The ACLU was against McCain-Feingold from day one, and so was I.

[Meeker Morgan]

It was always a piece of anti-free-speech legislation.

Even the Nazi Party has free speech, why not Exxon?

The ACLU and now the Supreme Court are right on this one.

If the government has the authority to regulate the speech of big corporations, just imagine what they could do to you.

[usregimechange]

1. Free speech is an individual right, always has been

[NoNothing]

Wrong

Look up New York Times v. Sullivan, for example.

[usregimechange]

12. Freedom of the press is expressly granted in the first amendment , that doesn't include Exxon

[onehsaquestion]

15. The press today bears no resemblance to the press of that time.

And it took a separate court ruling to clarify that the freedom of the press applies to press in the form of corporations.

The logic you are using would strip them of that right as well.

It's like some people are incapble of seeing further than one step ahead.

[niyad]

26. welcome to DU

[onehsaquestion]

32. I've been here for three years under another username

that I deleted because I swore off political forums last May. I wanted to come back to ask one question about HSAs and HCR and got sucked back in.

[NoNothing]

16. Read the case

The court specifically held that the First Amendment applied.

[usregimechange]

20. True, the part about freedom of the press, though I grant you I should have said generally it is an

individual right.

[onehsaquestion]

14. So unions, the NAACP, etc. don't have a right to free speech?

The press at the time of the Bill of Rights was almost entirely one or just a few people printing pamphlets. The Supreme Court applied that freedom to press in the form of corporations long ago.

That's the part of the court's opinion nobody seems to want to address. They directly the cited cases that have allowed many of the best organizations we have fighting for our rights in coming to this decision.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Playboy, Ben and Jerrys, Crate and Barrel, ING, and these other companies are against SC decision.

I wonder why.

BUSINESS LEADERS CALLING FOR AN END TO THE MONEY CHASE

http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/businessleaders

Greycroft

Stride Rite Inc.

Crate & Barrel

Hasbro, Inc.

Universal Remote Control, Inc.

Brita Products Company

Madrona Venture Group

Sunnydale Farms

Playboy Enterprises

GrainPro Inc.

Ben & Jerry's

Quaker Chemical Corporation

Schooner Capital

AkPharma Inc.

Swig, Weiler & Arnow Management Co.

Shout! Factory

ING Group

Center Development Corporation

The RREEF Funds

Isaacson Miller

Propel Accelerator

Gold Village Entertainment, Inc.

Fischer Francis Trees & Watts, Inc

Sequel Energy Corporation, Inc.

Tanamar, Inc.

Lane Powell PC

Pure Fishing

Principal Financial Group

Sigma Partners

Vance Brown Builders

Metaweb

U.S. Corrugated Inc.

Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc.

South Carolina Elastic Company

Rosebud Agency

Midnite Enterprises LLC

Capital Group Companies

Workman Publishing Company

SC & M Investment Management Corp.

Wilmerhale

:shrug:

[NoNothing]

28. Who do you trust more about the First Amendment?

Playboy international? Or the ACLU?

[blondeatlast]

48. I trust Playboy. Absolutists suck, IMHO. nt

[NYC_SKP]

55. ACLU may be changing their position on this matter...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7567125&mesg_id=7567125

[crim son]

3. If individual shareholders in a corporation want to make

personal donations to their candidate I'm all for it, but corporations are not people, period.

[laughingliberal]

8. Long before McCain Feingold there were restrictions on this sort of thing.

I read that this reverses a century of precedent so I don't think McCain/Feingold was the only law reversed here.

[shraby]

4. Money is NOT speech.

[left of center]

5. maybe now is the time for a constitutional amendment defining

what a person is, so we can revoke corporations' legal status as a person?!

[omega minimo]

6. Wait, which part of that makes sense?

Was there a point? It seems like one was made but :shrug:

Corporations are not persons.

[hlthe2b]

7. The government (society) has ALWAYS had the right to regulate

speech of corporations. We regulate advertising of dangerous products as one example (alcohol, tobacco, drugs). We regulate against fraudulent advertising. We regulate against obscenity or hate speech. Anti-trust provisions also can be a form of regulation against "corporate speech."


Meeker, you are absolutely wrong.

[NoNothing]

9. No, you are confused

The Court has consistently held that purely "commercial" speech can be regulated without violating the First Amendment. But not all corporate speech is commercial speech; specifically, political speech IS protected.

[DJ13]

13. If corporate speech in the political relm is to improve commercial profits

Then how can commercial speech be separated out from political speech?

[NoNothing]

18. Commercial speech

Is a narrow category, specifically dealing with things like product advertising. Basically if you aren't talking about a specific product or a specific transaction, it probably isn't commercial speech.

[DJ13]

22. If the corporation supports candidate A because they expect a new government contract

....in return, how can that support be considered anything but commercial in nature?

