Ruling Could Unleash Flood of Campaign Cash

[Stealth Hunter]

Well... looks like we'll be seeing a lot more special interest groups meddling in political affairs now.

[Platapus]

Trying to control such actions can be tricky.

On one hand we want to limit the ability to flood the campaign with advertisements to the point where who ever has the most money can get elected.

On the other hand trying to restrict what a citizen/group of citizens can say is an infringement of their first amendment rights.

Trying to find balance in that is challenging.

[CaptainHaplo]

It shouldn't be challenging at all. It should be downright easy.

If you can vote in the election in question - you can contribute to the campaign. If you can't pull a lever or feed the ballot to a machine, then you cannot fund the campaign.

Also - this is a horrible decision. The freedom of speech is reserved for individuals or "groups" - aka LIKE MINDED individuals - not corporations or unions. Corporations and Unions are made up of people with diverse political views, as well as both of these have a vested BUSINESS related interest in the outcome of elections that goes BEYOND the individual interest. To extend a PERSONAL right to a corporation or union, PAC or lobby group, is to pervert the purpose of Freedom of Speech. It was intended so that every person could be heard, not so that every person could be drowned out by a special interest.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The freedom of speech is reserved for individuals or "groups" - aka LIKE MINDED individuals - not corporations or unions.

On what are you basing this on?

[Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble....[/quote]

Not seeing anything here about like minded groups and corporations.

I don't think you will find too many constitutional scholars that would link the terms "like minded" with "freedom of speech". Restricting freedom of speech to only like minded groups kinda goes against the intent don't it?

[CaptainHaplo]

Platypus - how familiar are you with the Bill of Rights, and its stated purpose?

Specifically, the Bill of Rights was proposed and adopted to protect INDIVIDUAL rights further than the unamended constitution provided for.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This says clearly that free speech is a right that the government cannot restrict. However, can a corporation talk? Can a union? Yes and no. The amendment clearly speaks to this - the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It thus says that if a UNION wants to have a large group of protestors outside congress - then the government cannot restrict that right provided they protest peaceably. Thus in that case those assembling are of a LIKE MIND - and are protected regardless of which side of an issue they are on. However - a COMPANY or UNION who sends a representative to congress to LOBBY, or pays for an ad supporting a specific candidate - cannot honestly claim to have everyone in the "group" fully in support. This lobbyist protectionism is not the purpose of the First Amendment. Its intent as history shows given the debates when it was adopted - show that the entire Bill of Rights was an addendum to the constitution as an additional protection for one group and only one group - the PEOPLE of the US.

[Platapus]

I understand what you have written, but I don't think it supports your position as you may think it does.

@CaptainHaplo
Constitutionaly, I see it as you do.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

However - a COMPANY or UNION who sends a representative to congress to LOBBY, or pays for an ad supporting a specific candidate - cannot honestly claim to have everyone in the "group" fully in support.

I kind of agree with you in a general sense but playing devils advocate neither can it be claimed that they don't have that group support and as far as I know the constitution doesn't say a company or union must prove that before it is allowed to speak.

Besides I know plenty of union guys who have taken their turn walking picket lines when they'd rather be inside earning their pay, but if they crossed the line the union would see to it they were fired. So in reality those protesters might not be all that supportive of what they're protesting but rather just trying to protect their livelihoods.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ultimately you have to ask yourself - what was the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

If you consider that question - and look at the historical record we have - the answer is simple: Its purpose was - and is today - to protect the individual rights of the people - the citizens of the country. In the case of free speech - it is there to insure that the "little guy" doesn't get drowned out when he has something to say.

This means that any INDIVIDUAL who can afford it can buy a 30 second or 30 minute spot on tv and talk about what they think. Thats fine - because it is an INDIVIDUAL speaking on his own. He can gather his buddies and go demonstrate peacefully in the streets if he (or she) wants. But when a COMPANY, UNION, PAC, LOBBYIST etc does it - its not the citizen doing it - but a seperate ENTITY that does not fall under the protections granted in the Bill of Rights. In fact - when a seperate entity does it - it is doing exactly the opposite - it is drowning out the voice of the individual.

Constitutionally - this was a horrible decision - but then again - deciding the other way was just as bad - because it didn't protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of the people either way.

This was a "fair" decision only in regards to the status quo of today. But I am a constitutionalist - and the status quo of today is far removed from that wonderful foundational document.

To respond to you August - I know that is often the case as well. But if the Unions were not the power players against their own people, then they would instead be what they were intended as - the voice of their workers. What has happened is that the "establishments" - whatever they may be - have overrun the people - and that is where the entire system broke down. Corporations and Unions and all that are not evil - but they also should NOT be the power players - using a pay for play scheme to affect government at the expense of the people. In allowing all these groups - of every stripe - to do so, while they are not evil in and of themselves, they promote an evil against the individual citizenry by making the government/politicians be willing to ignore the people - where the power of government is supposed to be.

Its:

Of the People, For the People, By the People....

NOT
for the corporation, by the corporation...
or
for the union, by the union...
or
for the PAC, by the PAC

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This means that any INDIVIDUAL who can afford it can buy a 30 second or 30 minute spot on tv and talk about what they think.

The Bill of Rights does not guarantee that an individual will be able to purchase time from a commercial TV station/network.

Be careful not to confuse the government with private industry.

I, as a citizen, can walk up to NBC and say "I have a million dollars, You must sell me airtime so I can vent my opinion"; NBC will simply say "get out of here kid, you bother me". I can waive the Constitution all I want. The NBC executives will waive their "papers of ownership" and laugh at me.

[CaptainHaplo]

I never said the media was forced to allow the person airtime - I said they COULD buy the airtime.

If you doubt it, look no further than the example of Ross Perot.

There is a difference in the right to free speech and the buying power needed to disseminate one's views. In your example - yes for a 30 second spot, you would likely get your commercial/ad run - in whatever markets you could afford.

If this was not the case, NBC would have refused to air McCain ads last presidential cycle. Money talks - which is WHY non-voting entities that are not individual citizens should be restricted in their ability to BUY the ability to spread their views (Non-voting citizens - such as felons who cannot vote, still have the right to free speech). It all goes back to the individual rights to be heard. Allowing PACs, Corps, Unions and the like to do this means that the individuals are getting drowned out by non-voting, non individual entities. That violates the whole purpose of the Free Speech Clause.