The inability to distinguish between acts of commerce and speech suggests incompetence.
Well, computers aren't speech either. Would that mean that preventing people from using computers to express themselves would not be a restriction on speech? Pens aren't speech either. Does that mean that prohibiting people from using pens to express themselves wouldn't be a restriction on speech? If I want to express myself on television but am prohibited from spending any money to buy air time, that's not a restriction of speech?
I don't think it's "inability" as much as "will." The owners of the country want money to count as speech, so that's what happened.
At this point, if the 1% wanted us all to do the Hokey Pokey thrice daily, Antonin Scalia would be telling us to put our left legs out or do thirty years in SuperMax...
Does limiting the maximum volume people can use on a megaphone or loudspeaker necessarily infringe on their right to speech? How about limiting the bandwidth or number of emails you can send in a given time period? How is putting limits on political campaign contributions any different, especially when those limits are put on entities that are not individual people?
"How is putting limits on political campaign contributions any different,"
But the issue Scott is not limits on campaign contributions. The Supremes have supported the power of Congress to limit campaign contributions. What they have balked at is limiting the power of entities to spend money expressing themselves directly. The examples you gave involved limiting specific modes of expression that may intrude on the lives of others, not blanket limitations on how you can express yourself. If money is not relevant to expressing yourself, then there would be no unconstitutional speech limitation on a heavily Republican town council prohibiting Democrats from spending any money on political advertisements,. Do you think doing so would be a speech restriction?
I sympathize with the interest in limiting rich, powerful entities from dominating the political arena. But there is the law of unintended consequences. The problem is finding some mechanism for limiting the political power of the powerful without creating a mechanism that could allow the state to unjustly inhibit speech.
Yup. I've been accused of all sorts of things for believing that the right of a person - or GROUP of persons - is the same thing. What's the difference? No one has been able to tell me what the difference is except to say, 'Corporations are not people', to which I reply, 'Sure, but they are one or more people who form for only the purpose of forming a group', so what's the difference?
Bias, I guess.
I've never seen a corporation express itself in a manner that didn't involve individuals expressing themselves.
<< a corporation express itself in a manner that didn't involve individuals expressing themselves. >>
This is meaningless, since corporations can and do pay people to express beliefs consistent with corporate polices that are also provably antithetical to human interests and existence.
To say a cigarette lawyer is expressing some kind of free individual opinion on RJ Reynolds' dime is absurd. Ditto some energy company flack dribbling lies about "clean coal."
<To say a cigarette lawyer is expressing some kind of free individual opinion on RJ Reynolds' dime is absurd. Ditto some energy company flack dribbling lies about "clean coal.">
That's hardly relevant. The First Amendment allows free speech even if one may be speaking for someone else. One can't limit your speech if you are relating to what I want you to say, whether I pay you or you do it on your own. So...yeah. No.
A corporation is simply a collection of people. And, even foreigners in our country are allowed the protections of the Constitution, so even if foreigners want to speak - in a corporation - they are given that right. I don't like it, but that does not mean that I can't understand the nuanced issue.
<< The First Amendment allows free speech even if one may be speaking for someone else. One can't limit your speech if you are relating to what I want you to say, whether I pay you or you do it on your own. So...yeah. No. >>
Actually, well, *yes*.
<<The ``different degree of protection'' accorded commercial speech has a number of consequences. Somewhat broader times, places, and manner regulations are to be tolerated.42 The rule against prior restraints may be inapplicable,43 and disseminators of commercial speech are not protected by the overbreadth doctrine.44
Different degrees of protection may also be discerned among different categories of commercial speech. The first prong of the Central Hudson test means that false, deceptive, or misleading advertisements need not be permitted; government may require that a commercial message appear in such a form, or include such additional information, warnings, and disclaimers, as are necessary to prevent deception. But even truthful, non-misleading commercial speech may be regulated, and the validity of such regulation is tested by application of the remaining prongs of the Central Hudson test. >>
www.abuse.net/commercial.html
So, no- the Constitution does not give corporations the right to misinform people simply to make a buck. You're wrong.
<< A corporation is simply a collection of people >>
Says you and Mitt. Scarcely any kind of authoritative last word.
"This is meaningless, since corporations can and do pay people to express beliefs consistent with corporate polices that are also provably antithetical to human interests and existence. "
So what? They are still human beings expressing opinions. There is no addendum to the 1st amendment providing that free speech only applies to speech that someone in power deems not to be antithetical to human interests.
And there's nothing in the 1st amendment that requires that the opinion expressed be one's own opinion. Otherwise spokespersons don't have free speech? That's not only absurd but backed by absolutely nothing in the law.
