Journal Shakrai's Journal: George Will: Campaign finance: a 'reform' wisely struck down 33
George Will's op-ed for tomorrow should be required reading for those
The Federal Election Commission, which administers the law that rations the quantity and regulates the content and timing of political speech, identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of "speakers." The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages. The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Alarmists say the court's ruling will mean torrential spending by large for-profit corporations. Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union -- it has spent $20 million on politics in the past five election cycles -- says a corporation will "funnel their shareholders' money straight to a campaign's coffers." Wrong. Corporate contributions to candidates' campaigns remain proscribed.
Cleta Mitchell, Washington's preeminent campaign finance attorney, rightly says that few for-profit corporations will jeopardize their commercial interests by engaging in partisan politics: Republicans, Democrats and independents buy Microsoft's and Pepsi's products. If for-profit corporations do plunge into politics, disclosure of their spending will enable voters to draw appropriate conclusions. Of course, political speech regulations radiate distrust of voters' abilities to assess unfettered political advocacy.
Mitchell says the court's decision primarily liberates nonprofit advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, which the FEC fined $28,000 in 2006. The club's sin was to distribute pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of the presidential and senatorial candidates, to the intended advantage of Democrats. FEC censors deemed this an illegal corporate contribution.
Emphasis mine on that last bit. This is something that I've been patiently trying to explain for the last few days. How is a law that regulates the political speech of organizations like the Sierra Club, NRA, ACLU, or AARP compatible with free speech? Those who are eating up the FUD on this ruling ought to stop and consider this point very carefully. In this country we have the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. One of the more effective ways of doing this is to band together with like minded people. If the Federal Government can muzzle the aforementioned groups then what good is free association and speech?
a new tone indeed (Score:2)
From Politico's arena [politico.com]:
Randy Barnett Professor, Georgetown University Law Center :
In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides
Re: (Score:2)
But Obama edited Harvard Law!!!!
That link is interesting ... I am getting really tired of people like Ornstein claiming that a case that affirms very clear First Amendment rights is "judicial activism." It's such tripe.
As to what Barnett said, let's look at Obama's words:
We already have those limits, and they were not touched.
Re: (Score:2)
I get a kick out of all the people pointing out that he edited Harvard Law. I've heard it a number of times during discussions about the individual mandate and it's questionable Constitutionality. The refrain goes something like "It's gotta be Constitutional, Obama was a Constitutional law editor."
Yeah. It reminds me of the line in The Princess Bride: "I give you my word as a Spaniard!" "No good. I've known too many Spaniards." Replace "Spaniard" with "Lawyer" or, perhaps, "Havard-educated Lawyer."
It's an unfortunately widely accepted form of the "appeal from authority" fallacy, as if being an "expert" in something makes you right. But I doubt Obama would ever debate anyone on the Second Amendment, for example, just like Al Gore would likely never debate anyone on global warming. They hope their
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are against this ruling seem to have a rather depressing view of the American electorate. They are operating under the assumption that the American voter is too stupid to reach an informed decision if exposed to political speech from corporations and therefore needs to be protected from that speech.
I find that attitude to be extremely insulting. The broader implications of course are downright frightening. Apparently the American voter needs the protection of the benevolent bureaucrats at
Re: (Score:1)
Any sane American is far more afraid of government making essentially arbitrary distinctions about who can and cannot say what and when, than those people saying whatever they wish, whenever they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's actually two groups:
1) People are weaklings who automatically succumb to advertising. I think the term for this is "projecting". I also think there's a pretty good overlap here with "videogames make people kill people" and "porn makes people rape people".
and
2) Smaller companies/organizations who haven't got the money to run with the big dogs. Advertising space is limited, and Super Bowl ads are expensive because there are big companies with lots of money to spend on it. This is the where
Re: (Score:2)
Smaller companies/organizations who haven't got the money to run with the big dogs. Advertising space is limited, and Super Bowl ads are expensive because there are big companies with lots of money to spend on it. This is the where the waves of "the government cannot block your speech" crash against the wall of "nobody is required to let you speak".
I don't buy that as justification for this type of policy in the information age. Considering the large number of communications mediums available it seems extremely unlikely that any one company could dominate them all.
Under this thinking, if a bunch of people who just happened to belong to the Sierra Club got together and thought "gee, we ought to get our message out" and proceeded to pamphleteer out of their own pockets, it would be just fine.
But why should they have to fund it out of their own pockets?
Re: (Score:2)
But why should they have to fund it out of their own pockets?
Because that's their belief: People have free speech, corporations don't.
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation is nothing more than a group of people whom have banded together for a specific purpose. The ACLU is a corporation. Are you going to tell us that they have no right to engage in political advocacy?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to tell us that they have no right to engage in political advocacy?
This second group of people would say "The ACLU has no right to free speech but its members are free to speak as they please." Not because they're afraid of what a corporation might say, but because they're fundamentally opposed to granting rights to corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the right to free expression should end when individuals seek to band together to enhance their message and/or coordinate their activities?
