Brownie Points

Before we consign all the very special moments in the John Roberts confirmation hearings to the graveyard of history, let me say a good word for Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS). Watching Roberts reruns this weekend, I was wowed by the Prodigy-hatin', clone-bannin', dice game-bustin' Jayhawk's ability to start off on a soporific, stream-of-consciousness monologue about virtual child porn, then walk it back to an actual, valuable point. Let's go to the tape:

BROWNBACK: … I want to take you back to the First Amendment discussions. And this is an issue in an area that I've just not understood where the court's been going, and I hope you're going to be willing to answer some of this analysis or give me, at least, your thought on how the court got to where they did on these issues.

First Amendment, everybody knows: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Well-known, well-regarded, highly -- broadly interpreted by the courts to the point that you would get court opinions -- and I just want to quote these. This is actually in a Supreme Court opinion, that the court would in the past four years when this opinion was issued, in -- I think it was 2003 -- the last four years, the court had sternly disapproved -- sternly disapproved -- restrictions upon certain forms of speech such as virtual child pornography. The court said, can't do that, limit that speech. Tobacco advertising: the court said, can't limit that speech. Dissemination of illegally intercepted communications: you can't limit that speech. Sexually explicit cable programming: can't limit that speech…

All right, so the court has been, it seems to me, very pronounced in this area -- free speech, can't limit it -- basically to the Congress. Can't limit it.

And to the point, you know, where it goes to the issue of virtual child pornography -- and that was the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. And I want to describe this in a little bit of detail, because I want to back it up and ask another question associated with it.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the court struck down a congressional statute regulating pornography, in this case Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, expanded the federal prohibition on pornography to include virtual child pornography -- realistic images which were made without the use of actual children.

But the Congress based its opinion on the basis that pedophiles will use this material to recruit, over the Internet, individuals to draw in children into sexual activity.

And so we found out about that, investigated it, did a number of hearings and said, We've got to stop this stuff.

The court says you can't do it. It's limitation on free speech.

Then, not long ago -- as a matter of fact, the opinion was issued in 2003 -- we had a big debate on campaign finance reform, in front of the Congress. One of the members of our committee, Senator Feingold, was one of the lead sponsors of the McCain-Feingold piece of legislation.

And it came in front of the courts -- McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. And the court largely upheld the McCain-Feingold law, one section of which did this: prohibited corporations, labor unions and other organizations from political advertisement that mentioned a specific candidate or office holder within 60 days of a general election.

You may be -- you're probably very familiar with this. It was a big national debate.

Under the court decision, this congressional action prohibiting speech -- and not just any speech, and not just pornography. This is political speech close to the time when people are making decisions on elections.

The court decided that this congressional action prohibiting political speech was upheld under a First Amendment ostensibly designed to protect this, I would contend, form of political participation and speech.

And I looked at that. I voted on the McCain-Feingold law. I did not think there was any way the court would hold that this is constitutional, because you're limiting political free speech, and right when people are making their decision.

And one of the lead reasons or lead abilities we have in this country is to be able to criticize the government, and certainly at a point in time when it matters the most -- right ahead of elections.

How do you square such a broad interpretation of the First Amendment in these cases and such a limitation on political free speech? Can you explain that to me?

ROBERTS: Well, Senator, I'm not sure that I can put the two together side by side and talk about it, other than to say that I think the court tends to address each case on its own terms.

And in the case of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, I do know that we're dealing there with an extraordinarily extensive record in that case. The judicial opinions addressing the issue before the three-judge district court I know went on for several hundred pages, just dealing with the records and the issues involved -- the record that had been developed, including before Congress.

And my reading of the court's opinion in the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act case is that that was a case where the court decision was driven in large part by the record that had been compiled by Congress. I think the determination there was based -- just reading the opinion; it's no great insight -- that the extensive record carried a lot of weight with the justices.

Now, with respect to the other areas, again, I think the court would tend to look at those, sort of put the one case aside and then move on to the next case. And they're dealing there with developments in that area. And again, I…

BROWNBACK: Doesn't this strike you as odd, these two side by side under the same First Amendment?

ROBERTS: Only in the sense, Senator, that obviously they come out different ways.

And your point that the political speech is generally regarded as at the core of what the First Amendment was designed to protect and some of the other speech is not, I certainly appreciate that concern.

But whether, again, whether the particular cases were correctly decided or not is not something I feel it's appropriate for me to say.

