US Supreme Court Strikes Down Spending Limits

[Born Free]

Frankly, I'd prefer that to a Canadian democracy corrupted by too little money.

....silly at best.

[Jade Dragon]

Frankly, I'd prefer that to a Canadian democracy corrupted by too little money.

I suspect that is because you do not realize just how corrupt and undemocratic the US government has become. Mid-term elections are coming up in November. What do you want to bet that the monied interests that control the US government will make sure that there is almost no change in who is in power?

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect that is because you do not realize just how corrupt and undemocratic the US government has become. Mid-term elections are coming up in November. What do you want to bet that the monied interests that control the US government will make sure that there is almost no change in who is in power?

You are quite mistaken, as I welcome the influence of monied interests in US government, as it has always been thus. Canada has the same setup, but a much smaller bankroll.

[Smallc]

It hasn't been that way in Canada for years. A party could survive without any of its very small donations...as long as it got votes.

[bush_cheney2004]

It hasn't been that way in Canada for years. A party could survive without any of its very small donations...as long as it got votes.

Whatever you say....hell, even small time biker gangs can have say in the Canadian version of this game.

[Born Free]

Whatever you say....hell, even small time biker gangs can have say in the Canadian version of this game.

The rhetoric never seems to end...

[Michael Hardner]

Nothing wrong with that....the extra ad revenue will be welcomed. As for effectiveness, looks like more speech and commercials are needed in Canada!

No, there are certain things that don't benefit from sensationalism and marketeering.

[Wilber]

It's interesting that a supreme court would tie the ability to speak freely to the amount of money you have to spend. Free speech equals money according to the Supremes. Oh well.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's interesting that a supreme court would tie the ability to speak freely to the amount of money you have to spend. Free speech equals money according to the Supremes. Oh well.

But the court has done the opposite, divorcing wealth restrictions from free speech rights.

[Michael Hardner]

It's interesting that a supreme court would tie the ability to speak freely to the amount of money you have to spend. Free speech equals money according to the Supremes. Oh well.

So when the founding fathers and the French philosophers talked about the right to free speech, do we really think that they envisioned one person being able to broadcast their ideas into many homes at the same time, to the exclusion of other points of view ?

[Wilber]

But the court has done the opposite, divorcing wealth restrictions from free speech rights.

In theory maybe but in practice they have done exactly the opposite.

[ToadBrother]

So when the founding fathers and the French philosophers talked about the right to free speech, do we really think that they envisioned one person being able to broadcast their ideas into many homes at the same time, to the exclusion of other points of view ?

Probably not. At the same time, it can hardly be said, particular in this day and age, that there is a famine of points of view. Even if traditional media (newspapers and broadcast news) may have to some degree become a bit of a monoculture (and there are still non-corporate sources like the CBC, BBC and NPR out there), the Internet has sprung up countless divergent sources, the trick largely being learning to weed out the nonsense from the reasoned and accurate.

The whole point of free speech is that the government cannot impinge upon anyone's right to express themselves. Try as might to find some philosophical justification for laws like election blackouts in Canada and McCain-Feingold in the US, these laws just simply fly in the face of that. If one group can be basically singled out and have their liberties decreased or outright removed for, as it is argued, the greater good, then we've opened a scary door.

The worst part about McCain-Feingold wasn't that however, but the realization after all was said and done in the Obama campaign that it scarcely mattered at all if a candidate decided to go it alone. The Obama campaign money-making machine may very well have been the single most successful political fundraising apparatus ever created in the world, without ever breaching any of the restrictions. So we have legislation, that on one level, attempts to create a special category of group to be stripped of First Amendment guarantees, and at the same time, for a candidate gutsy or smart enough to simply ignore the whole financing system put in place, isn't even inconvenienced.

The bill has been proven worse than unconstitutional, it's been proven pointless.

[ToadBrother]

I suspect that is because you do not realize just how corrupt and undemocratic the US government has become. Mid-term elections are coming up in November. What do you want to bet that the monied interests that control the US government will make sure that there is almost no change in who is in power?

Um, the Democrats will most certainly lose the Senate outright, and while they'll probably retain a majority of Representatives, it's going to be significantly reduced.

[bush_cheney2004]

So when the founding fathers and the French philosophers talked about the right to free speech, do we really think that they envisioned one person being able to broadcast their ideas into many homes at the same time, to the exclusion of other points of view ?

Yes....see Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". A bestseller!

[Michael Hardner]

Yes....see Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". A bestseller!

And well-deserved, but I don't think he talked about TV.

[Michael Hardner]

Probably not. At the same time, it can hardly be said, particular in this day and age, that there is a famine of points of view. Even if traditional media (newspapers and broadcast news) may have to some degree become a bit of a monoculture (and there are still non-corporate sources like the CBC, BBC and NPR out there), the Internet has sprung up countless divergent sources, the trick largely being learning to weed out the nonsense from the reasoned and accurate.

And the internet is still immature.