If corporations don't have the right to political speech then why didn't I see you raising that point during the election season each time a newspaper endorsed a candidate?
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the right to free expression should end when individuals seek to band together to enhance their message and/or coordinate their activities?
What does people banding together have to do with corporations, other than hiding behind mommy government's apron strings when they break something?
If corporations don't have the right to political speech then why didn't I see you raising that point during the election season each time a newspaper endorsed a candidate?
How much did they bill themselves in ord
Re: (Score:2)
A lot, in the case of the NRA, ACLU, Sierra Club, PETA, WWF, Greenpeace and other similar organizations
Why does the NRA need to be a corporation? If my friends and I want to go out on the lake and have some fun, we pool our money and rent a boat. I don't recall having to create a fictional entity to handle the transaction for us.
Irrelevant.
Why? If someone considers corporations to not have the right to do something, they can espouse laws that infringe it to whatever degree they please. Take, for instance,
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the NRA need to be a corporation? If my friends and I want to go out on the lake and have some fun, we pool our money and rent a boat. I don't recall having to create a fictional entity to handle the transaction for us.
Because "My friends and I pool our money" doesn't scale as well when millions of people want to get involved in the political process?
Why? If someone considers corporations to not have the right to do something, they can espouse laws that infringe it to whatever degree they please.
Well, apparently you don't see a problem with certain corporations getting involved in the political process. Why is it acceptable for the New York Times to endorse a candidate but not acceptable for the NRA to send out a mailing telling it's members about a candidates position on gun control?
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't scale as well when millions of people want to get involved
I wasn't aware of a right to have it easy.
Why is it acceptable for the New York Times to endorse a candidate but not acceptable for the NRA to send out a mailing telling it's members about a candidates position on gun control?
1) The New York Times didn't spend money to endorse the candidate. It IS relevant, because that's part of the damn law we're arguing about.
2) I'd argue that people sending money to the NRA and getting information back i
Re: (Score:2)
The New York Times didn't spend money to endorse the candidate. It IS relevant, because that's part of the damn law we're arguing about.
That's cute. So the NYT and other media outlets can do whatever they want but the Sierra Club has no voice because it has to pay for postage and printing expenses.
I wasn't aware of a right to have it easy.
Apparently you aren't aware of the 1st amendment either.
Re: (Score:2)
the Sierra Club has no voice because it has to pay for postage and printing expenses.
Only if "it" wants to be a corporation, and then only if "it" wants to advertise. Maybe the Sierra Club should look into publishing a newsletter and selling subscriptions to people who pay them money, then they can sell the people whatever information that the people the corporation hired as editors choose to put in the newsletter. If it doesn't want to do that, the president and each of its members can still speak for th
Re: (Score:2)
1) The New York Times didn't spend money to endorse the candidate.
Huh? The New York Times doesn't pay its employees to write stories? It doesn't pay for the paper, ink, and distribution? The accounting and legal fees, the sales department, office space, electricity, internet connectivity, mobile phones for reporters, and the list goes on and on. NYT spent almost $3 billion in 2008 in expenses: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NYT&fstype=ii [google.com] I think you have a few too many screws loose if you think that the New York Times doesn't spend money in the process of p
Re: (Score:2)
What if the NRA started up a newspaper for its members, sold advertising in it, and paid reporters to write all about gun control in politics? Would you then be okay with it since the NRA would therefore not be spending money to endorse candidates?
What about a magazine [nrapublications.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
If some inanimate piece of paper gets the freedom to speak
That "inanimate piece of paper" is nothing more than a group of people that have banded together for a common goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently I had the AC box checked and didn't realize it. FYI, this reply [slashdot.org] was from me.....
Re: (Score:2)
In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court
Yes. [lewrockwell.com]
Missed the point? (Score:2)
This is so BS it's not even funny. There are 4 lobbyist for every congressman and senator. LOTS of corporations do exactly that now. Just look at the bail-out list.
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying for your interests is not the same as engaging in partisan politics, so I don't think it's fair to call BS on him here. There's a difference between endorsing Congressman X during the electoral season and having a lobbyist in Washington to encourage him to do something after he's elected.
Few for-profit corporations would be willing to endorse a candidate, because by doing so they would alienate 50% of their potential customer base.
Re: (Score:2)
You managed to keep your face straight while writing that sentence? You keep flapping on about theory, see how far that gets you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't see the distinction between actively working to get a particular candidate elected (i.e: campaigning) and working with whatever candidate got elected (i.e: lobbying) then I doubt this will be a productive dialog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you honestly believe that the difference between campaigning [merriam-webster.com] and lobbying [merriam-webster.com] is a "fairytale" then feel free to inform Mr. Webster of this fact and tell all your friends that you bested me with a cunning display of logic.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet again I make an AC post without intending to. Oh well. Post #30941792 was mine.