"The ``different degree of protection'' accorded commercial speech"
Except political speech, even political speech expressed on behalf of an economic entity (be it a corporation or a labor union), is a completely different class from commercial speech, and the Supremes have recognized the difference. While the Supremes have said that commercial speech has a lower protection and can be restricted, they have treated political speech as the most sacrosanct kind of speech.
The Supremes have been much more protective of political speech even if its coming from an economic entity acting in its own interests, be it a corporation or a labor union.
So, you're wrong
"Says you and Mitt. Scarcely any kind of authoritative last word. "
Find me a corporation that is not run by and composed of people.
<< So what? They are still human beings expressing opinions. >>
In some myopic fantasy America, perhaps, where all opinions are given equal time and accorded equal consideration. A land where elderly conservatives in tricorne hats lecture youngsters all about how Grampaw got his Medicare by the sweat of his own two hands.
In the actual happening fact-based world, they're simply employees of a non-human entity with arguably anti-human interests.
This entitles them to the same consideration under law that any pitchman selling any product has. No, the Constitution does *not* grant anyone (no, not even some extra-human invention like a corporation) the right to sell roach poison labeled as Granny's Miracle Elixir.
<< Otherwise spokespersons don't have free speech? That's not only absurd but backed by absolutely nothing in the law. >>
Ringingly asserted and thumpingly wrong-
<< The idea of "Commercial Speech" was first introduced by the Supreme Court when it upheld Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942). In upholding the regulation, the Supreme Court said, "We are … clear that the Constitution imposes … no restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising."
In a 1978 decision, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, the Court offered this defense:
We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression. >>\
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech
Saying something shouldn't exist does not, in fact, dispose of actual history and facts to the contrary.
<< they have treated political speech as the most sacrosanct kind of speech. >>
If a corporation wants to buy a different type of regulatory environment, how is this not "commercial speech" in the corporation's commercial interest? Isn't it the law that corporate officers must concern themselves with piling up profit for shareholders above all things?
This constant attempt to have everything both ways for corporations and the monied in general can't help but drive down respect for the justice system.
NPR reporter Laura Sydell and This American Life producer/Planet Money co-host Alex Blumberg tell the story of Intellectual Ventures, which is accused of being the largest of the patent trolls. The investigation takes them to a small town in Texas, where they find a hallway full of empty companies with no employees. (29 minutes)
www.thisamericanlife.org/radio...attack
listen to ACT ONE.
Ron, the issue here is that these people disagree with the IDEA - which I don't think ANY of us are happy about this ability of corporations to spend money in a manner which gets around federal spending limitations and thus the real-world effects of this decision.
Why can some people not separate what is logical from what they want? How can people look at EVERYTHING in their lives and not connect logic/reality to their wants? I honestly do not get it.
<In the actual happening fact-based world, they're simply employees of a non-human entity with arguably anti-human interests.>
See? A total separation of realities. He admits that it's people that are doing it, but can't stomach reality because of the "arguably anti-human interests". Sorry man. "arguably anti-human interests" are exercising free speech.
And, your post relies on the difference between 'free speech' & what is considered "purely commercial advertising", so unless you consider voicing your opinion about a political figure to be "purely commercial advertising", then...that was a great number of words...wasted.
<< See? A total separation of realities. >>
You sound like the guy in the old commercial who is really *really* for "Tastes Great" over "Less Filling." How you can make trivia sound so earthshakingly important to you can be quite charming.
<< Sorry man. "arguably anti-human interests" are exercising free speech. >>
No, Quiz Kid. "Arguably anti-human interests" aren't citizens of the US and are thus not entitled to the rights of citizens. This has already been established.
Your disagreement seems to be with legal precedent.
<< your post relies on the difference between 'free speech' & what is considered "purely commercial advertising">>
No, the law does.
Again, facts just don't go away because you ignore or don't want to learn them.
<No, Quiz Kid. "Arguably anti-human interests" aren't citizens of the US and are thus not entitled to the rights of citizens. This has already been established.>
That's not true at all. ANY person who is within the borders of the US of A has accorded to them the full rights provided by the Constitution. And, IF someone from without chooses to hire someone WITHIN our borders to relate their opinion? That's unquestionably covered by the Constitution.
Y'r now just making things up. 100% wrong.
<< your post relies on the difference between 'free speech' & what is considered "purely commercial advertising">>
<No, the law does.>
Yeah? Show me how a discussion about one's opinion on a person (regardless of a candidate) is "purely commercial advertising". Do you have a linkey to that one? No? Huh. Shocking.
