HikeArizona.COM

I don't have time to talk, have too much schoolwork to do but wanted to start this thread to bring up this issue: The Supreme Court's decision last week to allow corporations, unions, etc. to contribute to political candidates.

I believe this will impact all our lives down the road. You may see a string of candidates who are no more than shills for Big Oil and Big Business. If you think we can get a President who is supported by Big Oil to support environmental laws, take care of our national parks, nationalize a medical marijuana law and fund research for it, support federal dollars for bike paths and hiking trails, support alternative energy R&D, or any other of a slew of things we might like to see happen in our lifetimes, then you are dreaming.

The American electorate will vote for these clowns because there will be so much money spent on advertising for the big oil candidates that people will be swayed and will vote for him or her. Even if you are one of those bible-beater types, this is not going to help any of your causes either, because, guess what, now big oil/business won't NEED the Christian Right to get their candidate elected.

I reckon that it boils down to two principles
1) that dang First Amendment; and,
2) an optimism and faith that most voters have common sense most of the time

1) 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.

Now wouldn't you think that our Founding Fathers would have had enough foresight to add "except for evil corporations". They knew about Corporations and business enterprises. And I wish while they were at it that they had added " and anyone whose last name is "Hayworth, Sharpton, Limbaugh or Olbermann".

“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

2) Voters - even in Massachusetts - have sufficient common sense most of the time. I have enough faith in the common sense of American voters to trust that if an evil corporation tries to buy an election that most voters will see through the propaganda and do the right thing. And if mistakes are made, they do get corrected. Free speech and a free press have been and will always be defenders of our freedoms. (also helps to have a few Marines).

"And that's about all I have to say about that" Forest Gump

This assumes that you believe a corporate entity to have an additional 'personage' in addition to the countless officers, board members and share holders.

I'm glad though that the USSC decided they could ignore stare decisis when there was 'strong dissent', that really was the killer in the decision for me. Almost every decision they've made has some 'strong dissent' ;)

Al_HikesAZ wrote:I reckon that it boils down to two principles
if an evil corporation tries to buy an election that most voters will see through the propaganda and do the right thing.

One could argue that this has already happened with Cheney. What else were all of us doing in that rotten mud hole north of Kuwait?? Those people were more of a threat to themselves than the rest of the world, for sure...

The press may be "free", but the media and the press are definitely biased and are corporately owned and are unfortunately being used to sway opinion. Take a look at the AZ Republic concerning the Hayworth/McCain flap. Personnaly, I do not like either person. However, it is obvious that The Republic despises Hayworth and is going to slant everything against him. Take a look over the next several months and see what I am talking about. Also, I would bet that most Americans know who Jerimiah Wright is, but if you ask most Americans if they knew that Bush was personally hand delivered a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) at his ranch in Crawford on August 6, 2001 with the heading in bold "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", they would not know what you are talking about.

dysfunction wrote:. . .USSC decided they could ignore stare decisis

There was no stare decisis on this section of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. That's why the question came to SCOTUS

Almost every decision they've made has some 'strong dissent' ;)

very few SCOTUS decisions are rendered without dissent. Only the toughest issues make it to SCOTUS.

Slider wrote:The press may be "free", but the media and the press are definitely biased and are corporately owned and are unfortunately being used to sway opinion. Take a look at the AZ Republic concerning the Hayworth/McCain flap. Personnaly, I do not like either person. However, it is obvious that The Republic despises Hayworth and is going to slant everything against him. Take a look over the next several months and see what I am talking about.

And almost everybody recognizes this and very few are swayed by the AZ Republic. Each candidate needs to distinguish himself and both are experienced campaigners.

Also, I would bet that most Americans know who Jerimiah Wright is, but if you ask most Americans if they knew that Bush was personally hand delivered a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) at his ranch in Crawford on August 6, 2001 with the heading in bold "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US", they would not know what you are talking about.

I'm not defending President Bush. Thankfully not all Americans are voters.

Good Points! The key is to utilize multiple sources of information.

I don't know who Jeremiah Wright is, haven't the slightest clue. I don't remember names sometimes, but probably would remember the story.

azbackpackr wrote:I don't know who Jeremiah Wright is, haven't the slightest clue. I don't remember names sometimes, but probably would remember the story.

Elizabeth - Just the Facts Maam - He was President Obama's Minister in Chicago and became a point of controversy during the campaign. President Obama addressed the controversy in his now famous speech on Race but eventually disowned Reverend Wright and resigned from that church. If you need more information you can go to Wikipedia and search "Jeremiah Wright Controversy" for all of the details.

Oh! Rev. Wright, of course! duh. I did watch a lot of TV during the campaign. Just forgot that dude's first name.

Two main hypotheticals of major concern that I heard go like this:

1. company with mucho $$$ against a certain candidate purchases all available airtime to air attack against that candidate. since all airtime is bought early on, the candidate has no oppurtunity to address the attacks.
2. A sitting legislator who may be up for re-election may be intimidated if he has to vote on an issue that it is well known a company with mucho $$$ is against, thereby affecting legislation before any election even occurs.

Either way, I tend to think there is maybe a bit too much histrionics about this. This affects mainly two forms of media: tv and radio. Both of which are on the decline. Politics and major news events don't get viewed live nearly as much as they did during the last half of the last century. A few generations out, this decision may likely not mean as much as is does now. the problem is the damage that can occur in the meantime, which is all anyone's guess.

How much this is really a 1st amendment issue is I wonder. I thought First Amendment applied mostly to the press and journalism. Isnt the issue here really commercials and attack ads? The FCC already regulates that on the basis of decency. Its still censorship either way.