BROWNBACK: I looked at those, and I just -- this didn't make much sense. If you're going to read it expansively on the First Amendment, which I agree with, that should be consistently done.

Julian Sanchez made the same point here. Matt Welch celebrated senatorial insanity here. Brownback was for McCain Feingold before he was against it.

Clarification: Brownback did vote Nay on McCain-Feingold, as the above links (though maybe not the phrasing) will make clear.

Comments

[MP]

But whether, again, whether the particular cases were correctly decided or not is not something I feel it's appropriate for me to say.

That's such a cop-out. There is no valid reason for him not to present an opinion. I'd vote against Roberts simply for not having a sack.

[John]

We can have all the virtual child porn we want, we just can't talk bad about an incumbant politician come election time. Somehow I don't think that is a very good bargain.

[Shelby]

Presumably, we could at least make virtual child porn that includes virtual senators, just before elections. So that's a plus.

[Dave W.]

Agreed, MP. Nice to hear somebody else say it.

[Shelby]

Or not.

[ChicagoTom]

That's such a cop-out.

That's all Robert's has been doing up there, coping out and refusing to answer anything. My guess was that his handlers and the admin decided the approach to this confirmation was going to be :
"We aren't telling you fuckers shit!! We DARE you to filibuster."

And the pussy Dems will be more than happy to prove once again that the concept of standing on principles is something that should only be admired from a distance when others do it.

I don't have an opinion on Roberts one way or the other because he hasn't said much of anything to allow an opnion to be formed. Personally, I think his ethics are questionable by not recusing himself in the Hamdan case while concurrently talking with the administration about his Supreme Court nomination.

It would be nice to see the dems come out and say "Look, give us the info we requested when Roberts was Solicitor General, and actually answer a question or two about SETTLED CASES or even some platitudes about relevant topics and we'll give you a vote." But I guess that kind of tough line is reserved for important roles like ambassador to the UN.

[theCoach]

John,
You are being at the very least disingenuous -- of course you can talk badly about an incumbent politician come election time. This has to do, obviously, with money and elections, and the concern that money buys access to the political process.
You may not like the McCain Feingold interpretation of that ( personally, I do not have much care either way), but to pretend that you do not understand the issues involved strikes me as naive or disingenuous -- that goes to Tim Cavanaugh as well.
It strikes me as particularly odd that a libertarian site would not recognize the difference as between in the one case expressions we(majority) do not like and the other as the corruption of the political process. Again, you do not have to agree that this is a good solution, and you can certainly argue that it is a counterproductive solution to that problem and a gross violation of the first ammendment, but to not see the difference, or to pretend to find it too confusing is a sad argument.

[It can't happen here?]

Hell, that's nothing compared with the recent hearings on gas prices. As inarticulate as the witnesses were in relaying their sob stories, both sides somehow managed (at least while I was watching) to avoid asking whether it was actually ethical or indeed legal to clap price controls on gasoline. Evidently oil companies and distributors are not Americans or even humans; they're just abstract things to be stifled at the whim of a legislature. Truly disgusting.

[Phil]

Brownback undoubtedly -- much like many other people -- thinks that both cases were decidely wrongly, not just one of them, which is pretty sad. It's also fun to see how he spouts this with no supporting evidence at all:But the Congress based its opinion on the basis that pedophiles will use this material to recruit, over the Internet, individuals to draw in children into sexual activity.

[thoreau]

OK, lest I come across as opposing price controls, let me make it abundantly clear that I oppose price controls!

Now, let us examine an argument that will fall flat and fail to persuade the vast majority of Americans:
Evidently oil companies and distributors are not Americans or even humans; they're just abstract things to be stifled at the whim of a legislature. Truly disgusting.

This is what Jennifer and I sometimes complain about. Here you've got a proposed policy (gasoline price controls) that will create shortages and harm lots and lots of people, and one libertarian's first thought is "Oh my God, those poor oil companies!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the oil companies don't deserve a profit! But this is missing the forest (280 million Americans who would be affected by shortages) for the trees (a small subset of those affected).

Not to mention that it's not a terribly persuasive argument for those who don't share our principles. Yes, yes, I know, they should share our principles, but they don't.

[Yogi]

thoreau, stay on topic bud, we're talking about child porn.....

[parse]

But oil companies aren't humans.

[Lowdog]

theCoach - McCain-Feingold actually makes it easier for the incumbent to win. That's why I think many libertarians are against it. Oh, and it violates the 1st fucking amendment. I think that's another issue with it.

