You Are Now Free to Speak About Politics

Why do some people fear a less restricted debate?

Jacob Sullum from the December 2010 issue

(Page 3 of 5)

‘Nobody Uses Books to Campaign’

During the second round of oral arguments in September 2009, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan tried to avoid Malcolm Stewart’s mistake of claiming the power to ban books. “The government’s answer has changed,” she said to laughter when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought up the subject. Although the express advocacy ban “does cover full-length books,” Kagan said, “there would be a quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply [it] in that context” because (as she explained during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last summer) “nobody uses books in order to campaign”—a surprising assertion, given all the biographies, manifestos, and policy books that candidates and their supporters have produced over the years. Kagan added that the FEC so far had not tried to ban any books. That reassurance prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to object that “we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.”

If books might be out of bounds, Roberts asked, “what about a pamphlet?” Kagan said “a pamphlet would be different,” since “a pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering.” This newly invented constitutional distinction between books and pamphlets raised new questions. “When does a pamphlet become a book?” asks former FEC Chairman Brad Smith, co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics. “Is Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which is about 50 pages, a pamphlet or a book? How could you decide?” During Kagan’s confirmation hearings in June, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked her whether she really believed that “the protection of the First Amendment should depend on such things as the stiffness of a cover, the presence of a binder, or the number of words on a page.”

Kagan faced another problem in making her case to the Supreme Court. While the rationale for the donation limits upheld in Buckley was preventing official corruption, the rationale for the spending ban upheld in Austin was preventing corporations from using their “immense aggregations of wealth” to skew the political debate. But bans on corporate speech apply to small businesses and nonprofit organizations that are far from wealthy, while rich individuals are free to spend all the money they want on whatever messages they choose. Furthermore, the Court generally has looked askance at the notion that the government should try to keep the political debate properly balanced, given all the subjective judgments such a task requires. In a 1996 law review article, Kagan deemed it well established that “the government may not restrict the speech of some to enhance the speech of others.” She called this “the Buckley principle,” the reason why the Court had rejected spending limits in that case.

That understanding of First Amendment law helps explain why Kagan ditched Austin’s anti-distortion rationale in Citizens United, instead arguing that restrictions on corporate speech are necessary to protect dissenting shareholders and to prevent the corruption that might result if politicians feel grateful for helpful independent expenditures. This strategy caused Chief Justice Roberts to remark that “you are asking us to uphold Austin on the basis of two arguments, two principles, two compelling interests we have never accepted in the expenditure context.” The Court ultimately rejected both arguments, stating categorically that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

A ‘Marionette Congress’

That conclusion strikes critics of the decision as disingenuous or naive. “Corporations, particularly rogue corporations, are going to be able to use fear of expenditures to get incumbent congressmen to toe the line,” says Bob Edgar, a former Pennsylvania congressman who heads the pro-regulation group Common Cause. “A corporation could come in and say, ‘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.’ ”

Although an explicit quid pro quo of this sort could be prosecuted as extortion, bribery, or honest services fraud, Edgar says “all they have to do is walk in and imply that they’re going to do it; the proof of illegality would be very difficult.” Brad Smith suggests a legislator could neutralize such threats and simultaneously score points with voters by going public: “What candidate is not going to want to come out and say, ‘These guys from Halliburton threatened me, but I stood up to them?’ ” Edgar laughs at the notion, saying, “You tell me how many congressmen would do that.”

Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard law professor who co-founded Change Congress in 2008 to reduce the influence of money in politics, likewise argues that Citizens United allows companies to get their way through subtle threats that will never be a matter of public record. “Nobody has to disclose a threat,” he says. “Nobody has to disclose this kind of indirect influence.” Lessig imagines such threats “creating this marionette Congress” where “the game becomes how to dance in the right way to make sure that the corporations are entering the campaign in the way you want them to.”

