However, this could be problematic, because they do not have the power to restrict 1st Amendment rights.

And this is definitely not good news for television and radio stations, who could certainly use a little extra advertising revenue.

States rights!!!! States rights!!!

When corporations advertise for or against a candidate or issue during an election campaign, do they have to pay the full or "market" rate charged by the station to all advertisers, or do they have to charge the minimum rate that laws require for many campaign ads?

Then ask again.

That's a plus.

So it's okay with you that corporate $$$ poisons the airwaves so long as someone makes a profit?

Let's say I am an "evil corporation" and I want to convince people that it's okay to eat feces. So, I buy $100 gazillion worth of radio, television and newspaper advertising to extol the benefits of consuming feces.

Now, how many people do you think would switch to the fecal diet based on my advertising campaign?

(Well, at least I would have provided some economic stimulus to to the media industry, so it would not have been a total waste)

of how potent media is.

Also, you seem to be unable to grasp the ignorance of the average voter when presented with propaganda.

Let me add that people recognize shit when they see it. Politicians are much easier to dress up.

...they ask people for their personal opinions of whether media affects their buying decisions, perceptions of products/companies/government, etc., rather than looking to any actual studies.

"No..." says Joe American, wiping day-glo orange Chee-to™ powder off his fingers and taking a drag of carcinogenic additives from a Marlboro Red, "what do you think I am? Stupid? I don't believe any of that advertising crap."

None of us are immune.

Are you concerned that if you were to be exposed to enough Rick Santorum advertisements, you would be compelled to vote for him? Nah, didn't think so.

In effect, what you are saying is that the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out and as such, we must be "protected."

In any case, I got a chuckle out of your concluding sentence. That's a plus

Of course I'm not going to be persuaded to vote for Santorum.

But there are millions of Americans who let the media make up their minds for them. Why do you think Citizen's United was such a tragic decision?

Are you seriously that oblivious to the role of money and advertising in politics?

I don't.

Why do you think that McCain-Feingold was bipartisan legislation?

Why do you think the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of Appellant? And further, to declare that the decision represented "a great day for the First Amendment?"

Are you seriously that oblivious to the fact that the purpose of this legislation was to enable politicians to silence the People and by doing so, conceal their corrupt activities from the electorate?

I just want to be sure before I ask for these 'facts' you speak of.

As is your avoidance of my questions.

I do not intend to 'avoid' anything. I never do so deliberately. Nor will I 'avoid' your 'questions'. I leave that to the weaker interlocutors.

So let's look at these questions of yours:

"Why do you think that McCain-Feingold was bipartisan legislation?"

Without having actually perused it, I can only judge from my not-so-recent look at it that it was 'bipartisan' so that the parties each had a chance to neuter the parts of the bill that might have actually changed the dynamic in DC and given a voice in government back to the people. If you have your own take on it, please share.

Why do you think the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of Appellant? And further, to declare that the decision represented "a great day for the First Amendment?"

I think the ACLU reflexively backed an issue that was labelled 'Free Speech', their hands having been tied by the apocryphal belief that the SCOTUS ruled that 'money=free speech'. Given that belief, they had no choice but to come down on the side of CU despite the fact that the CU decision has been demonstrably damaging to free speech opportunity.

That position is currently in review:

The ACLU has rarely been so divided on an issue, which should give a sense of just how serious the implications of this ruling are.

"Are you seriously that oblivious to the fact that the purpose of this legislation was to enable politicians to silence the People and by doing so, conceal their corrupt activities from the electorate?

I'm assuming that you mean McCain-Feingold.

You've made quite an assertion here. Do you have any material to back that up?


Just curious: Do you not actually understand just how the CU ruling allows for the trampling of speech and the squeezing out of opposing views?

but your assessment suggests that you recognize that when our Congress agrees on something, it usually means that they are doing something for themselves, not us.

On the face of it, we share the same line of reasoning with respect to "neutering" and its effects on the drafting process. However, what you fail to recognize is that the purpose of this legislation was to neuter the People's right to be heard. Essentially, incumbent politicians were seeking to protect themselves from criticism by restricting political speech. In effect, those who supported this legislation, violated their Oaths to support the Constitution, as called for in Article VI. Now, I am not going to go so far as to suggest that their actions amounted to treason, but clearly, these individuals have no regard for the People they claim to represent.

The ACLU forged its identity by defending the 1st Amendment and to the knowing observer; it is abundantly clear why they supported the Appellant in this case.

They conclude their argument by asserting: the government now apparently concedes, or at least acknowledges, that MCFL applies to nonprofit, ideological corporations that are financed “overwhelmingly” by individual donations.