Actually, thoreau, the folks getting hurt by price controls are us, the end user, and the smaller distributors. The oil companies will still make tons of money.

[Eric the .5b]

Yes, thoreau, some people do tend to think of the people and groups initially affected by a bad law first.

[It can't happen here?]

The idea of property rights is foremost in the argument. The unintended consequences of price controls is another (legitimate) matter entirely.
And the sad and ultimately disastrous fact that so many Americans are so easily convinced that stealing is OK so long as it's theft from rich people is still another.

[Eric the .5b]

in the case of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

OK, there's your plain answer, repeated a couple of times in his response, on what Roberts thinks about McCain-Feingold.

No one in the political mainstream keeps harping on the bipartisan nature of a law or policy if he dislikes it.

[thoreau]

I guess my stance stems from 2 things:

1) I admit it, my greatest sympathies will always be for the little guy. Not that I don't care about anybody else's freedom, but we all have our priorities. If that makes me a bad libertarian, well, at the DC event somebody can formally strip me of my decoder ring.

2) I prefer to indict an idea on its own terms. It goes back to high school debate: I'd grant the other side as many points as I could, then zero in on their weakest link and show that even under their other assumptions they were still wrong. And I brought home a few trophies.

Advocates of price controls claim to be defending "the little guy". Well, let's indict them on their own terms, so that even people on their side will have to admit that they're wrong.

And yeah, I know, this is way off the original topic. Just remember that I'm not the one who first mentioned oil prices in this thread.

[theCoach]

Lowdog,
Exactly!
I am assuming that you are implying that virtual child porn does not make it easier for incumbents to win re-election.
There are convincing arguments to be made, but to pretend that one cannot understand the relevent differences in the two cases is not one of them.

[Yogi]

I know you weren't thoreau, I just wanted to talk about child porn again... er... nevermind....

[Ramon Rozas III]

Did I read the Senator's comment correctly that he though McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and would be struck down when he voted FOR it?

Now who doesn't have any cojones?

[Lowdog]

I'm not pretending anything...I'm that dense. 🙂

[scott]

Thoreau,
I think the reason for what you describe is that people are always going to focus on the more obvious effect (on the oil companies) than on the more complex effect (how controls disrupt the market, cause shortages, and hurt the consumer). But there is also a practical concern here as well. We know price controls don't work, but lets take a less obvious issue like Gun Control. I've always been uncomfortable attacking gun control on a cost/benifit type analysis because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. I'm against gun control regardless on its effect on the murder/crime rate. John Lott may be right. Maybe gun control is just as counterproductive as price controls. But when I use that line of argument, I'm afraid that I am conditioning people to accpet the underlying const benifit anaylyis. And John Lott might be wrong. I don't want my freedom contingent on the results of the latest social science study.

[Shannon Love]

I beginning to come to the conclusion that sex is the bread-and-circuses of our era. Sexual freedom is used to distract us as more fundamental freedoms are taken away from us. That would explain the pattern found in these two cases.

Certainly, it seems that most of the expansion of personal freedoms in the past generation or so have involved sex in some way while. Most of the landmark first amendment cases have done so. First amendment cases that have lessened free speech rights have always dealt with something else.

[Shannon Love]

thoreau,

Corporations, as the etymology of the name suggest, are just groups of people. When someone attacks a "big" corporation, they are really just attacking a large group of people. Refusing to think of corporations as groups of people lets others dehumanize the people in them. Dehumanization always leads to problems.

Remember the silicon implant hysteria? I read many comments in several different forums of people gloating that Corning was driven from business but none considered the harm of the people who lost jobs or investments even though it turned out the company never did anything wrong. Many are not troubled by the failure of the company because they don't think of it as a group of people but rather as a soulless abstract entity.

[thoreau]

Shannon-

I agree. But you're preaching to the choir. What about the rest of the congregation? You can get into a discussion about the nature of corporations, or you can simply observe that price controls will lead to shortages and lines around the block at gas stations. Which do you think will be more persuasive?

scott-

That's a fair point. On the topic of price controls, however, there's very little danger that a study will come out next week showing that price controls make life better. And history provides abundant examples.

[It can't happen here?]

Sure, history is full of examples. Too bad most Americans don't read history, and the ones who do have very short memories.

[thoreau]

Shannon, I just thought of another example for you: Remember the hoax of the finger in the Wendy's chili? My mother was talking about how awful it is that with the restaurants losing money some low-income people might lose their jobs. That was her first thought. She's a suburban Catholic in a swing state.

