Supreme Court Decision Hypothetical

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nearly a good point.

The NY Times is not a faceless/nameless entity: their editorial board is exposed daily to the general public in the same manner that all publications hold. Likewise, their opinions are not formed and broadcast only during elections. Whether someone reads them daily, over the weekend, Sunday, or only occasionally, they occup ...[text shortened]... cribes, CU v FEC elevated those mo-fo PAC's above reproach or, at minimum, political restraint.

If we're debating the pluses and minuses of the two organizations weighing in on political debate, I might find myself in a surprising amount of agreement. But if the attempt is to assert one has more standing in their first amendment rights than the other, I'm afraid I disagree. If we don't like it, there's an amendment process.

The same laws that apply to Exxon and GE apply to other corporations. Which means that if me and a like minded buddy decide we want to influence an election, the government has attempted to limit our ability to collaborate. Scream as much as we want individually and perhaps our voice will be heard above the 300 million other Americans. But pool resources and attempt to even create a bank account or a web site legally owned by both of us (a corporation) and suddenly some think the government should be able to tell us to shut up.

Originally posted by sh76
Good point; but I see no impediment to Exxon doing what you suggest... starting a newspaper or TV station... There's no government regulation that prevents them from doing so.

That would be one greasy rag.

Originally posted by techsouth
What if instead of printing their own paper, they bought space in another paper to print their "news" stories?

This is, of course, already done. But capitalist propaganda is usually referred to as "advertising."

Originally posted by wittywonka
norm, no1, USAP--your thoughts?

Sorry. I can't add anything to Kunsoo's first post which I am in total agreement with.

Originally posted by techsouth
If we're debating the pluses and minuses of the two organizations weighing in on political debate, I might find myself in a surprising amount of agreement. But if the attempt is to assert one has more standing in their first amendment rights than the other, I'm afraid I disagree. If we don't like it, there's an amendment process.

The same laws that ap ...[text shortened]... (a corporation) and suddenly some think the government should be able to tell us to shut up.

Let me chew on that for a stretch and take another swipe at it after basketball this AM.

Originally posted by Soothfast
This is, of course, already done. But capitalist propaganda is usually referred to as "advertising."

And liberal propaganda usually refers to any communication coming from a large corporation as "propaganda".

So you're okay then if Exxon "advertising" places an ad next year suggesting that we don't reelect Obama?

Or, did you just bring this up because you wanted to take a cheap shot at capitalists in a way that is irrelevant to the conversation?

Originally posted by techsouth
If we're debating the pluses and minuses of the two organizations weighing in on political debate, I might find myself in a surprising amount of agreement. But if the attempt is to assert one has more standing in their first amendment rights than the other, I'm afraid I disagree. If we don't like it, there's an amendment process.

The same laws that ap ...[text shortened]... (a corporation) and suddenly some think the government should be able to tell us to shut up.

OK. Here's what germinated since earlier.

The underlying reasons behind my distaste for PAC's is:
a) the anonymous nature of their organizational structure;
b) their stated intent is nothing more than political sway;
c) they essentially send the unintended message that enough money will trump reason.

In the case of the corporations you have cited, each of them stands representative of their chartered directive: business in their selected industries. Political messages from any one of them will never surprise the general populace because said messages will be connected to the motivations of their efforts.

What is the PAC grounded to, or by? Well, they routinely use such righteous-sounding monikers as "Concerned Citizens for XYZ" or some such, but there is no law concerning truth in advertising for organizational names, right? In a nutshell, any PAC is held together by the common desire to sway decisions... and, of course, money. The more, the better. Once their goal is obtained--- unlike the corporations who are in business to remain so--- they disappear into the ether. This is what prompts my earlier charge of carpet-baggery, albeit with a new modern twist.

One thought experiment would be to think of the worst case scenario for you and a like-minded buddy fully intent on influencing the general populace... and armed with all the money in the world to do so.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
OK. Here's what germinated since earlier.

The underlying reasons behind my distaste for PAC's is:
a) the anonymous nature of their organizational structure;
b) their stated intent is nothing more than political sway;
c) they essentially send the unintended message that enough money will trump reason.

In the case of the corporations you have cite ...[text shortened]... t on influencing the general populace... and armed with all the money in the world to do so.

All good points.

Unquestionably there is a downside to freedom of speech and freedom of press and I'm reminded of that every time I see Bill Mahor on TV. China solves this by eliminating free press. Our founding fathers hoped we'd be discerning enough that the voice of reason would prevail. Collectively we have not exactly lived up to our end of the bargain, and I think the left and right would agree on that, although they'd disagree on who is and who isn't the voice of reason. One might argue that because of our culpability in being so easily manipulated by knaves and charlatans, we don't really deserve to have freedom of speech.

Originally posted by techsouth
All good points.

Unquestionably there is a downside to freedom of speech and freedom of press and I'm reminded of that every time I see Bill Mahor on TV. China solves this by eliminating free press. Our founding fathers hoped we'd be discerning enough that the voice of reason would prevail. Collectively we have not exactly lived up to our end of the ...[text shortened]... ly manipulated by knaves and charlatans, we don't really deserve to have freedom of speech.

Bill Maher? He's a genius. And if you don't believe that, just ask him.

Originally posted by Soothfast
That would be one greasy rag.

Nice one.

Originally posted by techsouth
All good points.

Unquestionably there is a downside to freedom of speech and freedom of press and I'm reminded of that every time I see Bill Mahor on TV. China solves this by eliminating free press. Our founding fathers hoped we'd be discerning enough that the voice of reason would prevail. Collectively we have not exactly lived up to our end of the ...[text shortened]... ly manipulated by knaves and charlatans, we don't really deserve to have freedom of speech.

Agree with all of your counters, especially the snarky factor emanating from BM (probably just a coincidence, right?).

While I am the last one to sign off on over-zealous 'protection' enforced by fiat of the SCOTUS, I still hold they blew it on this one. Where they normally have sought to engineer level playing fields, on this one, they allowed the muscled few a longer leash than they could have hoped for.

I dunno. Maybe they 'fix' it by enforcing proportional disclaimers within every ad, similar to what we see with tobacco or pharmaceutical products--- ones with a list of the PAC's benefactors as well as their official charters. At least then folks would be better 'advised.'