You should expand the nature of your curiosity to include the question of how those with limited resources can be heard. You would probably agree that the rich and powerful do not have a problem getting the attention of "our" representatives. Unfortunately, you appear to be oblivious to the obstacles everyday people face in that regard. Otherwise, it would not be possible for you to support legislation that would suppress their voices when they choose to speak together, as they do in advocacy groups.

Elections do not belong to the federal government. I do not see where they have the power to decide who participates, and on what terms, in my copy of the Constitution. If you have a different line of reasoning, my interest is assured.

The way I see it, elections belong to the People. It is left to them to set the term with respect to how they will choose the government that serves them. It is not up to John McCain, Russ Feingold and their cohorts to decide who is worthy to speak. The fact that they have assumed they do is an offense to the integrity and character of our Republic.

I don't disagree with the principle you're standing on, unfortunately you don't seem to recognize that that exact principle is what is being used to create echelons of privileged speech.


Real quick: In your estimation, what percentage of corporate/elite resources do all other populist, labor, union, environmental and anything 'anti-corporate' and 'pro-consumer/middle/working class' represent combined?

Let me break it down for you with a question: "If General Electric, which owns a GMO company that has committed many prima facie crimes against other businesses and agriculture ventures, wants a particular politician to win a Senate seat, but the local farmers want an advocate for their position to win, do you ACTUALLY believe that, barring the local advocate already being a popular incumbent, the local farmers can get their message about their candidate to even compete with GE's message for its candidate?"

This is just a test of your awareness of the reality of things right now.

What say you?

for democracy, was a trophy worthy of any cost or sacrifice. His puzzled expression held as he assured me that every effort would be made to minimize the collateral damage. He then proceeded to consume the last of his freedom-fries and as he was getting up from the table, he said, "Son, one of these days you will appreciate what we are doing for you." After lighting his cigar, he smiled and then, the neo-con policy adviser was on his way.

Now, I am in no way implying that your motives are comparable to the creepy and sinister endeavors of my imaginary neo-con. Likewise, the loss of one's right to speak, does not rise to the level of the loss of life. Nevertheless, you exhibit the same callous disregard for the unintentional consequences of "protecting" our democracy from the evils of corporate resources, that the neo-con does for his cause.

unfortunately you don't seem to recognize that that exact principle

What I recognize is that the political process in this country has devolved into what amounts to gang warfare. Complete, with godfathers, crews, drive-by shootings, injuries and deaths to innocent bystanders and a total abandonment of principles, (e.g., I don't disagree with the principle you're standing on).

As for your hypothetical: Well, it is so open-ended, alterable and capricious, that any, or many, answers will do. However, the conundrum that you present, would not be as probable if a Congress from another time had not been so polite and agreeable as to do something for themselves and to the People. Once upon a time, the People's state representatives had a tool that they used to protect their citizens from the villains that rule your hypothesis (your hypothetical politician is a Senator).

Back up a bit and the wide-view will reveal that another band-aid would be useless; in fact, it would do more harm, than good. (Notwithstanding the fact that multiple and overlapping band-aids look rather rather tacky and make it obvious that far too many amateurs have been under the hood).

The point went clean over your head so I'll spell it out for you:

The CU decision has released a flood of cash that allows corporations controlled by the very few to squeeze out and overwhelm all other messages. Nothing you can say can change the fact that this has happened and is happening NOW.

To remain deliberately ignorant in order to maintain a position puts you far outside the scope of reason. That you will not indulge in the thought exercise that reveals the simple truth proves that out.

I'm done with you.

Good luck maintaining that position on Citizen's United in a place where people tend to study reality.

Just so you know, you aren't going to fool people around here with your transparent tactics.

I recognize the merit of your end; but what you have cast aside, is to me, of far greater value.

In any case, I regret that thoughts I have expressed, were taken as offensive. For their purpose was to simply indent the outline a bit more...

Nevertheless, I thank you for the interchange and wish you many agreeable experiences.

I'm all for free speech.

I'm against the monopolizing of speech because that is the antithesis of free speech.


Can you state your position as clearly?

You are missing a fundamental reality that should inform your understanding. Are you being deliberately oblivious to it?

I'm interested in your response.

...foods that are basically nutrition-free, but appeal to the pleasure centers of your brain. Now, let's say that you know...I mean know with absolute certainty that over-consumption of said foods increase the risk of diabetes, cancer, liver failure, etc. Are you still going to eat them? In super-abundance? Because millions of Americans do and the rest of us absorb the costs through our health insurance and taxes.

What if some other "evil corporation" spent millions to sell you chemically-toxic tubes of dried tobacco?