I imagine that the first thought of a lot of people here was "Oh my God, the corporation's profits will go down!" Both concerns are valid, and both are intimately related. But notice the difference in emphasis. Then ask yourself which approach is likely to win over more people and get the public behind an idea that you support.

[Eric the .5b]

But you're preaching to the choir. What about the rest of the congregation?

Wait a minute, Thoreau. I thought just the other day, you were griping about people arguing as if the other person might not be a member of the choir. Now you're griping because we're not sufficiently non-choir-friendly? 🙂

[A Libertarian]

"Then ask yourself which approach is likely to win over more people and get the public behind an idea that you support."

"Public support," "people," "win"-what are these strange words you're using?

[Eric the .5b]

Both concerns are valid, and both are intimately related. But notice the difference in emphasis. Then ask yourself which approach is likely to win over more people and get the public behind an idea that you support.

Ehn, to be blunt, if we focus on the little-people-getting-hurt argument, the other guy say we don't really give a damn and we're fabricating that claim in order to support our real concern - the big-corporation-losing-money.

I've had that argument too many times to get worked up over the idea some people might think of the company first.

[Citizen Dick]

I must express my concern about the level of Bush-bashing on this site. Our President signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and by disagreeing with that decision you are just revealing your own pathological hatred of Our President. To be sure, there are legitimate criticisms of President Bush, although I have never heard one, but all you're doing is engaging in a masturbatory anti-Bush orgy of the type I'd expect to find at Kos or DU, not at a site that is supposedly committed to "REASON."

[thoreau]

Eric the Half a Bee-

You raise a fair point about my inconsistency. The only thing I can say on my behalf is that before I was complaining that people were being accused of saying things that they didn't actually say. e.g. Somebody says "This company sucks!" and somebody else says "You must want a coercive remedy" and I say "Don't assume that on a forum like this."

On the other hand, here I'm complaining about what people are actually saying.

See, if you split that hair finely enough then there's nothing inconsistent about my complaints. With my razor-sharp distinctions, one could even bisect a hive employee :->

I guess what I'm saying is that it's one thing to accuse somebody of not being a member of the choir. It's another thing to make statements that are guaranteed to piss off the rest of the congregation.

[thoreau]

Blah. Not phrasing myself well. Ignore the last paragraph and substitute this:

It's bad to jump to all sorts of conclusions and accuse somebody on this forum of not being a choir member. (Indeed, the rude treatment of choir members, and the assumption that being a regular congregation member is a bad thing, might turn off the rest of the congregation.) It's also a bad idea to make arguments that are guaranteed to alienate the rest of the congregation.

File this away as yet one more unsubstantiated theory for why libertarians aren't more popular. Ignore accordingly.

[SR]

"I am beginning to come to the conclusion that sex is the bread-and-circuses of our era. Sexual freedom is used to distract us as more fundamental freedoms are taken away from us. That would explain the pattern found in these two cases."

Except that it contradicts the trend of legislation over the last 25 years, which has been to increase penalties on obscenity, child pornography and prostitution-related offenses, along with the steady ratcheting up of the age of consent in most states and increasingly restrictive zoning on adult entertainment venues. Why is it that only the Supreme Court wants to distract the public with sex, while the legislative and executive branches at federal, state, and local levels are happy to reduce our political freedoms and access to sexually explicit material/performances?

[Shelby]

Did I miss the part of the post that explained how McCain-Feingold prohibits price caps on virtual child porn?

[Eric the .5b]

With my razor-sharp distinctions, one could even bisect a hive employee :->

Heh!

File this away as yet one more unsubstantiated theory for why libertarians aren't more popular. Ignore accordingly.

Well, it does kind of sound like "rework your thinking to be more palatable to people who won't listen, take seriously, or agree anyway." 🙂

[thoreau]

Well, it does kind of sound like "rework your thinking to be more palatable to people who won't listen, take seriously, or agree anyway."

Hence I said:
File this away as yet one more unsubstantiated theory for why libertarians aren't more popular. Ignore accordingly.

:->

[Eric the .5b]

Well, my thing is that I don't think it's a question of libertarians being popular. Lots of far more influential groups are unpopular with outsiders. (Or has "liberal" become popular again?)

I think many libertarians just vastly over-estimate how attractive libertarian ideas and policies are to everyone else. Libertarianism isn't a fringe political viewpoint because those who agree with it are weirdos. Libertarianism has a lot of weirdo adherents because it is a fringe political viewpoint.

