. “This bill is about slowing the ad war,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said in 2002, explaining her support for McCain-Feingold.
Yes, an incumbent wanting to cut down on ads for both sides, thus giving an incumbent with name recognition an advantage over their challenger, is not self-interested.
It's all about protecting the public by telling the public to STFU.
-
But don't incumbents also have a significantly better ability to raise money for ads?
Also, if one is for public financing (which I am not) that kind of undercuts the "incumbent protection" argument imo as they are essentially for institutionalizing funding for opponents...
-
MNG|11.9.10 @ 12:55PM|#
"Also, if one is for public financing (which I am not) that kind of undercuts the "incumbent protection" argument imo as they are essentially for institutionalizing funding for opponents..."
Are you claiming that 'public financing' would provide funding for the opposition to a greater degree than 'private financing'? -
NO public financing *unless*:
Every candidate gets the same amount of money. And ALL candidates - write-ins, third-party, unaffiliated, whatever - get the SAME access to the media and - especially - debates.
I can hear the wailing and gnashing from Team Red/Team Blue as I type.
-
^This. That's why I voted for repealing public financing in Florida this past election; I'm sick of 3rd party candidates not named Charlie Crist getting screwed when it comes to media attention and the debates.
-
The problem with public financing is that you have to have rules on who gets the financing. You can't give 100 Million to every guy who says he is running for congress. So you set standards. And those standards coincidentally protect incumbents and their runners up.
-
That's the reason for my question to MNG.
-
Hillary: The Movie is not subtle. It depicts Clinton, whose picture is frequently accompanied by ominous background music, as a lying, conniving, vindictive, venal, scandal-plagued, power-hungry, Constitution-flouting “European socialist” unqualified to be president.
I thought truth was always a defense against accusations of slander.
-
^^^this^^^ is why liberals threw a hissy-fit over the Hillary movie.
-
Plus, those descriptions @12:49 seem to be requisite qualities to be elected, based on who actually gets in.
Can someone at Reason please fix the fucking "reply to this" feature so I can actually reply to threaded comments? It's not working.
-
Having actually run for office, the Texas State Legislature, I know firsthand what a pain in the ass campaign finance regulation can be. The paperwork alone can be enough to dissuade good people who might otherwise would have run for office. I'm not saying candidates should be allowed to bribe the electorate or receive contributions from the local Mob Boss, but some of these ristrictions are pretty unnecessary.
It should be illegal to take a bribe. But, the restrictions on speech intended to enforce that ban on bribes are blatantly unconstitutional, violating the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
It should be up to the government to prove that a candidate has taken a bribe. The candidate should not be compelled to provide any evidence at all to help the government build their case. No mandatory disclosures of campaign contributions, or who gave them, or how the money was spent.
Basically, the government is assuming candidates are criminals, and forcing them to provide proof upfront of their innocence, in violation of the principles of presumption of innocence, the burden of proof being on the accuser, of the right to speak unhindered, of the right to not furnish evidence that may be used against you, of the right to not turn over said evidence without a warrant based on probable cause, and on and on.
-
I don't see a problem in forcing candidates to detail the names of every organization or person that funds them- regardless of the amount.
And I don't see a problem with requiring that every organization giving to a candidate must list the people funding it. And if they take donations from another foundation, then that foundation must list the people funding it.
In the end, transparency is important, and if you want to participate in candidate funding, you need to be willing to list your name. *shrug*
-
Disagreed. For exactly the same reason as the secret ballot; holding an unpopular opinion or supporting an unpopular candidate can be dangerous.
I don't have to tell you who I vote for and I shouldn't have to tell you who I support.
Read the candidates arguments. Take it or leave it. -
Yeah, great. While you're at it maybe I should have been required to disclose the number of hairs on my nut-sack when I ran for the Texas Legislature back in 2004.
-
Speaking of the CU ruling, I still see lefty talk about it being a corporate takeover of government. So somebody help me here, in case I got it wrong.
Corporations (and individuals) have always been able to spend an unlimited amount of money on BEHALF of a candidate or position, so long as said candidate didn't have any say about how it was spent (otherwise it would be considered a direct contribution, which DOES have limits). All the the CU ruling did is allow the already unlimited money to be spent within 30 days of the election, which was banned before the ruling.
Am I close?
Thanks
-
“The Free Press Clause should, if properly interpreted, create immunity for those entities from being regulated so long as they’re functioning in a press-like role.”
Wow, yet another iteration of an idea that irritates me to no end: the idea that "freedom of the press" protects journalists, not printing presses. It's an idea that needs to die a horrific torture porn death.