Y'r hte new Jeff. You just throw out information that makes sense to you and then represent that information as smart or logical or legitimate...or legal.
Sorry. ANYONE in America can avail themselves to the Constitution, not just Americans. AND, advertising one's opinion on a candidate of any measure has NEVER been deemed "purely commercial advertising". You know how I know that? Because I looked it up. If you can find a precedent that voicing an opinion on a candidate is "purely commercial advertising", I will admit that I am wrong. But...you can't. You won't. In fact, to cause Citizen's United to be found to be illegal, all someone would have to do is say that a corporation advertising for a candidate would be "purely commercial advertising", which I doubt would ever happen. That said, it'd be interesting, would it not? Basically, you are saying that free speech related to a candidate IS "purely commercial advertising", are you not?
To certain people in here (who will remain nameless), being "right", at least in their own mind, is way more important then the facts.
"No, the Constitution does *not* grant anyone (no, not even some extra-human invention like a corporation) the right to sell roach poison labeled as Granny's Miracle Elixir. "
You're right. As noted before, the Supremes have established a lower standard for commercial speech. But what you've once again failed to recognize is that they have also recognized a distinction between political and commercial speech, and have held the former sacrosanct. So yes, Corporation A can't sell roach poison labeled "Granny's Miracle elixir", but they have every right to pay for an ad that says Barack Obama will raise your taxes. Like it or not, the Constitution doesn't only favor the free speech of parties favored by the left. If it did, then virtually by definition there wouldn't be free speech.
"Ringingly asserted and thumpingly wrong-"
And once again your confidence is surpassed only by your legal ignorance
And since you quoted it, I'll quote it again:
"We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression. >>\ "
Wow. You might want to read that again, since it says EXACTLY what I've been saying. Again, as the above citation reflects precisely, the Supremes have distinguished commercial and non-commercial (particularly political) speech with the former getting a lower level of protection and thus allowed more restrictions than the later. But Citizen's United isn't about commercial speech. It's about non-commercial political speech, and thus your references to the legal ability to restrict commercial speech are irrelevant. The Court recognizes a difference between "Buy Granny's Tacos!" and "Vote for (or against) Joe Schmo!"
"Saying something shouldn't exist does not, in fact, dispose of actual history and facts to the contrary. "
I'll be sure and mention this to someone actually guilty of it
"If a corporation wants to buy a different type of regulatory environment, how is this not "commercial speech" in the corporation's commercial interest?"
Because commercial speech is speech for selling products and services. Political speech is is for trying to sway elections and politicians, regardless of whether someone is doing that for economic reasons. By your reasoning, labor unions advocating a minimum wage increase in the law or spending millions on politicians who favor labor unions would be commercial speech, but the Court has never recognized that.
Yeah, what Ron said.
I look forward to Rockstar's convoluted response as he tries to prove Ron & myself wrong - as opposed to just proving that he is right.
What's been lost here is the distinction between "speech" (whether commercial or non-commercial) and commercial transactions used in the production and propagation of speech. If money is clearly being spent to support or oppose a specific candidate or party, why should the commercial transaction behind the speech not be treated the same as a campaign contribution towards either the candidate or his opponents?
By that reasoning the state could restrict any speech. "We're not restricting political speech. We're just preventing unfavored party A from ever buying any airwaves or print space to express themselves."
The Supremes have said that Congress can regulate how much you contribute to a candidate, but that preventing people from buying air or print space used to express one's self when that money is not going to the candidate him or herself has been ruled a violation of constitutional speech protections.
Here's a good distinction between commercial and political speech:
"Q.: What does the term “commercial speech” mean?
A.: The phrase came from a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1942 when the owner of a World War I-vintage submarine sued the City of New York over a statute that forbade him to pass out flyers advertising tours of his boat. The high court labeled the flyers “purely commercial,” even though they had an editorial on one side complaining about city policies. The term “commercial speech” refers to speech—printed, broadcast or on the Internet—that advertises a product or service.
Q.: How is “commercial speech” different from “political speech”?
A.: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “political speech”—speech that deals with issues of public interest or social concern—is entitled to full protection under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It may be limited by government only rarely and under very limited circumstances. “Commercial speech,” however, is given much less protection. It may be regulated by the government in cases where “political speech” would be protected."
www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/...se-406.aspx
"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."
To which I point to you the "right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government"
What is a protest (a peaceable one please) but exactly such an expression of rights under the First Amendment?
What is a Union but a corporate structure whereby people have assembled and have pooled their resources to achieve certain goals and among which is the right to petition government?
What is a corporation if it is not a peaceable assembly of persons who pool their resources to accomplish certain goals and why can not one of those goals be to petition the government?
