News Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[drankin]

Does Mickey Mouse get to campaign for candidates? Joe Camel?

Yes and yes. The government cannot restrict the freedom of speech from factual or fictional people.

 

[edpell]

There never was enforceable law against depositing money in a pols swiss bank account. So as far I can see nothing has changed.

 

[edpell]

Or, money talks everyone else walks

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes and yes. The government cannot restrict the freedom of speech from factual or fictional people.

That's a rather sad state of affairs in my opinion.

 

[BobG]

Why must I argue something I'm not claiming? I'm claiming exactly what SCOTUS ruled, that government can't suppress political speech even if we assume that the "speaker" has no political speech rights.

How about if the speaker does have political speech rights?

For instance, a military person doesn't lose their freedom of speech rights just because they've joined the military. They can still participate in a war protest if they disagree with that particular war. They can't participate in a war protest wearing a military uniform and/or identifying themselves as a military member. In other words, they can't portray themselves as a military member against the war - just as a regular citizen against the war.

Likewise, an employee of a company that writes a "Letter to the Editor" criticizing that company's policies and identifies themselves as an employee of that company in the letter can be fired. It's one thing to have a customer claim a company cheated them. It's quite another to have an employee claim the company cheats customers on a routine basis.

Surely, the inside info provided by an employee serves some public service beyond that individual employee's rights - at least, if the info is credible enough to stand on its own weight. An unsubstantiated accusation or a false accusation by a disgruntled employee isn't very informative.

In other words, freedom of speech isn't absolute. There can be limits in how it's applied without violating a person's civil rights (at least according to the courts, since a few may disagree that any kind of limits are permissable).

I agree that the SCOTUS decision could basically be expressed as: "The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Laws enacted to control or suppress speech may operate at different points in the speech process. The following are just a few examples of restrictions that have been at-tempted at different stages of the speech process—all laws found to be invalid: ... "

I think they could have easily found a few examples that were found to be valid, had they wanted to (and Stevens notes a few in his dissent).

Almost more interesting than the decision was Roberts and Alito feeling it necessary to explain their opinion on "the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case." This was what the public was interested in hearing during the confirmation hearings for each of them.

The most surreal portion of the decision has to be Stevens's dissent, where he says, "Congress surely has both wisdom and experience in these matters that is far superior to ours.” Except this is a quote from a previous case, "Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. FEC"; and the quote comes from the dissent, not the decision; and the person writing the dissent was Stevens. He couldn't just say that he felt a Congress staffed by politicians that had to know elections in order to get elected were better at figuring out campaign laws than judges appointed for life. He had to quote himself from a previous case. Is that self-pretentiousness or what?!

Sometimes, the reading of these is so interesting you forget to care about the decision.

 

[drankin]

That's a rather sad state of affairs in my opinion.

Why would we restrict Mickey Mouse's political speech?

 

[Nebula815]

And I am quite certain that individuals are capable of exercising their freedom of speech during the most important phases of elections individually or in groups other than corporations. I still have not seen any arguments as to why they should be allowed to use a corporation as a proxy for this.
I can think of only one and that would be that several poorer individuals, through a nonprofit, can hopefully compete financially with wealthier individuals. Though I see no reason why wealthier individuals could not avail themselves of the same advantage through their own nonprofits there by negating, and likely defeating, the advantage gained by poorer individuals through such means. If this were restricted to nonprofits I might be inclined to favour it.

SCOTUS doctrine, from my understanding, is that the First Amendment protects the right of the speaker to speak and the right of the public to hear it. On corporations, as has been shown, any corporations distributing and/or selling books, making films or commercials, etc...could be restricted from doing so right during the important part of the campaign.

So when the White House was saying that "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization...it is more an arm of the Republican party..." does this mean that the White House could use the campaign finance laws to silence Fox News in the last sixty or thirty days of a campaign? At least with their own view of the matter?

It is not a good idea to limit political speech.

 

[BobG]

So, the overall impact of this decision is increased overhead for corporations that generally contribute to both parties almost evenly (In 2008 pro-business political action commitess spent $327 million dollars. About 51% of that money wound up going to Republicans, while Democrats received about 49%. ) The additional impact is to provide incumbents with an election advantage, since corporations are more likely to cultivate stable, long term relationships with politicians already in office than to generate money to some rogue upstart, hell-bent on changing things in Washington.

Hmmm, self-referencing oneself is actually kind of pleasing.