If they wrote the Bill of Rights today, they would write "freedom of the Internet" or "freedom of publishing". The press is a technology, or the specific implementation of the technology -- at the time of America's founding, it was a powerful tool for liberalizing society, as the internet is today. All "freedom of the press" means is that freedom of expression applies whether the medium is unaided voice, printed word, VHS tapes, electronic communications, radio waves, or anything else.
The idea that "freedom of the press" is established to protect a certain self-important industry by granting them rights above and beyond those available to ordinary citizens is illiberal, elitist, morally repellant. Worse, it undermines the right by essentially stripping its full exercise from people whose published messages don't fall under what is commonly considered "journalism". And then journalists attempt to use it to grant themselves rights unrelated to expression and that could not be applied to the ordinary person -- the right to break laws in order to get their stories, etc. Right now establishment journalism is one of the greatest threats to freedom of the press.
-
This is the point I keep trying to make to my dipshit friends who still think it was a bad decision.
I don't understand why people are always talking about free speech in regards to this when "free press" is much more the issue. I think that the first amendment should be interpreted so that "speech" just means opening your mouth and talking and "press" means every other means available to communicate or broadcast information. -
I made my own political ad once intended for the radio. I intended to use my own cash to put it on a local radio station. I was told I wasn't allowed to do this without all sorts of complicated disclosures that I didn't really understand. When I can't just spend $150 of my own money to buy 30 seconds of radio time in support of a candidate without jumping through hoops there is something very wrong with this system and there is no way you can claim we have free speech in this country.
-
Well no, and you can't own a nuclear weapon either. There's reasons why disclosures are needed that aren't entirely bad, nor would net freedom necessarily be increased by not having them.
-
Let me get this straight, me buying radio time in support of a candidate is equivalent in some way to my owning a nuclear weapon? (this aside from the fact that the "so you think people should be free to own nuclear weapons?" argument is bogus on its face in as much as anyone with the where with all - the inclination, capability, facilities, access to necessary materials and so on - to build such a weapon is not going to be deterred by any law against building or possessing them.)
-
Michaela, that is the most moronic comparision I have ever heard. You do understand what hyperbole is, don't you?
-
OK, why does Reason run a new article about how great the Kochtopus and Citizens United are EVERY SINGLE DAY???
The Dems tried to use them as boogeymen as an election technique, and they failed. So it's not really a story anymore. At this point Reason just seems defensive about something.
-
It is the cover story of the magazine, dipshit. And it continues to be an interesting story as a large number of people continue to willfully misunderstand both the ruling and the first amendment.
-
There are bigger things going on. It's not really a story anymore. And it's getting boring as hell.
-
Bigger things than the first amendment?
-
Sounds like Ryan is okay with government telling certain groups they can't release a movie about a political candidate... unless it's by Michael Moore.
-
RyanXXX|11.9.10 @ 1:55PM|#
"OK, why does Reason run a new article about how great the Kochtopus and Citizens United are EVERY SINGLE DAY???"Probably because some people continue to see the issue as one of "kochtopus" against "others", rather than a constitutional matter.
Ring a bell? -
I have no bell! Damn you!
-
Probably because David Koch sits on the board. It is unbelievable that anybody would possibly think that granting corporation the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns is a good thing.
-
True. Now, if individuals spend unlimited amounts of money, that's fine and no threat at all. But once it's several people working together legally, then shit is going to spiral out of control. Also, because I'm a progressive, I'm programmed to completely turn off my critical faculties after someone mentions the word "corporation".
-
As opposed to unions? Fool!
-
Let's compare political influence through campaign ads versus lobbying.
1) Money spent...
Obama - "tens of millions of dollars" will be spent on campaign ads.Lee Hamilton, Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years - "$3.5 billion was spent on lobbying the government in 2009."
http://www.timesgazette.com/ma.....eID=175611
Why are corporations and special interest groups spending billions more on influencing politics through lobbying the government than on lobbying the American people through campaign ads?
Likely because they get a better bang for their buck.
It is not government that should fear the manipulated ignorance of the American voter when comparing these dollar amounts on how politics is influence my money.
It is the voter that should fear the manipulated ignorance of the government when corporations and special interest groups are so willing to throw around that kind of money.2) What is more ethical?
Running anonymous campaign ads (every voter could easily ignore) to influence politics, or lobbying the government in anonymity to the voter?3) What is more "devastating to the public interest?"