But which way is that? Given the public’s anxieties about excessive corporate influence, couldn’t favorable ads sponsored by big companies be a liability rather than an asset? Lessig has anticipated that objection. “Why not just allow anyone to speak, and measure a candidate by the company he keeps?” he wrote in The New Republic in March. “If Exxon is spending $10,000,000 to support a candidate, won’t the voters of the district recognize that…and vote against the candidate because of that fact alone? Yet it is here that the Court’s practical insight into the ways of politics is most strained. If Exxon wants candidate X to win, but recognizes that a $10,000,000 expenditure by it would be toxic for candidate X, then why wouldn’t [it] spend the $10,000,000 on candidate Y?” By this logic, corporations emboldened by Citizens United will get legislators to vote their way by threatening to run ads praising them and calling for their re-election.

There are several reasons to think Lessig’s fears are overwrought. First, reformers insisted that “sham issue ads” had made a joke out of the ban on independent expenditures by unions and corporations. According to the arguments they used to pass McCain-Feingold in 2002, we should be no worse off now than we were before the law took effect.

Second, even before Citizens United, most states allowed unlimited corporate spending in state races. Lessig concedes “there’s no good evidence” public officials in those states are any more corrupt than public officials in states that restrict corporate spending, although he argues that the danger is more acute on Capitol Hill because there is more influence to peddle.

Third, the data on campaign contributions do not suggest that corporations are eager to spend more money to influence politicians by influencing elections. Most businesses do not bother to make campaign contributions at all, and when they do they typically stay well below the legal limits. Even among Fortune 500 companies, only 60 percent have political action committees, and they usually do not pay PAC overhead from their general treasuries (as they are legally permitted to do), a practice that could effectively double the money available for donations.

“The bureaucratic Fortune 500 companies have very little interest in spending a lot more money” on political campaigns, says Brad Smith. “They’d much rather spend their money lobbying. They think it’s more effective. It doesn’t upset their customers. It doesn’t upset dissenting shareholders.” Smith thinks it’s more likely that smaller businesses, the ones that never had PACs, will now test the campaign-spending waters, on their own or through trade associations.

The recent controversy over Target’s $150,000 contribution to MN Forward, a Minnesota organization that favors tax and spending cuts, illustrates the risks that companies run by getting involved in elections, even indirectly. In August, Target’s CEO publicly apologized for the donation, which had provoked loud complaints from gay rights activists, customers, employees, and shareholders because MN Forward was running ads in support of a Republican gubernatorial candidate who opposes gay marriage.

Page: < 1 23 4 5 >

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

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 or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|11.9.10 @ 12:10PM|#

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.

cynical|11.9.10 @ 1:22PM|#

I thought that was the intended consequence.

|11.9.10 @ 12:18PM|#

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

|11.9.10 @ 12:23PM|#

I think it's pretty clear what Reason's stance on flashing text and images is....

|11.9.10 @ 1:20PM|#

And embedded videos.

carpet cleaning sacramento ca|3.8.12 @ 4:45PM|#

Yup pretty clear indeed

|11.9.10 @ 12:30PM|#

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.

MNG|11.9.10 @ 12:32PM|#

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.

Realist|11.9.10 @ 3:34PM|#

Democracy is like capitalism in that both only work the way they are supposed to with an informed, intelligent public.

LarryA|11.9.10 @ 3:51PM|#

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?

|11.9.10 @ 5:23PM|#

"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.

Ray Pew|11.9.10 @ 5:44PM|#

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?

Paul|11.9.10 @ 6:53PM|#

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?

Mr. FIFY|11.9.10 @ 7:00PM|#

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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 7:27PM|#

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.

Mr. FIFY|11.9.10 @ 10:19PM|#

Better idea. Too bad we can't implement it.

JohnD|11.10.10 @ 8:59AM|#

As opposed to non shadowy groups like unions? Moron!

MNG|11.9.10 @ 12:36PM|#

"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.

35N4P2BYY|11.10.10 @ 4:40AM|#

[Citation Please]

Paul|11.9.10 @ 12:40PM|#

And remember we already know, and I have Shrike to back me up on this, America's top-tier capitalists are all leftys...

|11.9.10 @ 5:18PM|#

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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 6:47PM|#

Wrong

JohnD|11.10.10 @ 9:01AM|#

Unless you are talking about media corporations

|11.9.10 @ 12:45PM|#

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."

MNG|11.9.10 @ 12:46PM|#

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.

Dello|11.9.10 @ 1:13PM|#

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...

prolefeed|11.9.10 @ 12:47PM|#

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.