 

[Nebula815]

The additional impact is to provide incumbents with an election advantage, since corporations are more likely to cultivate stable, long term relationships with politicians already in office than to generate money to some rogue upstart, hell-bent on changing things in Washington.

Would have to disagree. The campaign-finance laws helped incumbents. There's nothing more beneficial to an incumbent than making it where corporations, unions, etc...cannot criticize that incumbent via political speech during the most important phase of the election.

 

[BobG]

Would have to disagree. The campaign-finance laws helped incumbents. There's nothing more beneficial to an incumbent than making it where corporations, unions, etc...cannot criticize that incumbent via political speech during the most important phase of the election.

Historical re-election rates

Interactive campaign fund comparison

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.php

If you're just looking at McCain-Feingold (BCRA of 2003), then the most accurate answer is probably that campaign finance reform has had no effect one way or the other. It's been too easy to find ways around it (PACs, 527s, etc).

Of course, recent gerrymandering has probably been as signficant as campaign dollars in helping incumbents. The Senate would seem to be a better indicator. I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that the BCRA2003 was responsible for the re-election rate decreasing in 2006 and 2008. Sweeping revolutions in the Senate just don't seem to be what they used to be.

In other words, there's a legitimate problem (or else voters are just more satisfied with our politicians than we used to be). I don't think the BCRA fixed it, regardless of whether it's constitutional or not.

 

[Proton Soup]

if we're going to limit spending by corps and/or individuals, i think we need to limit spending by the government as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So when the White House was saying that "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization...it is more an arm of the Republican party..." does this mean that the White House could use the campaign finance laws to silence Fox News in the last sixty or thirty days of a campaign? At least with their own view of the matter?

It is not a good idea to limit political speech.

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic. Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate, not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speaking of excessive influence,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

many at the Wall Street Journal considered Murdoch's purchase of the company to be the end of the Journal as we know it. As a former subscriber who has read some recent quotes from the paper, it is apparent that the worst has indeed happened. It often reads more as a tabloid than the trusted and prestigious conservative news source that it once was.

 

[Al68]

I would not argue that it effects more than the speaker but the speaker is with whom the right is invested and intentionally or not the court is investing that right with persons fictional.

But a corporation's legal personhood isn't about rights, it's the means by which we can consider a corporation to be a party to any act, good or bad. Without it, a corporation is nothing more than a tool used by people to perform actions, and like any tool, could not be considered a party to any action. Crimes aren't committed by tools. Tools can't be sued, named as defendants, enter into contracts, etc.

So, you're right, this wouldn't be an issue without corporate "personhood", but only because a corporation then, as merely a tool, could no more be legally considered an "offender" than any other tool used by a person to commit an unlawful act. It's not because the tool might have "rights".

But neither side in this case objected to corporate personhood, and neither side argued that a corporation has "rights".

The outcome of this ruling might be the same outcome as that obtained by hypothetically considering a corporation to have "rights", but that isn't in the chain of reasoning contained in the majority opinion.

Edit: You pointed out that the people involved were free to engage in political speech as long as they didn't use a corporation to do it. What if the law in question banned the use of video recorders instead of corporations for this purpose, so that people would be free to engage in political speech as long as they didn't use a video recorder? Would you then call the ruling the equivalent of "vesting rights" in video recorders?

Personhood makes a corporation a special tool, but it just make no sense to suggest that this ruling "vested rights" in any tool.

 

[Nebula815]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope.

Well I don't know if I'd say elections are driven by corporate-funded disinformation services. Corporations, unions, non-profits, etc...can produce political speech to get their opinions on issues out, some are outright dis-information, others can be factual, it depends. It isn't like political parties themselves don't engage in dis-information either.

For example, if its the month before a Presidential election and a Democrat presidential candidate is pushing for carbon cap-and-trade and they say it will "create green jobs and help the economy" and they started hitting the airwaves with tons of ads on this, and then a set of commercials are produced that basically say all of this is baloney, but it turns out they was funded by the oil industry, well so what? People can listen to both, and make up their own minds. They will take into account who is saying what in both cases.

Maybe then Greenpeace makes a film saying cap-and-trade is good or whatnot. Again, free political speech is important.

Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

Corporations already were permitted to do this stuff, they just were banned from doing it during the most crucial portion of the election, the last sixty to thirty days of elections. It is up to the people to be smart enough to sift through the information that is false.

And corporations can get around such rules if they own media organizations. For example, General Electric very much wants cap-and-trade and contracts for windmills and so forth from the government.

They own MSNBC right now, and not too long ago, they were running a "Green Week." Glenn Beck was ranting about it, but otherwise, no one seemed to care.

