SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

LobsterBoy · 01-23-10, 12:17 PM

I find this decision troubling and a little confusing.

I'm confused that it still "limits" free speech. If corporations are entities that are entitled to free speech, and that speech cannot be infringed upon, why not allow direct donations to candidates. Giving money is a form of speech, right?

The way I'm reading the decision (and I'm reading it directly, not having it interpreted to me by FOX or MSNBC or any other "news" outlet) the argument was about broadcasts that can reach 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. This is an avenue of expression that large corporations and unions have that the vast percentage of US citizens have no access to. I cannot create an advertisement because I don't have the means. The court seems to equate corporate and union free speech with citizen free speech. Corporations and unions are not equal to citizens--they cannot vote.

The court could have simply ruled that an on-demand program was separate from a broadcast because you choose if, when, and where to watch it. I would have been comfortable with that ruling.

This does not even touch on the questions about how corporations will make these decisions. Do they need shareholder approval to use general funds in such a way? If you are a shareholder and disagree are you going to sell your stake in protest. If you don't are you giving tacit approval to such expressions? What about the interests of multi-national corporations? Will there be restrictions on foreign money used? What if you are in a union and disagree? Do you stop paying your dues? Do you risk leaving the union?

Many corporations and unions in this country won't do more advertising than they did through PAC's. They just don't have the profit margin to do it. I imagine shareholders would frown on the expenditure without a specific political goal in mind. This just leaves the wealthiest corporations and unions to run ads until we all stop watching TV in disgust. It also opens the door to bulk ads in the last 30 days that make a false claim without time for rebuttal. Sure you can sue if it's slanderous, but you've already lost the election.

I would suggest that if corporations are entities entitled to free speech they be subject to the same limits that people are. I am a private citizen. I can donate $2400 (last I checked) to a candidate, $5000 to a PAC, and something like $30000 to a party committee (all of these limits at a per election basis). I believe a corporation as an entity should be held to the same limits. Then they have the same amount of free speech potential as I do.

Finally, does this open the door for corporations as entities to bear arms? Will Exxon build its own navy?

I don't know how this will play out in practice yet, but I may find myself watching little TV this summer and fall.

01-23-10, 12:17 PM	#43
LobsterBoy Machinist's Mate Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Minnesota Posts: 127 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	I find this decision troubling and a little confusing. I'm confused that it still "limits" free speech. If corporations are entities that are entitled to free speech, and that speech cannot be infringed upon, why not allow direct donations to candidates. Giving money is a form of speech, right? The way I'm reading the decision (and I'm reading it directly, not having it interpreted to me by FOX or MSNBC or any other "news" outlet) the argument was about broadcasts that can reach 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. This is an avenue of expression that large corporations and unions have that the vast percentage of US citizens have no access to. I cannot create an advertisement because I don't have the means. The court seems to equate corporate and union free speech with citizen free speech. Corporations and unions are not equal to citizens--they cannot vote. The court could have simply ruled that an on-demand program was separate from a broadcast because you choose if, when, and where to watch it. I would have been comfortable with that ruling. This does not even touch on the questions about how corporations will make these decisions. Do they need shareholder approval to use general funds in such a way? If you are a shareholder and disagree are you going to sell your stake in protest. If you don't are you giving tacit approval to such expressions? What about the interests of multi-national corporations? Will there be restrictions on foreign money used? What if you are in a union and disagree? Do you stop paying your dues? Do you risk leaving the union? Many corporations and unions in this country won't do more advertising than they did through PAC's. They just don't have the profit margin to do it. I imagine shareholders would frown on the expenditure without a specific political goal in mind. This just leaves the wealthiest corporations and unions to run ads until we all stop watching TV in disgust. It also opens the door to bulk ads in the last 30 days that make a false claim without time for rebuttal. Sure you can sue if it's slanderous, but you've already lost the election. I would suggest that if corporations are entities entitled to free speech they be subject to the same limits that people are. I am a private citizen. I can donate $2400 (last I checked) to a candidate, $5000 to a PAC, and something like $30000 to a party committee (all of these limits at a per election basis). I believe a corporation as an entity should be held to the same limits. Then they have the same amount of free speech potential as I do. Finally, does this open the door for corporations as entities to bear arms? Will Exxon build its own navy? I don't know how this will play out in practice yet, but I may find myself watching little TV this summer and fall.