Latest Supreme Court decision

[valvatica]

[yt]FXZmyFIXhuE[/yt]

I know that a corporation is a legally-protected entity, that corporatism is the problem and not the free market, etc. ... what are your guys' thoughts on this? Are you outraged by this decision or is it an exaggeration by Democrats/liberals?

[VectorM]

Don't feel like watching the video right now, but from what I understand, it's about corporations being able to donate to political parties without any regulation, right? I don't really know if that is a concern to me or anything (as in politically, morally and so on, since I don't live in the U.S. and it doesn't concern me directly), but this has been happening everywhere, all around the world, regardless of legality. ALWAYS. Corporations have been "donating" for years, I don't know why they get so frightened now when it's unregulated. And correct me if I am wrong about anything, since I am not the most informed on this.

[MrBogosity]

How about, Rule #1: Everyone who expresses an opinion on the subject should read the decision first:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Some highlights:

The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.

Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections.

So, pretty much everything they're saying is false.

What the Supreme Court overturned was the restrictions on FREEDOM OF SPEECH that suddenly come into effect 60 days before the election. This is NOT campaign finance reform; this is incumbent protection, and in my opinion the court didn't go anywhere near far enough!

But this is just one more example about how liberals play lip service to free speech, but when it comes down to it they want to control it as much as anyone else.

Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.”

Also, consider the following. The liberals are using the word "corporation" basically as an insult, but look at what the law considers to be corporations:

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

They upheld the legal disclaimer requirements. So most of what's said by the media are lies.

Why? Because what the court REALLY did was to stop the media being a privileged class--the ONLY ONES who can mention a Federal candidate 60 days before an election. That is WRONG. That is WAY WRONG. And that's what the Supreme Court struck down.

Good for them.

[MrBogosity]

[yt]FXZmyFIXhuE[/yt]

2:45: "It isn't people forming political associations to do political work." YES IT IS. And anyone who's actually read the decision knows it.

3:43: "The court's ruling undermines the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." WHAT integrity?

4:59: "I think we wouldn't be in the Iraq War right now, or in Afghanistan, if it wasn't partially for corporations and corporate interests." Right, because running ads 60 days before an election is the ONLY way corporations have control in our government...

Consider the rest of his comments in context with the decision. "We as citizens no longer have a voice." No, BEFORE the decision we didn't have a voice 60 days before an election. Only the media and the candidates did. Now we have that voice back. His whole tirade is just complete ignorance of what the Supreme Court said, because he's basing his opinion not on the decision itself, but what he's been told by the very people who just lost their exclusive voice and power over elections.

[valvatica]

While it's painfully obvious I did no research on this before and after seeing the video, I assumed this was bad because individuals could never compete with corporations in regards to having a voice. Point taken... I'll stick to research before opening my mouth.

BTW I clicked on some of the Bogometers on Shane and Vector's names above to see what they did, and then tried to click a few more times to correct it. Oops 

[AHPMB]

I agree with the ruling on a purely Constitutional basis.  There is absolutely nothing in even the remotest possible interpretation of the 1st Amendment that would suggest the government has the right to restrict free speech 60 days before an election.  I think there's going to be a lot of stigma about this ruling because it involves corporate donations and the general feeling about the electoral process is that it's already hopelessly corrupt, but come on, this is exactly what Madison was talking about in the Fed Papers when he discussed why a Constitution is necessary.  The anger and enmity of a majority should never, ever be enough to restrict speech, even speech by coal companies or whatever.  Now, if the court would only remember to hew close to the Constitution when it came to other things where angry majorities are denying people rights, like, oh I don't know, the right to get married for instance.

[Travis Retriever]

@Shane:
1.  You get a -1 on your bogometer for clearing this stuff up.
2.  And people wonder why I no longer watch TV, especially network news anymore...  Hell, I'd say the Onion is more reliable at this point in time...

[Gumba Masta]

Good heavens, reading just the first paragraph of the court document made my eyes blead. How do you people even manage so many words at once?

[valvatica]

Shane, might a video on this be in order? I've seen some recent videos from YouTubers on the issue, even linking to the Supreme Court decision page (the same one you showed here) in their description, indicating they've read it-- but it still seems to be common that people are concentrating on the "corporate donations" aspect and not the "freedom of speech 60 days before an election" one. Maybe it's not worth it because of what should be painfully obvious, but many issues like this (misconstrued, buried in Legalese, popular opinion, etc.) are the reason why I don't even know where I lie politically. Research is great and all but can still be ripped to shreds if someone who is already well-versed in disambiguating bogosity (like yourself) can show how they're still wrong even though they took time to research.

You said the restriction of speech 60 days before an election is what the Supreme Court struck down. So, is the issue of corporate donations a complete non-sequitur, or is still an issue but just not a big one? VectorM pointed out that corporations have been "donating" (I don't know if he intentionally filliped the word) for years, so does that have to do with the stance that there should be no regulation on corporate donations because they'll still find a way to do it even if regulated?

[MrBogosity]

They're probably talking about the overruling of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. But again, that didn't really have anything to do with anything other than the First Amendment applying to corporations, too, which it always has. But again, news and media corporations were excepted to this and could do whatever they want; now, they no longer have special privileges.

[VectorM]

I also fail to see how millions of dollars of funding to support a specific candidate = end of democracy. You can still, you know, NOT VOTE for the guy you don't like, despite all the millions he gets for the campaign. And if you make the argument that people would not notice the candidates that are not being funded by these corporations, then you are full of shit, because that's exactly what's happening right now. There were democrats that were 10 times better than Obama, but they didn't have the connections, the funding, or the other party members didn't like them for various reasons, even though the public might have like them. Or the CORPORATE MEDIA (like MSNBC...) didn't like them either. And as I said, corporations can still bribe (that's what i meant when i said "donating") the electorate, one way or another. And really, the scare arguments are retarded. No gay marriage, racial segregation, why would a corporation do that exactly? If anything, they might HELP to legalize gay marriage, to make them look better in the eyes of investors and clients. Being racist and homophobic = not profitable.

If you truly want corporations to have no say in what happens in government, then GET RID OF GOVERNMENT

[MrBogosity]

And if you make the argument that people would not notice the candidates that are not being funded by these corporations, then you are full of shit, because that's exactly what's happening right now. There were democrats that were 10 times better than Obama, but they didn't have the connections, the funding, or the other party members didn't like them for various reasons, even though the public might have like them.

Yes, but they might very well have had the funding with this horrible law overturned. Ron Paul supporters got a f'ing BLIMP, for crying out loud! Could you imagine what they could have done if they could have purchased advertising dollars?

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]rUdFaIYzNwU[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

[yt-wide]8_35lNmxDYI[/yt-wide]

[valvatica]

Can't thank you enough for making this video. The comments section is atrocious. As for me, I hope those here on the forum remember that anything I ask or say is an attempt to learn, no matter if I play devil's advocate, use the Socratic method, etc.