The truth is, corporations DO sell you crap. It may come in slick, focus-group tested packaging, and it may get sold to you in incredibly compelling ways, but it's still crap. Crap that kills you. Crap that kills kids. Crap that makes unsustainably large dents in our collective ability to progress as a culture.

And then they pay lobbyists and congressmen to convince you that your Constitutional freedom means the right to buy that personally and culturally damaging crap, but not the right to live in a society where you are protected from the short-sighted, unsustainable, amoral pursuit of profit.

If so, I urge you to limit what you watch on TV and listen to on the radio. NPR is a good way to avoid the dangers you speak of.

I will have to admit that every now then, we (family) will spring for a pizza and perhaps two or three times a year, consume some Wendy's burgers. But for the most part, we are somehow able resist the "crap" and consume what we prefer--good fruits, veggies, chicken, fish and (gasp) even some grilled red meat.

The way I look it, if I can figure it out, most other folks can too.

...to focus on a bit of reality. Where has it been written that what you or I choose for ourselves or our families should necessarily extrapolate to the nation as a whole? That's just silly. Should I just assume my taste in clothes and buying habits are a microcosm of the entire fashion industry? Should I just assume that the entire country shares my distaste for Justin Bieber and the Kardashians? Should I call Amazon and tell them to chuck their whole inventory in favor of my reading list?

There can be an enormous difference between what should be and what actually....is.

In this country, the reality is that 34% of Americans are obese. 17% percent of adolescents are obese. They're not getting that way by eating healthy meals. Americans eat 550 million Big Macs each year. That's one 540 calorie, 29 fat gram stack of kidney failure and liver disease sold every 17 seconds. Do you honestly think McDonald's spends $2 billion / year in advertising on the mistaken assumption that it drives business?

Corporations advertise crap because they know if they do, people will buy that crap. It's why the malls are filled to capacity with plastic, useless, throwaway garbage.

without running the risk of making the wrong choice.

Life is fraught with choices; some good ones, and some bad ones. And you know what? I am glad that I live in a society that has so many bad things to choose from. You see, the way I look at it, if you are being good all the time, you are probably not having very much fun.

You appear to advocate removing or limiting the freedom to choose based on the fact that some among us will make the wrong choices. My advice to you is to lighten up a bit and realize that not matter what you do, you will never be able to save people from themselves.

Enjoy yourself--go grab a pizza and have yourself a beer or two!

Perhaps if someone helpful came along to re-arrange them...and to trim a few here and add some there... they might be fashioned into something more...useful. Otherwise, there they'll sit, well-meaning but wholly useless to the discussion at hand.

Should that person stumble upon this thread and take on the challenge, I'd like to humbly suggest the following: If the words were reconfigured to, say, address the topic of whether advertising is an effective means of encouraging people to make bad decisions, rather than the topic of whether people should be allowed to make bad decisions, they might prove more relevant to the discussion.

Here's a helpful little synopsis (of sorts) that may also serve as a roadmap for in the reconstruction:

Point: Advertising is ineffective. People are too smart to fall for it. For instance, if you advertised crap, would people buy it?
Counter-point: People do buy crap. At least metaphorically. And they buy crap at least in part due to advertising.
Point: I'm too smart to fall for it.
Counter-point: Irrelevant. All people are not you. Look at the numbers that prove people buy crap.
Point: If Americans don't have the choice to buy crap, we are not free.
Counter-point: Irrelevant. Let's stay on topic, please.

I could not have made it more succinct and clear. This due mostly to my tendency to be verbose.

I'll be using your model. Hope you don't mind.

Especially when it comes to debates with those who would otherwise choose to argue in circles or who insist on engaging in a kind of extraneous, silly, idea Whack-a-Mole.

I've done the same basic thing you have, but instead of clear, concise descriptions, I pull all the quotes together and editorialize too much.

Too many people do not understand how to hold a constructive discussion/debate. Too many more just aren't interested in doing so.

And when the rest of us feel compelled to adhere to a particular type of discussion, where we address each point the other side has made, without compulsion of the same sort on their behalf, the resulting exercise can be pointless, but is almost inevitably frustrating.

Counter-point: Some is not.

Now, what do you propose?

Some houses are not above-ground. Some Italians are not in Italy. Some actors are not spoiled. Some snakes are not venomous. Some volcanoes are not active. Some drivers are not idiots.

Without additional information, do any of those statements enable us to make accurate, predictive assumptions about a given case involving the objects/people/places in question? Don't we, at the very least, need information as to the statistical likelihood? Wouldn't it help to know, as a starting place, whether each statement tends to be true?