[NoNothing]

25. Because that would be absurd

Almost all politics is at root about a person's interests, financial and otherwise. If I support HCR because it will save me money, is that commercial speech? If a union supports candidate A because they expect more favorable job contracts for its members, is that commercial speech?

I'm not trying to be argumentitive, I'm trying to let you know that "commercial speech" is, in Constitutional terms, a term of art that has a specific well-defined meaning. You can argue about what it should be but that doesn't change what it is.

[DJ13]

39. A "person" isnt limited in commercial speech

Corporations ARE, but this absurd opinion now says commercial considerations arent a justifiable reason to prevent corporations from buying government access.

Its wrong on so many levels.

Besides, corporations have ALWAYS had the right to contribute to political campaigns because those corporations are comprised of individuals who were never limited from contributing so long as they kept their donation to the legal limit imposed on individuals.

Theres no need to recognize their collective right as a corporation when their individual rights as people were never infringed upon.

[NoNothing]

43. Commercial is not the same as corporate

Commercial speech can come from individuals and can be regulated. Non-commercial speech can come from corporations and cannot.

And just so we are clear, this decision did NOT give corporations the power to donate to political campaigns, just the right to spread messages *about* politcal campaigns.

[DJ13]

45. just the right to spread messages *about* politcal campaigns.

Thats splitting hairs.

Theres no difference between "vote for Joe" if the message comes from Joe's campaign or an outside group.

Sorry, but unless it can be shown that the individuals that comprise the corporation have been denied their rights of speech theres no reason to give them the right to use their corporate accounts to buy further speech.

[hlthe2b]

17. This court has ignored 100 years of precedence...

BULL SHIT. Your screen name says it very well.

[NoNothing]

23. Give me a break

I studied this stuff in law school. Check out Greenwald's column on the issue, he is totally correct.

[hlthe2b]

33. I have read Greenwald as well as multiple other's take

If you think there is consensus supporting your law school assumptions, I got news for you. You can sell that elsewhere--not here.

[Owl]

10. The SC's decision was a load of crap.

[cali]

11. another person who drops a bomb and scurries off

post something like this, you should damned well respond to comments. Otherwise you look like you've been spending a lot of time under a bridge.

[hlthe2b]

19. Of course... We have many of these visiting lately.

:eyes:

[Meeker Morgan]

21. I suppose the ACLU are now a bunch of tea-baggers or something? n/t

[hlthe2b]

29. ACLU argued on a very narrow aspect of the case.....

So, ARE you Mary Meeker of Morgan Stanley?

[Enrique]

31. why the hit and run?

are you just playing devil's advocate?

[hlthe2b]

24. Are you Mary Meeker aka Mary Meeker, a Director of Morgan Stanley?

DUers might want to google Meeker Morgan for a little interesting conjecture. :shrug: Can't help but be curious....


Economy Tech trends in 2009 by Mary Meeker (Morgan Stanley)

Economy + Internet Trends March 20, 2009 [e-mail] / [e-mail] / [e-mail] / [e-mail] Morgan Stanley does and ...
www.slideshare.net/.../economy-tech-trends-in-2009-by-mary-meeker-morgan-stanley - Cached - Similar
#
TIME Digital -- Cyber Elite - MARY MEEKER

Managing director, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter AGE 38. ADDRESS 1585 Broadway, New York, N.Y.. BIO One of Wall Street's star technology-stock analysts, Meeker ...
www.time.com/time/digital/cyberelite/40.html - Cached - Similar

[Occulus]

40. Hmmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2844024

[akforme]

27. I never liked it either.

This law did nothing to stop money flowing in.

It gave incumbents and media corps (like fox) more rights than groups like ACLU or moveondotorg.

MSM and incumbents are using fear to scare you into giving your rights up just like bush did with war.

We can argue corps can't be people but for now it's a law, and just like the war, I'm not willing to give my rights up for a mistake made by government. They'll just make more if we let them.

[treestar]

30. The solution to speech we don't agree with is more speech

How much credibility do corporations have, anyway?

[TCJ70]

34. The only special interest that should be considered by government...

...is the peoples special interest. I'd rather not have private funds affecting public policy...and it really doesn't matter to me whether that special interest is supposedly one of ours.

[kiranon]

35. Sorry - don't know how the message got repeated. Please delete extras.

[kiranon]

36. The Nazi party had free speech? Who knew? Change all the history

books. What an astonishing assertion. Sure makes for a compelling argument.

[NoNothing]

41. Uhhh...yeah?

You should know that just from watching The Blues Brothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

[kiranon]

37. Oops again.

[kiranon]

38. Oops!

[tkmorris]

42. Why are there limitations on what I can donate to a candidate?

Do those limitations therefore limit my free speech?

[NoNothing]

47. There is a reason

The court has held that in the case of DIRECT contributions, the compelling state interest in preventing candidate corruption is sufficiently strong to override the First Amendment issue.