The whole point of free speech is that the government cannot impinge upon anyone's right to express themselves. Try as might to find some philosophical justification for laws like election blackouts in Canada and McCain-Feingold in the US, these laws just simply fly in the face of that. If one group can be basically singled out and have their liberties decreased or outright removed for, as it is argued, the greater good, then we've opened a scary door.

The worst part about McCain-Feingold wasn't that however, but the realization after all was said and done in the Obama campaign that it scarcely mattered at all if a candidate decided to go it alone. The Obama campaign money-making machine may very well have been the single most successful political fundraising apparatus ever created in the world, without ever breaching any of the restrictions. So we have legislation, that on one level, attempts to create a special category of group to be stripped of First Amendment guarantees, and at the same time, for a candidate gutsy or smart enough to simply ignore the whole financing system put in place, isn't even inconvenienced.

The bill has been proven worse than unconstitutional, it's been proven pointless.

The cost of elections will continue to go up until something breaks, then.

[bush_cheney2004]

And well-deserved, but I don't think he talked about TV.

TV wasn't invented yet, but Paine's approach was the same. Common Sense was a pamphlet written in common language for the masses and its intended (treasonous) purpose.

Edited January 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

TV wasn't invented yet, but Paine's approach was the same. Common Sense was a pamphlet written in common language for the masses and its intended (treasonous) purpose.

Ok, but pamphlets and the 18th century press is not analogous at all to our media mix today.

Also, keep in mind that universal suffrage was not in place, so it wasn't the masses that were targeted at that time, but the public.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, but pamphlets and the 18th century press is not analogous at all to our media mix today.

They were in the context of available technology for the time. Pamphlets were a departure from books written for the highly educated, and very consistent with the history of newspapers and the possibility of distributing different ideas in different ways. Today's "mix" just continues this idea.

Also, keep in mind that universal suffrage was not in place, so it wasn't the masses that were targeted at that time, but the public.

The public would have to largely support Paine's revolutionary ideas, whether voting or not, as all would be affected. Indeed, the very notion of tolerating "seditious libel" in the American colonies compared to England proper is key to the birth and success of the Revolution. Accordingly, the state's highest court must preserve this free speech capacity.

[ToadBrother]

And the internet is still immature.

It can't be any worse than the state of tabloids in, say, the 18th century.

The cost of elections will continue to go up until something breaks, then.

That may be, but the First Amendment reigns supreme until someone decides to alter it, but I find that prospect much more frightening than fundraising.

[Michael Hardner]

They were in the context of available technology for the time. Pamphlets were a departure from books written for the highly educated, and very consistent with the history of newspapers and the possibility of distributing different ideas in different ways. Today's "mix" just continues this idea.

Sure, it continues the idea beyond what could have been considered 'free speech' and that's the point.

The public would have to largely support Paine's revolutionary ideas, whether voting or not, as all would be affected. Indeed, the very notion of tolerating "seditious libel" in the American colonies compared to England proper is key to the birth and success of the Revolution. Accordingly, the state's highest court must preserve this free speech capacity.

Yes, speech should be protected - but purchase of public communication space should be limited at least until the internet matures.

[Michael Hardner]

It can't be any worse than the state of tabloids in, say, the 18th century.

Is it worse ? I don't think better or worse are terms to be applied here. There are any number of aspects of web communications that might be worse.

- Websites come in from out-of-jurisdiction.

- Websites appear and disappear with no easily traceable owner.

- There is no code of conduct.

Etc.

That may be, but the First Amendment reigns supreme until someone decides to alter it, but I find that prospect much more frightening than fundraising.

If you're saying that the court's decision stands, then sure. I think that this type of free speech needs limits, and indeed until the 70s or 80s there was a fair-response doctrine or somesuch that limited the use of the medium.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, speech should be protected - but purchase of public communication space should be limited at least until the internet matures.

Not sure I follow you...this "maturity" you speak of will only resemble the identical consolidation of monied interests in the new medium. The Golden Age of the internet is now.

[antipolitico]

McCain/Feingold just got slammed by the US Supreme Court....

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/supreme-court-drop-kicks-mccainfeingold-scores-victory-for-1st-amendment/

Money talks!

The greater issue here is whether or not allowing unlimited corporate support for political campaigns actually does infringe upon freedom of speech. If I remember correctly, at one particular juncture in Obama's presidential campaign or his leadership campaign for the Democrats, his team effectively bought up all the television and radio advertising spots available before his opposition could. If we consider that indeed money does often hold the hammer, unfortunately, then we must also concede that those who are more significantly financially empowered will dominate in such a manner and control traditional media that it does in fact limit freedom of speech. We also however learned during the presidential campaign and since that viral marketing through online social networks can if utilized effectively level the playing field.

[Michael Hardner]

Not sure I follow you...this "maturity" you speak of will only resemble the identical consolidation of monied interests in the new medium. The Golden Age of the internet is now.

It's the Golden age of the medium, sure, but there will be improvements and applications down the road. All media don't necessarily consolidate, so we'll see if that happens.

During the so-called Golden Age of television, creativity and innovation was the key. But sports coverage, for example, eventually came into its own on television - into the 1970s and 1980s, I'd say.