[joe]

"Corporations, as the etymology of the name suggest, are just groups of people. When someone attacks a "big" corporation, they are really just attacking a large group of people."

So, what you're saying, Shannon, is that when Exxon is found guilty of criminal act, the directors and management should serve the time, without a second round of trials to determine if each individual is personally guilty? Or when Exxon loses a civil suit, each employee's bank account should be subject to seizure to pay the judgement? Oh, no, of course you're not saying that - that's the COMPANY that was found guilty.

Eric, "Ehn, to be blunt, if we focus on the little-people-getting-hurt argument, the other guy say we don't really give a damn and we're fabricating that claim in order to support our real concern - the big-corporation-losing-money." You know, it's funny - people don't immediately think that about Democrats. I wonder why that is.

Also, I suspect that the reason Roberts used the word "bipartisan" to describe the act, is because the legislation was titled The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

[Shannon Love]

SR,

"Except that it contradicts the trend of legislation over the last 25 years, which has been to increase penalties on obscenity, child pornography and prostitution-related offenses, along with the steady ratcheting up of the age of consent in most states and increasingly restrictive zoning on adult entertainment venues."

I am not sure that I would agree with your assessment. The idea that pornography is more prosecuted and less available today than in the past is, to put it mildly, laughable. The contents of my email's junk folder would be testament against that idea.

I think the matter has less to do with branches of government and more with different political philosophies and their need to market themselves to the electorate. Every political group has to promise two things (1) they will make the voters more free and (2) they will make them more secure by taking away some freedom. Simplistically, the Right will give you economic freedom but seeks enforce traditional mores with the force of the state. The Left will give you freedom from traditional mores while stripping away all your economic freedoms. Nobody can get elected by saying, "Hey were going to run your entire life!" Instead they get elected by selling freedom with one hand and taking it away with the other.

Since the Left was politically ascendent throughout the most of the 20th century we see a dominating pattern in law and legislation were freedom of sexuality and expression about sexuality is extolled as overriding all other consideration but where limitation on state power in terms of economics and non-sexual forms of speech are considered to be nonexistent.

The balance started to shift back to the right in the last decade or so but I don't think that has really made it to the courts yet.

[joe]

"The idea that pornography is more prosecuted and less available today than in the past is, to put it mildly, laughable."

Exactly. If greater regulation was occuring during a period that actual practices were staying the same, that trend could be seen as a growing opposition to, rather than a growing acceptance of, the skin business.

However, a more plausible explanation is that adult-themed business are becoming so mainstreamed that people are attempting to locate them in places that they never would have even suggested twenty or sixty years ago. Thus, laws proliferate because people now feel that they "have to" protect the town center from peep shows, whereas they didn't "have to" in the past.

[thoreau]

joe-

Hold leaders personally accountable for the actions of their organization? What are you, a lefty?

:->

[SR]

"I am not sure that I would agree with your assessment. The idea that pornography is more prosecuted and less available today than in the past is, to put it mildly, laughable."

I didn't claim prosecutions were increasing. I stated that penalties and restrictions were increasing, which if you look at the amendment history of the federal child pornography and obscenity statutes is indisputable. (Indeed, possession or distribution of child pornography was not even a federal offense 30 years ago.) I also am not aware of even a single state that has lowered its age of consent or reduced penalties for prostitution in the last 25 years, but I know several have increased them.

You stated in the post that I originally responded to that sex was being provided as "bread and circuses" to the masses to distract them from the loss of their freedoms. The conduct of the other branches of government contradicts your thesis, as they are enacting ever greater penalties and restrictions, while only the Supreme Court (including Clarence Thomas, who joined the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision regarding virtual child porn) is going in reverse.

[joe]

"Indeed, possession or distribution of child pornography was not even a federal offense 30 years ago."

It was prosecuted under obscenity felonies. New laws had to be created to make child pornography illegal because of the paring back of the government's power to prosecute dirty pictures as obscenity.

[Shelby]

You know, it's funny - people don't immediately think that about Democrats. I wonder why that is.

Speak for yourself, joe. My first thought whenever a politician opens its mouth is, "How is it getting money from this?"

[SR]

"It was prosecuted under obscenity felonies. New laws had to be created to make child pornography illegal because of the paring back of the government's power to prosecute dirty pictures as obscenity."