Now imagine if Fox News was bought by General Dynamics or Raytheon and was running a "War Week," HOLY HIGH HEAVENS

Or if Fox News was purchased by a big oil corporation and was running specials about how global warming was baloney. Wouldn't the rest of the media and the White House be screaming, "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization! They are an arm of the oil industry and the Republican party!"

Blood vessels would be bursting if Fox was really under such ownership.

Or I can do even better. Fox News owned by an oil corporation and this oil corporation is lobbying the Republican president (I am pretending here) to remove the ban on off-shore oil drilling (like GE's pushing for windmill contracts, carbon cap-and-trade, etc...). And meanwhile Fox News is running specials about how global warming is baloney and how lifting the ban on drilling will create all sorts of new jobs.

Of course, the WH is already claiming Fox News isn't legit and is an arm of the Republican party, meanwhile MSNBC, which is owned by General Electric, whose own CEO (Jeffrey Immelt) I believe was an adviser to Obama, well no one says, "MSNBC is not a legitimate news organization. They are nothing but an arm of a corporation that has a vested interest in seeing this administration's climate control legislation pass, and they are a quasi-arm of the Democrat party in this sense."

Actually, in such a case (oil corp owning Fox), if anti-global warming and pro-oil drilling specials were being aired, you probably could say the Fox News corporation was just a propaganda arm for the oil industry. But that wouldn't mean the government should have any right to shut it up. After all, who is to say that the oil drilling won't create jobs or that the specials are wrong on climate change? Again, bad to let government decide.

On the other hand, I find it rather hypocritical the current administration does not see MSNBC this same way, which I think one could claim is a quasi-arm of the "green" industry to a degree.

My bigger concern with foreign corporations or foreign-owned corporations would be regarding lobbying. Should we just ban lobbying outright, since foreign corporations and foreign governments lobby our government all the time? Would there be bad unforseen consequences of this?

I understand your point about corporations with foreign ownership being able to engage in political speech, but you have to be very careful when you are regarding speech issues because you can give the government too much power.

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic.

What "unlimited" influence? All they do is air programming. There is nothing to stop alternative programming from being aired. Market-wise, conservative-libertarian talk radio seems to be more successful, but that does not stop anyone from creating leftwing networks or talk shows.

Are you really saying Fox News and talk radio are dangerous to democracy? They need to be controlled? Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" information in such an instance then?

And BTW, for all their supposed unlimited influence, the Democrats still won Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008.

Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate,

YES, and thanks to the Internet, talk radio, television, and books, this is more possible than ever before! Never before have people had the ability to become so informed. It is the greatest confluence of ideas ever seen in the history of democracy, and you think this is a BAD thing??

As an unfortunate side effect, yes there's a lot more noise out there too, but smart people can pick through it.

You really believe too many people getting to say their thoughts is bad for democracy?

Remember, democracy depends, as you say, on an informed electorate. But it is up to the electorate itself to make sure it is being informed properly. That is one of the key components of democracy, and requires responsible citizens.

One cannot argue that it is up to the government to ensure that the people are properly informed by deciding what information is "legitimate" and what is not.

Are you saying government needs to assign a group of people made up of "elites" who "know best" to decide what networks, talk shows, tv shows, books, magazines, etc...are legitimate, and which are not? A group of people made up of folks such as yourself?

not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Yeah there are your idiots out there, but we should NOT be saying that media and infotainment or information sources of any kind have to be watched and controlled by the government to make sure the information is "legitimate" or "correct."

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

I don't think the SCOTUS ruling said corporations as persons have a right to free speech, it is that infringing on political speech infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people.

 

[Al68]

While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections?

All of these concerns are equally valid if the source isn't a union or corporation. And the overturned law exempted corporations that the government considered to be primarily "media outlets".

Should government block political speech from AFL-CIO while allowing it from Fox News, because the government determines that one is a "media outlet" while the other isn't? That's exactly what this law did.

Allowing government to pick and choose which sources of political speech to block and which to allow is a much bigger threat to democracy than for people to have access to all political speech, both information and disinformation, and decide for themselves what to think.

 

[BobG]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

I think there's more than just two imperatives in play. The primary issue is freedom of the speech and how it affects elections. A third issue is whether corporations (or labor unions, or political parties) even deserve any rights.