Al_HikesAZ wrote:Voters - even in Massachusetts - have sufficient common sense most of the time.

Alan, you're very well educated, I have to assume you're being sarcastic and not naive with this statement. Recent polls show the majority of the electorate still believes Saddam Hussien was involved in 9/11 and in the "death panels" on the health care debate. What's popular on network tv also serves as an example of the competence level of the American electorate at large. yeah, not all tv watchers are registered voters, but it probably serves as a good cross section. the growing tabloid nature of the network news also shows the trends in the attention span of the american public.

I also think the attention given to this is to bring out attention that the vote was 5-4 along ideological lines. I remember when Judge Roberts got grilled, he was presenting himself as a moderate. Biden* made the comment to him that "we're rolling the dice on you, judge". I think in some way the left wants to bring attention that Roberts is more to the right than he may have presented himself at his hearings.

* Biden, BTW, outright lied to the press saying "I'm not the guy" 2 days before he was announced as a VP candidate.

Biden is a twerp. I also think the median intelligence and savvy of the electorate is, let's say, not what we'd hope for in a society where education is provided free for 13 years of one's life, longer if you qualify for college grants.

And in fact, there is a significant portion of this electorate who don't want Harvard, Princeton or Yale graduates, or other people who might be called upon to have critical thinking skills, to be their elected officials. They want people just like them: factory workers, waitresses, bulldozer drivers, custodians, garbage collectors...? Yikes...

azbackpackr wrote:And in fact, there is a significant portion of this electorate who don't want Harvard, Princeton or Yale graduates, or other people who might be called upon to have critical thinking skills, to be their elected officials. They want people just like them: factory workers, waitresses, bulldozer drivers, custodians, garbage collectors...? Yikes...

Harvard teaches someone to value his or her opinion way above that of someone who may have much more experience on the ground and/or may be even more intelligent and better educated. This leads to all kinds of problems, many of which I deal with first-hand every day.

Your and Stiller's comments echo what I said in the other thread: We have a deficit of critical thinking skills across the board in this country.

Additionally, I would think twice before touting those 13 years of free school we provide. Look how little we accomplish with them. Look how illiterate, unworldly, and non-savvy those children are when they graduate. Now the big push is for people to get their HS and college diploma or degree online further accelerating the slide in standards and value of those educations. I have new "college" grads who can't write a basic business letter working around me...we need to get back to the basics and relearn what it means to work hard and the true value of education.

I'm taking college courses online, and have to have discussions every day with people who can't write a complete sentence, spell or otherwise communicate in writing. Most of the students seem literate, but the ones who aren't--yikes.

Stiller wrote:Either way, I tend to think there is maybe a bit too much histrionics about this.

I agree completely. Proposals are being discussed and statutes will address potential abuses.
Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, professors of law at Yale University, have an excellent proposal in an Op-Ed in the Washington Post.

Many suppose that the court has made it impossible for Congress to restrict corporate speech. But this is wrong. While Congress can't issue a broad ban on all companies, it can target the very large class that does business with the federal government and ban those companies from "endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office."

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that almost three-quarters of the largest 100 publicly traded firms are federal contractors. If Congress endorsed our proposal, these companies -- and tens of thousands of others -- would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn't do both. When push came to shove, it's likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their "free speech."

The Roberts court is skeptical -- to put it mildly -- of campaign finance restrictions. But it is still highly unlikely that the justices would strike down a law targeting federal contractors. All nine recognize that Congress may restrict free speech when there is a significant risk of corruption. That risk is obvious when corporate speakers are simultaneously doing business with the government.

Al_HikesAZ wrote:Voters - even in Massachusetts - have sufficient common sense most of the time.

Alan, you're very well educated, I have to assume you're being sarcastic and not naive with this statement. Recent polls show the majority of the electorate still believes Saddam Hussien was involved in 9/11 and in the "death panels" on the health care debate. What's popular on network tv also serves as an example of the competence level of the American electorate at large. yeah, not all tv watchers are registered voters, but it probably serves as a good cross section. the growing tabloid nature of the network news also shows the trends in the attention span of the american public.

Much like Abraham Lincoln, I have an optimistic faith in the common sense and decency of actual voters - whether they are from Harvard, HAZ or the Beeline Cafe.
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. " Abraham Lincoln

I suppose at times I appear sarcastic and at other times naive. I'm probably somewhere between these polarities. Let me see if I can address your question on terms other than my blind faith and I will post a reply. In the meantime I will rely on Honest Abe to express my faith for me.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. "

"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will."

"The people will save their government, if the government itself will allow them. "

"With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."

There are a lot of issues here. The biggest one is something that the SCOTUS can't do anything about: the stupidity of the average American. How many Americans can't find their own state on a map? Some would say that the stupidity of many Americans is reflected in them voting based upon issues like gun rights and abortion as opposed to the economy.
I think Stiller hit the nail on the head when he commented about the negativity of many political ads. How many political ads have we seen put out by proponents of Candidate A/Issue A/anti-issue B that re nothing more than attacks against Candidate B/Issue B/anti-issue A? That's not the formula for intelligent discourse.

The elephant in the room is that elections in recent years have shown us that the candidate/issue that spends the most money typically prevail. I wouldn't be surprised if corporate money changes this. I watch every UofA basketball and football game on television (unless I'm attending), and the Rosemont Mine's company has been a regular advertiser on those programs. The increase in the rapid dissemination of information to those who are interested has rendered moot a lot of that sort of advocacy. Americans have become so partisan on a wide variety of issues that advocacy by the "other side" frequently serves as a catalyst to those who disagree, and also to those who disagree but may have previously not been involved.

The even bigger elephant in the room is that the SCOTUS has seemingly become a partisan body.