Yes, joe, I know there were prosecutions under obscenity statutes. (In law school, I wrote a 54-page paper on the regulation of child pornography.) However, that still required proving the material was obscene, which even before Miller was typically treated as a higher burden than what later child pornography statutes set as the bar. Please recall that Paul Reubens, for example, was prosecuted for possession of naturist magazines that were sold legally in the 1950s. As a number of commentators have pointed out, if you had told someone prior to the late 1970s that parents would one day be prosecuted for taking photos of their own children in a bathtub, they would have said you were insane. I'll refer you to the books "Moral Panic" and "Beyond Tolerance" by Philip Jenkins and "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine to start.

[joe]

OK, that's a good point with the freakout over kid in the bath pictures. But I don't think it demonstrates a larger trend. Playboy and Penthouse used to be on shaky legal territory, fer chrissakes!

[Stevo Darkly]

File this away as yet one more unsubstantiated theory for why libertarians aren't more popular.

Aw, dangit -- becoming more popular is the whole reason I became a libetarian in the first place! 😉

Maybe if I went out for the track team ...

[MJ]

"...is that when Exxon is found guilty of criminal act, the directors and management should serve the time, without a second round of trials to determine if each individual is personally guilty?"-joe

Joe, do we hold collective criminal trials for any other groupings of people besides corporations? If so, please give an example I'd like to how and why it was done. Also, can a corporation stand as a defendent in a criminal trial? While there are many trials that involve corporations as defendents, I always thought that these were always some variation of a civil court, that possibly lead to criminal cases against corporate officers.

"Or when Exxon loses a civil suit, each employee's bank account should be subject to seizure to pay the judgement?"-joe

I think you made a mistake there, why would an employee's bank account be at risk (unless he had an ownership share)? With a non-corporate business, the owner's non-business assets may be at risk. That is one of the reasons people set up corporations, so that their personal assets may be protected if the business fails (for whatever reason it fails).

"You know, it's funny - people don't immediately think that about Democrats. I wonder why that is."-joe

People do think that about the Democrats, joe, it's just the interests whose asses the Dems pucker up to are different, such as: trial lawyers & Big Labor.

[DB]

Except that it contradicts the trend of legislation over the last 25 years, which has been to increase penalties on obscenity, child pornography and prostitution-related offenses, along with the steady ratcheting up of the age of consent in most states and increasingly restrictive zoning on adult entertainment venues

Well, real sex is harder to pay for, and it's harder to pay real live women to get naked, sure. But fantasy sex -- porn and other fictional sexual content -- has never been easier to get than it is today. Everyone reading this is about two seconds' effort away from seeing all kinds of nekkidness. Regular and cable TV is also a lot sexier than it has ever been.

[DB]

You know, it's funny - people don't immediately think that about Democrats. I wonder why that is

Because people hear about corporate woes through the news media, which is almost entirely composed of Democrats.

[Tom]

Joe, do we hold collective criminal trials for any other groupings of people besides corporations?

Do we grant any other groupings of people the legal status of persons?

[Eric the .5b]

"Ehn, to be blunt, if we focus on the little-people-getting-hurt argument, the other guy say we don't really give a damn and we're fabricating that claim in order to support our real concern - the big-corporation-losing-money."

You know, it's funny - people don't immediately think that about Democrats. I wonder why that is.

You're kidding me.

It's the same reason people don't think "Bush-bashing, tree-hugging UN-lovers who control the media and only like minorities when they're dependent" when they think about Republicans or "corporatist tools engaging in a mock battle between indistinguishable factions" when they think about the Green Party or "power-hungry guys who want to take away your freedoms because they think they know how to live your life better than you" when they think about libertarians.

When they think about Greens or libertarians, of course.

[Eric the .5b]

the reason Roberts used the word "bipartisan" to describe the act, is because the legislation was titled The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

Oops. I'd forgotten that and didn't twig since the quoted bit didn't capitalize "bipartisan".

Never mind.

[joe]

Tom answers the "collective trials" question.

"Also, can a corporation stand as a defendent in a criminal trial?" Yes, it happens all the time. Obviously, Exxon can't do 2 to 5 in a prison, but they are often fined under criminal statutes.

"With a non-corporate business, the owner's non-business assets may be at risk. That is one of the reasons people set up corporations, so that their personal assets may be protected if the business fails (for whatever reason it fails)." Before, you were arguing that a coropration was just a group of individuals. Now, you're arguing that a corporation is, in fact, a separate thing from the individuals who control it, and that its liability doesn't extend to them.