I think if there's any doubt about the issue, you should lean on the side of freedom of speech. The phrase, "How does one protect the first ammendment while... " has been used too many times with some very important reason or another substituted for the dot-dot-dots (usually a major war, or sometimes an undeclared war, or many times simply because we don't like Communists). In other words, the SCOTUS hasn't done much to protect free speech in the past. It's generally held that free speech can be suspended or restricted for just about any reason the government invents. In fact, young men can still technically be imprisoned for six years for burning their draft card (it would probably take a lot more effort to convince a police officer to arrest you, though, than it did in the 60's).

I think you have to show a very definite likelihood of elections being corrupted to justify restrictions on free speech. I'm not sure that's the case with past history. It's a definite possibility, but I don't think there's any real evidence to show it's a reality. Even presuming likelihood depends on cynicism more than anything else.

I think the "personhood" of corporations is a completely separate issue that just happens to overlap into the freedom of speech issue in this particular case. The inalienable rights protected in the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not groups - i.e. the Republican Party has no particular rights; only its members do. There is a separation between the group and its individual members and transference of rights from the individuals to the group isn't an automatic process. (And the First Amendment specifically protects freedom of the press; hence exceptions to the media that may or may not be owned by corporations - the logic doesn't matter here - in fact, what freedom of the press means in today's era could be a fourth issue from this case).

If any credible correlation could be presented that corporate money corrupted elections, then I think they could be regulated, since there is no way a corporation has the same rights as a real person (and I have to admit that most of my bad feelings about this decision stems from the idea that a corporation could have any rights).

I just don't think there's any evidence (other than general cynicism about politicians) to show corporate money actually corrupts elections.

 

[Proton Soup]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic. Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate, not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

you're complaining that there's not enough censorship? you've got to be kidding me. and you honestly think your rhetoric applies only to those you disagree with?

your post here has convinced me that the supreme court has made the correct decision. it is not up to people like you to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not acceptable. individually, the electorate certainly does contain a lot of dim bulbs, and i know they annoy you, but collectively they do a fairly good job of assessing what works and what does not.

 

[turbo]

There's a lot of smoke being blown about this decision, as if corporations *as private entities* deserve the right to spend all the money they want to buy elections as a matter of "free speech". Those who claim that McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance reforms are attacking "free speech" are somehow conveniently forgetting that each and every member of each corporation who is a citizen has the right to vote, and they have the right to donate money to whomever they want, and say whatever they want for or against candidates or issues. No single person is ever stripped of their rights when corporations are restricted from dumping billions into our elections. Not one. When corporations are free to spend as much as they want to buy elections, they can easily shout down locally-funded grass-roots movements and stifle free discussion, and that effectively disenfranchises us all, to some extent.

Corporations already have disproportionate influence in DC, and if the fiction of "Corporation=Person" is allowed to stand, we are in an inexorable slide toward facism. Eisenhower warned about the growing power of corporate interests, especially those involved in defense industries. Unfortunately, the US populace has become complacent and sit on their hands when our government denies its citizens affordable access to health care, education, and other necessities while corporations make obscene profits. BTW, I don't give Obama any good marks on this score. He and Geithner have not reined in Wall Street or forced them to pay for the damage they inflicted on our country's economy with their wild gambling schemes. Tonight's State of the Union Address had better be a doozy, not only with admissions of guilt and responsibility, but some clear path out of this mess, including getting the influence of corporations out of our government.

 

[Proton Soup]

they're not buying elections, they're buying advertising, which is speech. speech is not a magical force that compels people to vote for things.

 

[turbo]

they're not buying elections, they're buying advertising, which is speech. speech is not a magical force that compels people to vote for things.

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

 

[drankin]

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

That's an advertising issue not a free speech issue.

 

[turbo]

That's an advertising issue not a free speech issue.

By couching their decision as a "free speech" issue the activists on the court have performed a slick sleight-of-hand which will let corporations block less-well-funded groups from the airwaves. Our little TV stations have a limited number of ad-slots that they can sell during the news and prime-time. The rest are held by the networks, who use them to hawk medications, cars, etc. Corporations can very easily buy ALL the slots held by the affiliates in news-hours and prime-time and effectively block citizens' groups from being able to use that medium. THAT is a free-speech issue, not an advertising issue.

 

[drankin]

By couching their decision as a "free speech" issue the activists on the court have performed a slick sleight-of-hand which will let corporations block less-well-funded groups from the airwaves. Our little TV stations have a limited number of ad-slots that they can sell during the news and prime-time. The rest are held by the networks, who use them to hawk medications, cars, etc. Corporations can very easily buy ALL the slots held by the affiliates in news-hours and prime-time and effectively block citizens' groups from being able to use that medium. THAT is a free-speech issue, not an advertising issue.