If advertising tends to be effective, or tends to be ineffective, doesn't that help us make a decision about allowing its influence in elections?

And, once that's established, wouldn't the consequences that result from any outliers also have bearing on the decisions we make about those objects/people/places? I mean, even if it were true that most snakes were non-venomous, it behooves us to act on the side of caution, for fear of bloated, agonizing deaths. On the other hand, an assumption about whether any given Italian is in Italy is likely to carry less weight.

With elections, how much do we stand to lose if advertising convinces people to buy crap? What if they vote against their own interests? What happens if Democracy is subverted by corporate interest? What does that do to the great Democratic Experiment that is the founding of our country?

is conscious attempt to impart a more suitable technique of placing words in manner to be "well-meaning but wholly useless to the discussion at hand," or a state of the art counter-measure that you are testing on SWIM.

I trust that you will assure my safety, so let us take a closer look at the statement least vulnerable to subjectivity: Some sakes are not venomous.

Phase 2: The acquisition of information that will enable us to make accurate, predictive assumptions about a given case involving the objects/people/places in questions.

A quick lesson equips me with the knowledge to identify the four different species of poisonous snakes that I could possibly encounter in the US.

So, I begin my journey through jaws of death, and I soon encounter a snake, which I quickly identify as a rattler. Proceeding with caution, I encounter another; this time it's a copperhead. Still moving along with caution, I exit the jaws of death and enter the mouth of helI. As you might expect, I immediately encounter a snake--my first cottonmouth.

Continuing to proceed with caution, I exit the mouth of hell and enter the valley of darkness. I have been chronicling my encounters and a quick tally indicates that I encountered 435 snakes while in the jaws of death and 100 snakes in the mouth of hell; 535 total, all of which were poisonous. As I journey through the valley of death, my pace quickens, for I haven't come across a single snake.

Feeling confident, I toss the manual and decide that that will simply rely on my brain from here on.

With elections, how much do we stand to lose if advertising convinces people to buy crap?
How much do we stand to lose when every item on the shelf is crap?

What if they vote against their own interests?
Encourage them to seek professional help.

What happens if Democracy is subverted by corporate interest?
What happens if Democracy is subverted by political interests?

What does that do to the great Democratic Experiment that is the founding of our country?[i/]
That's up to you, me and everyone else with a functioning brain.

Or interesting.

I have some socks to fold.

Is this what our constitution intended for our country. What it has done is corrupt our democratic process--those who have money 'own' our Congress. Dick Durbin put it well when he said, 'frankly, banks own the place'--the place, being Congress.

It's a beautiful state, and will be even more alluring if it continues on the path of Constitutional integrity.

I never did understand that. Otherwise why would a real person getting a concealed carry permit in their own state not be able to use it in say New York?

But an F'n corporation can do whatever they want in any other state in addition to the state they are incorporated in?

those who drafted the Constitution would never, ever have allowed a "joint stock company" -- corporations of their time -- to have any First Amendment rights whatsoever.

Time to spank some state supreme ASS, eh Tony ? .... Maybe Sammie and Johnnie Boy can help you bring some pressure to bear, eh ?

Don't forget your little side kick, Clarence .... He loves to kick anti conservative ass too ....

Wish more states would have done that.

Can this now result in another Supreme Court case?

WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT HONOR YOU!!!!!

GO MONTANA!

http://applicationengine.mt.gov/getContent?vsId={1C0B7886-01C0-49E3-A71A-C06CA7E71040}&impersonate=true&objectStoreName=PROD%20OBJECT%20STORE&objectType=document

The actual case name:
2011 MT 328, DA 11-0081: Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., Champion
Painting, Inc., and Montana Shooting Sports Association, Inc., Petitioners and
Appellees v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, and the Commissioner of Political Practices, Respondents and Appellants

If you want to read the Briefs presented to the court, here is the index to those documents:
http://searchcourts.mt.gov/index.html

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate

Check it out, read their laws. It may have been on DU a while back, but several things are going on in MT right now.

Let this be the beginning of a country-wide backlash at the state level. SG

Thanks for the thread, onehandle.

to finally pull their heads out of their ass and come up for air? I know.........wishful thinking.

The same USSC justices who tout being strict constructionists ie states rights being paramount, limited federal interference are going to have to twist themselves into very intricate pretzels to rule against Montana or any other state which chooses to go this way.

I have little doubt the 'strict constructionist' justices will rule against Montana in the same manner the USSC ruled in favor of Bush v Gore using the (not to be seen as setting precedent) but will there be 5 to do so?

All in all, quite fascinating and kudos to Montana, I hope they are only the first of many to challenge the Citizens United decision in this way.