Partly because MONEY IS NOT SPEECH. So the right to simply donate money is more limited than spending money to SPEAK.

[anonymous171]

44. Money is not speech.

[dhpgetsit]

46. Corporations can say whatever they want. Money is not speech.

There is nothing wrong with limiting what corporations can spend in campaign ads in an effort to influence voters.

[NoNothing]

51. Money is not speech

But speech is still speech even if money is spent on it.

[BzaDem]

54. You are missing a critical distinction between money and speech.

If someone were to go on a street corner and protest, that protesting (for the most part) does not restrict others' free speech rights. Others can go to another street corner (or protest at the same street corner).

On the other hand, political advertising is a market. Advertising costs are not constant. They are determined by supply and demand. That means that a corporation like Exxon could outbid practically anyone else who wants to advertise on the same airwaves. This is a critical distinction. While the street corner protester is not restricting the free speech rights of others, Exxon is absolutely limiting the free speech rights of anyone who can't afford to outbid Exxon. For example, let's say the price of advertising on a given show is x today. Then Exxon offers to pay 2x, another company wants some so it pays 2.5x, and Exxon gradually outbids everyone to 10x. That means basically no one else can get their message out.

The point is, unlike traditional free speech, this broadened idea (that I call "free speech") is actually much more of a zero-sum game. It's not that corporations will get to air some ads. It's that ONLY corporations will get to air ads (or at the very least, that can be the outcome if the corporations want it).

[sharesunited]

49. Hang on, now. McCain Feingold was aimed at last minute lies and distortions.

Mudslinging saved until the final hours of a campaign so that the opponent doesn't have a chance to respond.

That kind of inflammatory bullshit is like electioneering INSIDE the polling place, something most people agree is not kosher.

It is a restriction which definitely deserves your support.

[uberllama42]

50. Exxon is a corporation, the Nazi Party is a political party

A corporation is chartered to make money for its shareholders, while a political party advocates political positions and seeks to elect certain candidates. Corporations don't have opinions; they merely have financial interests. They buy ads not because they agree with certain ideas but because they hope that those ads will increase their profits.

When we ban corporations from paying for political ads, we are not restricting content in its own right. You can still run an ad in favor of or against any candidate--including a Nazi. Nor does such a ban block the expression of any opinion on any issue. Every person who works for a corporation should be able to donate their own money toward an ad expressing an opinion with which they agree. But saying that a certain organization--one that is fundamentally apolitical--must be allowed to buy political ads as a form of protected political speech is groundless.

I am not comfortable with treating the amount of money someone has available as a protected form of speech either. Holding a Nazi Party rally in a town with a large Jewish population is a (particularly odious) form of political expression. Even if donating money to a candidate expresses an opinion, donating $5 million does not express an opinion distinct in its content from donating $5. Capping individual donations doesn't block protected speech either.

[BzaDem]

52. The Constitution doesn't say a CEO can use shareholder dollars against their will for politics.

When individuals spend money, they are spending their own money. Under Supreme Court Precedent that basically equates money to "speech" (which is itself very questionable but I will temporarily concede this for the sake of argument), individuals can use as much of their OWN money as they want to advertise.

When a CEO spends money on political ads, they are spending other peoples' money. Specifically, their shareholders' money. Usually without their permission. And I don't buy the whole "if a shareholder doesn't like what a CEO is doing with their money, they can sell the stock." Most shareholders have no idea where there money is because it is in mutual funds/index funds/401ks/etc. The idea that the CEO of Exxon can use millions of people's 401k dollars to call for the defeat of a candidate (one which many 401k holders support) is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, no matter how much the "free speech" proponents say it is.

Corporations have massive advantages granted to them by the state that allows them to amass massive warchests (such as limited liability). If the state can grant them these special privileges, the state can also limit what these corporations do with those privileges. One perfectly reasonable limitation is to demand that if a corporation wants to advertise for the election or defeat of a political candidate, it do so from a segregated fund (called a Political Action Committee, or P.A.C.) whose funds come from willing donors (that donate for the express purpose of engaging in political advertising). This was the law before the Supreme Court decided that this segregated funding regime was somehow a violation of "free speech."

[ddeclue]

53. Whatever kind of drugs you're taking you need to share man..

:crazy:

[Meeker Morgan]

56. Here is the supposed ultimate nightmare scenario, but I don't think it's so bad after all.

Let's say Exxon-Mobil spends $1,000,000,000 on political attack ads against a good candidate. They still could not do so anonymously.

Democrat: Exxon-Mobil spent 1,000,000,000 on political attack ads against me. I must be doing something right ... etc.

Furthermore, don't forget the most vicious recent ads in a national campaign -- that is the "swiftboaters" -- were legal under the law just struck down, and didn't cost huge sums of money.

Let's not start sliding down the slope of prohibiting bad people from saying bad things.