IF you ever see this happen, let us know. Regardless, the ability to put up commercials is not a right. If someone is "grass-roots" and wants to put out a message and can't or won't pay for a commercial spot, then he/she will need to enroll his/her community into his/her cause. Pass out flyers, post articles on the net, put on events that will attract the media, etc.

 

[turbo]

It will happen and then it will be too late. SCOTUS has sabotaged participatory democracy with this activism. They had all kinds of options available to them, not just the nuclear one, but they chose the most severe "remedy" possible.

 

[Proton Soup]

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

perhaps grassroots=underpeopled. and perhaps they could do what everyone else has been doing, buy their own printing presses. buy your own news organizations and route around the old campaigning laws, just like Fox and the NYT.

 

[BobG]

By couching their decision as a "free speech" issue the activists on the court have performed a slick sleight-of-hand which will let corporations block less-well-funded groups from the airwaves. Our little TV stations have a limited number of ad-slots that they can sell during the news and prime-time. The rest are held by the networks, who use them to hawk medications, cars, etc. Corporations can very easily buy ALL the slots held by the affiliates in news-hours and prime-time and effectively block citizens' groups from being able to use that medium. THAT is a free-speech issue, not an advertising issue.

IF you ever see this happen, let us know. Regardless, the ability to put up commercials is not a right. If someone is "grass-roots" and wants to put out a message and can't or won't pay for a commercial spot, then he/she will need to enroll his/her community into his/her cause. Pass out flyers, post articles on the net, put on events that will attract the media, etc.

It can happen in small markets without good cable TV access. Presumably, satellite TV will eventually alleviate that in small markets, but I'm not sure how pervasive satellite TV is in rural markets.

There was a time when TV and radio had a "Fairness Doctrine" that ensured equal access to public airwaves (i.e. - a radio station or TV station couldn't own the frequencies they used. They used a public resource and owed an obligation to the public in return). If a TV station aired one point of view, they had to allow equal time to the opposing point of view (at their own cost if they couldn't find anyone willing to pay to present the opposing view). Ducking controversial issues wasn't an option, either. Providing equal access was just a cost of doing business (one that radio stations and TV stations didn't like, by the way).

With the advent of 100+ channel cable TV, the FCC decided the rules and regulations that made up the Fairness Doctrine were no longer necessary back in the late 80's. I'd say they were correct for over 90% of the population. There are still quite a few exceptions, even 20 years later.

 

[turbo]

Do you want to have some input as to how deer habitat and woodlands are managed? How about inland fisheries? How about the construction of wind-power farms and electrical transmission lines? Can one reasonably expect grass-roots citizen groups to purchase the apparatus of mass-media in order to compete with corporations on each and every issue? That's a ridiculous notion, and it flies in the face of common sense. The activists on the court knew exactly what they were doing with this decision. They are not idiots. They know exactly what kind of effect unbridled spending by corporations will have (especially in small states) and they gave the neo-cons exactly what they want. Chaos and undue influence in the 2010 elections.

 

[turbo]

With the advent of 100+ channel cable TV, the FCC decided the rules and regulations that made up the Fairness Doctrine were no longer necessary back in the late 80's. I'd say they were correct for over 90% of the population. There are still quite a few exceptions, even 20 years later.

Maine is very rural, with poor access to cable, and satellite TV is priced beyond the reach of most of our citizens, so broadcast TV is very important to us. Unfortunately, corporations can now block all citizens groups from the air-waves with a minimal investment. When you figure how much power 100 senators have, and that even sparsely-populated rural states like Maine have two, you can see what a ripe target our senatorial races will be. Olympia Snowe has come out firmly against the SCOTUS decision, and for good reason. As a moderate in the GOP, she is a prime target for the neo-cons.

 

[Proton Soup]

Do you want to have some input as to how deer habitat and woodlands are managed? How about inland fisheries? How about the construction of wind-power farms and electrical transmission lines? Can one reasonably expect grass-roots citizen groups to purchase the apparatus of mass-media in order to compete with corporations on each and every issue? That's a ridiculous notion, and it flies in the face of common sense. The activists on the court knew exactly what they were doing with this decision. They are not idiots. They know exactly what kind of effect unbridled spending by corporations will have (especially in small states) and they gave the neo-cons exactly what they want. Chaos and undue influence in the 2010 elections.

how much is it really going to cost you to start a blog/website/mailing list?