MNG|11.9.10 @ 12:55PM|#

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...

sevo|11.9.10 @ 2:01PM|#

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'?

Mr. FIFY|11.9.10 @ 7:02PM|#

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.

|11.10.10 @ 1:12PM|#

^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.

Goobs|11.9.10 @ 3:23PM|#

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.

sevo|11.9.10 @ 3:35PM|#

That's the reason for my question to MNG.

prolefeed|11.9.10 @ 12:49PM|#

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.

Mr. FIFY|11.9.10 @ 7:03PM|#

^^^this^^^ is why liberals threw a hissy-fit over the Hillary movie.

prolefeed|11.9.10 @ 12:51PM|#

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.

prolefeed|11.9.10 @ 1:04PM|#

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.

Goobs|11.9.10 @ 3:27PM|#

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*

sevo|11.9.10 @ 3:39PM|#

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.

|11.9.10 @ 9:45PM|#

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.

Dello|11.9.10 @ 1:21PM|#

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

cynical|11.9.10 @ 1:48PM|#

“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.

Zeb|11.9.10 @ 2:10PM|#

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.

|11.9.10 @ 1:52PM|#

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.

|11.9.10 @ 5:15PM|#

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.

|11.9.10 @ 7:22PM|#

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.)

JohnD|11.10.10 @ 9:05AM|#

Michaela, that is the most moronic comparision I have ever heard. You do understand what hyperbole is, don't you?

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???

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.

Zeb|11.9.10 @ 2:06PM|#

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.

RyanXXX|11.9.10 @ 3:30PM|#

There are bigger things going on. It's not really a story anymore. And it's getting boring as hell.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 4:47PM|#

Bigger things than the first amendment?

Mr. FIFY|11.9.10 @ 7:05PM|#

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.

sevo|11.9.10 @ 2:10PM|#

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?

RyanXXX|11.9.10 @ 2:16PM|#

I have no bell! Damn you!

|11.9.10 @ 5:11PM|#

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.

rakeed madolberschultz|11.9.10 @ 8:06PM|#

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".

JohnD|11.10.10 @ 9:06AM|#

As opposed to unions? Fool!

Eric|11.9.10 @ 3:16PM|#

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.

|11.9.10 @ 4:39PM|#

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.

|11.10.10 @ 2:24PM|#

I envy you having a girlfriend that is willing to talk politics

Paul|11.9.10 @ 4:45PM|#

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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 4:56PM|#

‘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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 5:00PM|#

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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 5:24PM|#

Many fewer would be afraid of freer speech if the purpose of such speech was remotely valuable.

Define "valuable" speech.

Ray Pew|11.9.10 @ 5:39PM|#

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.

Marian Kechlibar|11.10.10 @ 2:52AM|#

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.

35N4P2BYY|11.10.10 @ 4:57AM|#

So if the speech is determined by you or some such government organ to be either worthless or annoying it should be limited?

Monarch|11.9.10 @ 5:12PM|#

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.

|11.9.10 @ 5:14PM|#

"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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 5:29PM|#

The right of the people, to speak with their unamplified voice in a public square of the government's choosing, shall not be infringed.

cynical|11.9.10 @ 9:32PM|#

"Freedom of the press..."

Are you suggesting printing presses aren't property?

|11.9.10 @ 5:55PM|#

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.

Paul|11.9.10 @ 6:43PM|#

I for one, missed The Commander!

Mr. FIFY|11.9.10 @ 7:06PM|#

O Commander, my Commander!

|11.9.10 @ 10:07PM|#

"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.

TwoFingers|11.10.10 @ 5:49AM|#

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?

jim|11.11.10 @ 4:56AM|#

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.

|11.11.10 @ 12:34PM|#

THANK YOU TO ALL VETERANS , THE COMMANDER ------NOV.11 ,2010

tiffany jewellery|11.14.10 @ 7:11AM|#

good topic

|12.15.10 @ 5:00PM|#

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.

nike shoes UK|8.5.11 @ 3:17AM|#

is good

Kevin Durant Shoes|8.12.11 @ 2:03AM|#

so perfect

قبلة الوداع|8.16.11 @ 10:14PM|#

thank u

jdb79|12.9.11 @ 2:00PM|#

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?

Reason.com