How do you distinguish between the peaceable assembly of people in a park and the peaceable assembly of people who take the bother to incorporate?
I can tell some differences: The crowd in the park is unaccountable for things it does. So when women are raped or killed the whole crowd can not be held to task. The crowd in the park has no address. There is no where to take your problems if they cause you harm and destroy your storefront.
The corporation OTOH is wholly accountable and you know who they are who the leaders are how to reach them and you can bring them into court and take money from them if they harm you.
I think I prefer the corporation.
<No, Quiz Kid. "Arguably anti-human interests" aren't citizens of the US and are thus not entitled to the rights of citizens. This has already been established.>
That's not true at all. ANY person >>
Hold it right there.
I said "interest," *You* said "person."
It isn't honest to palm cards, son.
Try to scratch up an observation based on what I actually *said* rather than inventing bizarre extra-Constitutional excuses for what's plainly complete and utter partisan bullshit.
Though people have interests, an interest is *not* a person. Your whole case looks built on three-card monte sophistry like this.
<< Y'r now just making things up. 100% wrong. >>
How's that projecty-feely thing workin' out for ya?
<< Y'r hte new Jeff. You just throw out information that makes sense to you>>
And you throw out "facts" that are just smoke and mirrors Romneyoid untruth and misdirection. Again, you haven't presented anything but another round of ringing civics-class platitudes that don't have anything to do with what's under discussion.
Again, commercial speech comes under a far more stringent standard than ordinary speech. You're banging your head against reality and hoping it'll budge first.
Answer this question- how are attempts to buy a favorable regulatory environment out of government politicians *not* ultimately commercial speech, whatever the convolutions of lawyers?
<It isn't honest to palm cards, son.>
Wait...if y'r not talking about actual PEOPLE and how laws relate to PEOPLE, then what in the hell are you talking about? If a foreigner comes here, espousing "Arguably anti-human interests" they are JUST as able to legally do so and spend as much money as they want to do so. They can do it, along with 1000 of their fuzzy-headed foreigner friends. Sorry. That's how it works.
What are you trying to argue now? Do you know?
<Again, you haven't presented anything but another round of ringing civics-class platitudes that don't have anything to do with what's under discussion.>
Just because YOU don't understand or want to accept the reality does not mean that I have said anything incorrect.
ANY person espousing almost ANYTHING in America is legal. Groups of them are only groups of people espousing their opinion, and the Constitution covers any of them anywhere in America - and THAT is what this WHOLE discussion has been about.
But, spin away. A goal of only proving oneself right only proves oneself to be an idiot.
<Again, commercial speech comes under a far more stringent standard than ordinary speech.>
Except that you have not shown how political belief has been seen as "commercial speech", and more than that, even IF SO, you have not shown how this situation would be covered by that argument, either.
<Answer this question- how are attempts to buy a favorable regulatory environment out of government politicians *not* ultimately commercial speech, whatever the convolutions of lawyers?>
I'm not a Constitutional scholar. Neither are you. That said, if I go and argue about my pet issue to a politician in trying to "buy a favorable regulatory environment" (which I do a few times a year), how is this NOT just free speech? Arguing in person or in an ad for a commercial interest to a politician - stating my OPINION, no matter the topic - is STILL a free speech issue. You can't get around that. You can try. But you can't. You DISAGREE, but it's not relevant if you disagree because you'll have to change the Constitution to be right. So far - you're wrong because the Constitution as it stands disagrees.
Deal.
<< Wait...if y'r not talking about actual PEOPLE and how laws relate to PEOPLE, then what in the hell are you talking about? >>
I'm talking about people. You're talking about non-human entities you would like to have perceived as "people."
This isn't exactly Zeno's Paradox, but you seem to be really struggling here.
<< ANY person espousing almost ANYTHING in America is legal.>>
1) Bullshit.
2) How is a corporation a "person"? How is commercial activity "democracy"?
You're not only demonstrably wrong once again, but plainly lost in a semiotic and ontological haze.
<< proves oneself to be an idiot >>
You're Tribe.net's reigning champion at this activity.
<< Except that you have not shown how political belief has been seen as "commercial speech">>
How can a corporation entertain a "belief"?
<Answer this question- how are attempts to buy a favorable regulatory environment out of government politicians *not* ultimately commercial speech, whatever the convolutions of lawyers?>
I'm not a Constitutional scholar.>>
That must mean you're above answering ordinary questions.
www.youtube.com/watch
<< That said, if I go and argue about my pet issue to a politician in trying to "buy a favorable regulatory environment" (which I do a few times a year) >>
Kindly spare us treats of your career on K Steet repping the Sophistry League of North America. I'd rather not hear it.