The entire point of lobbying is to promote the interest of something other than the public's. Even corporations that advocate for free markets, lobby primarily because free markets are better for their own interests.4) Who would lose the most if the money spent by corporations influencing politics shifted from going directly to politicians, and switched to going indirectly to the American voter?
Obama and his cronies. Let's face it, we would all do the same in his position, because of selfish interest, not public interest.5) Who would gain the most if the money spent by corporations influencing politics shifted from going directly to politicians, and switched to going indirectly to the American voter?
Dollar for dollar? The media.
Political Influence? The voter.The public should demand optional anonymity for political ads because it removes the barriers on political influence that forced corporations and special interest groups into the the backdoor of politics.
-
Shit Sullum, you had to come up with an explanation so comprehensive that I felt compelled to send it to the girlfriend, and now we're fighting on instant messenger about it. Good going.
-
I envy you having a girlfriend that is willing to talk politics
-
The discussion of book bans was a turning point in the case. By exposing the breadth of the censorship power claimed by the government, it spurred the justices to schedule a highly unusual second round of oral arguments to consider whether Austin should be overturned.
The disturbing thing is that it ever got this far. The more disturbing thing is that with these facts in hand, progressives still support just such restrictions on speech.
-
‘We didn’t like the way you voted on health care that first time around. If you don’t change your vote on public option or on single payer, we’re going to invest X number of dollars to make sure that we recycle you.’ ”
I wrote almost exactly that to one of my representatives after his "yes" vote on the TARP bailout.
-
although he argues that the danger is more acute on Capitol Hill because there is more influence to peddle.
It's kind of fun to watch the intellectually-drunken Lessig stumble towards the answer to all of his problems...
-
Many fewer would be afraid of freer speech if the purpose of such speech was remotely valuable. Considering that most political advertising is twisted half-truths at best that impressively enough spread ignorance, it is not exactly impossible to imagine why some might not find the idea of even more such drivel appalling. If corporations were allowed to advertise as they thought best but were subject to strict disclosure laws, it could be much less of an issue.
Freedom is not the issue, it is the abuses of freedom. If libertarians want to be taken remotely seriously, they should fit their views to a world remotely connected to this one instead of pretending to live in some fantasy land obviously distant from reality. The libertarian perspective is quite interesting but mostly as a thought experiment rather than a serious suggestion.
-
Many fewer would be afraid of freer speech if the purpose of such speech was remotely valuable.
Define "valuable" speech.
-
Many fewer would be afraid of freer speech if the purpose of such speech was remotely valuable.
Value is subjective.
Considering that most political advertising is twisted half-truths at best that impressively enough spread ignorance, it is not exactly impossible to imagine why some might not find the idea of even more such drivel appalling. If corporations were allowed to advertise as they thought best but were subject to strict disclosure laws, it could be much less of an issue.
Why? As you state, much of political speech is half-truths, if not outright lies. This is true all the way up to the speech of sitting officials. Why is "anonymous" political speech somehow more damaging than the continuous outright lies that are perpetuated by those in the public eye? People are easily swayed by the fallacy of authority. Obama said X, so it must be true. Bush said Y, so it must be true.
Freedom is not the issue, it is the abuses of freedom.
So to protect freedom, we must limit it, huh?
If libertarians want to be taken remotely seriously, they should fit their views to a world remotely connected to this one instead of pretending to live in some fantasy land obviously distant from reality. The libertarian perspective is quite interesting but mostly as a thought experiment rather than a serious suggestion.
Why should I alter my view based on what I believe to be faulty reasoning? Consensus does not make truth. The argument that freedom of speech must be constrained in order to protect freedom of speech, no matter how accepted by the public, is piss poor reasoning.
-
Oh, the "abuses of freedom of speech"! Michaela, you sound like a Chavista.
It is precisely the controversial speech ("not-so-valuable" in your view) that needs protection.
-
Many fewer would be afraid of freer speech if the purpose of such speech was remotely valuable. Considering that most political advertising is twisted half-truths at best that impressively enough spread ignorance, it is not exactly impossible to imagine why some might not find the idea of even more such drivel appalling. If corporations were allowed to advertise as they thought best but were subject to strict disclosure laws, it could be much less of an issue.
Freedom is not the issue, it is the abuses of freedom. If libertarians want to be taken remotely seriously, they should fit their views to a world remotely connected to this one instead of pretending to live in some fantasy land obviously distant from reality. The libertarian perspective is quite interesting but mostly as a thought experiment rather than a serious suggestion.
-
So if the speech is determined by you or some such government organ to be either worthless or annoying it should be limited?
-
The solution is simple, take the choice out of government. As Plato said a philosopher king would be able to run our system the most efficiently. Democracy simply slows down the rate of progress in a country.
-
"We the PEOPLE of the United States..."
The rights granted in the US Constitution cover PEOPLE, not property! The USSC screwed the American people with thus ruling. -
The right of the people, to speak with their unamplified voice in a public square of the government's choosing, shall not be infringed.
-
"Freedom of the press..."
Are you suggesting printing presses aren't property?
-
Bilderberger influenceTO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT�..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets�..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!
3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
4. Bilderberger influence,president George W. Bush says he was "blindsided" by the financial crisis that shadowed his final months in office, but adds that the Democratic-controlled Congress shares some of the blame. -Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group’s annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion’s share of Bilderberg’s 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before – it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.The Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.
----- Bilderberg group in United States-------
George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
Timothy Geithner(2009),[15] Treasury Secretary
Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
Christian Herter,[16] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[17] Special Assistant to the President
Joseph E. Johnson[18] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Henry Kissinger[19] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[20] 56th United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
Lawrence Summers,[15] Director of the National Economic Council
Paul Volcker,[15] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
Roger Altman (2009),[15] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
[edit] Presidents
Bill Clinton (1991),[21][22] President 1993-2001
Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][23] President 1974-1977
[edit] Senators
John Edwards (2004),[24][25] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[26] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
[edit] Governors
Rick Perry (2007),[27] Governor of Texas 2000-current
Mark Sanford (2008),[28] Governor of South Carolina , the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware? === The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.== The Bilderberg Group in which he accuses them of manipulating the public "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."Repost this if you agree, THE END OF AMERICA.
-
I for one, missed The Commander!
-
O Commander, my Commander!
-
"To Obama, apparently, the prospect of a less restricted political debate was more horrifying than an economic collapse, a military coup, or a nuclear war."
Well, yes. Unlike the other 3, less restricted political debate is not an opportunity for him to markedly increase his power.
-
OK, Pop Quiz time!
A 'firewall' can be created between campaign contributions and candidates (as opposed to public funding). This would allow unrestricted free speech by individuals/organizations and tend to avoid “improper influence over a candidate’s position or an officeholder’s action”. Discuss.
Extra credit: Do donors have a right to be known to the candidates?
-
I doubt that many of them have to be pushed into taking a bribe (in whatever form it comes); pfah, most of them demand bribes.
-
THANK YOU TO ALL VETERANS , THE COMMANDER ------NOV.11 ,2010
-
good topic
-
Contrary to all the rhetoric about corporations drowning out the voice of the people, corporations are the voice of the people
One can but conclude that the author knows nothing, or nearly nothing about the functionality of corporations in modern America.
That's right, it's "the voice of the people" encouraging corporations to move American jobs overseas (Tom Donoghue).
Out in the reality-based universe, from which Mr. Sellum appears to have successfully detached himself decades ago, people who work for incorporated businesses have no say in how their employer spends money. Below the upper management, no one at Amazon, Chase, or Aetna has any say in how the corporation spends its lobbying money; nor in which political campaigns it chooses to invest.
It's a cute rhetorical trick to conflate Merck, Wal-Mart and JP Morgan Chase with every one-horse PAC that filed incorporation papers from legalzoom.com. But it's intellectually dishonest and I'm sure Mr. Sellum knows as much.
This discussion is based on the legal but logical absurdity of treating corporations as human beings, with associated "rights." If this legal fiction were abolished, the argument for allowing corporations like Merck or Wal-Mart to flood markets with campaign cash is abolished with it.
I recently offended a friend by quoting Berke Breathed: "And I'd be a Libertarian if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners."
Actually, my definition would be expanded to include "who used the government to get a leg up financially, educationally and socially; and now wish to deny that same opportunity to everyone coming after them."
Thanks.
mp
-
is good
-
so perfect
-
thank u
-
thank u
-
I'm a year late to respond to Michael, but the fundamental economic illiteracy of the "don't move jobs overseas" argument is impressive.
Yes, it would be lovely if corporations kept every job here in the United States, but I wonder if it would be equally lovely when the price of their products grew exponentially thanks to increased production costs? And would it be lovely when said company collapsed and left all of its workers--not just the ones who would be replaced by inexpensive foreign labor--unemployed because their competition produced similar products at far lower prices thanks to overseas factories and outsourcing?
Really, how can you go to a Libertarian website and sneer at a defense of the First Amendment (collective speech is still speech, Michael) and not have a clue about why things happen out in the real world of business?