<I'm talking about people. You're talking about non-human entities you would like to have perceived as "people.">
Back to your original problem that corporations are just legal entities for groups of people. Can't get around that. You have TRIED, but...sorry. You have yet to show how within the current legal framework, it's illegal. I think that we all agree that the there should be a new Constitutional Amendment changing this, but it's legal. Just deal with it.
<2) How is a corporation a "person"? How is commercial activity "democracy"?>
Ask the Supreme Court. They seem to have a pretty good take on it.
<You're not only demonstrably wrong once again, but plainly lost in a semiotic and ontological haze.>
Funny how you just SAY I am wrong, but I am clearly right. So says the SCOTUS, too.
<How can a corporation entertain a "belief"?>
Being that it's just a collection of people...it's pretty easy.
"Rockstar". HA! That's like some ugly chick here making her name "Model", or ...some... here changing their name to "Genius". I mean, y'r NOT a "Rockstar", yet you have taken on the affect...why the misnomer? I find it interesting that you will just insist that you are right...and your name is a hint to your mind in these matters.
<< Back to your original problem that corporations are just legal entities for groups of people >>
HA. Your misunderstanding of basic concepts I've cite and refusal to even answer questions seems to be the um "problem" here, sport.
Bowling leagues are groups of people. Should bowling leagues be considered as people?
<< They seem to have a pretty good take on it. >>
A widely ridiculed party line decision is a "good take" the same way Dred Scott was.
Just as a side note- you don't argue very well.
<How can a corporation entertain a "belief"?>
Being that it's just a collection of people...it's pretty easy >>
OK, so under that logic, corporate speech is *already* commercial speech. You lose.
<< I mean, y'r NOT a "Rockstar" >>
Gosh. is oo *sure*, twinkums?
Let's look at *your* name, thankfully unattached to a human face-
How can you be "Me"? I'm me!
So stop lying. Again.
<< Back to your original problem that corporations are just legal entities for groups of people >>
HA. Your misunderstanding of basic concepts I've cited and refusal to even answer questions seems to be the um "problem" here, sport.
Bowling leagues are groups of people. Should bowling leagues be considered *as* people?
<< They seem to have a pretty good take on it. >>
A widely ridiculed party line decision is a "good take" the same way Dred Scott was.
Just as a side note- you don't argue very well.
<How can a corporation entertain a "belief"?>
Being that it's just a collection of people...it's pretty easy >>
OK, so under that logic, corporate speech is *already* commercial speech. You lose.
<< I mean, y'r NOT a "Rockstar" >>
Gosh. is oo *sure*, twinkums?
Let's look at *your* name, thankfully unattached to a human face-
How can you be "Me"? I'm me!
So stop lying. Again.
<Money is not speech>
But...
"1. Money Talks, Bullshit Walks
Means that cheap talk will get you nowhere, while money will persuade people to do as you like.
Money talks, bullshit walks, that is how life goes."
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php
<y'r NOT a "Rockstar">
You mean this isn't you?!!!
www.shoprockamerica.com/showimage.axd
<< You mean this isn't you?!!! >>
Naw. That's my less talented brother. A real limelight hog, that one.
<Bowling leagues are groups of people. Should bowling leagues be considered as people?>
Sure. If they are wanting to spend their money as a form of free speech. Why not?
<Just as a side note- you don't argue very well.>
Ha. Ooooook. I'll take that as a mark of distinction that you, Jeff & Elo say the same thing. To bad for your argument that my belief on the LAW aligns with Ron. Does he not "argue very well", too? You can whinge about what I say, but the point is that you are wrong. That's what bothers you. That y'r wrong. So, surely the problem HAS to be ME, not...you.
<OK, so under that logic, corporate speech is *already* commercial speech. You lose.>
See what I mean? You think that means something. Incredible.
"Again, commercial speech comes under a far more stringent standard than ordinary speech. You're banging your head against reality and hoping it'll budge first. "
Except commercial speech is selling goods and services. It's decidedly different than political speech. Citizen's United is about political speech, not commercial speech. Your strategy appears to be to simply ignore this glaring fact.
"Answer this question- how are attempts to buy a favorable regulatory environment out of government politicians *not* ultimately commercial speech, whatever the convolutions of lawyers? "
Because it's not involving the selling of goods and survives. If you're going to employ legal concepts, then you need to employ them as they actually are, not as you'd like them to be.
Oops. "Survices", not "survives."
To elaborate. Political speech involves speech involving issues of public interest, particularly speech relating to elections and legislation. Commercial speech involves the business entity trying to get the listener to fork over some money for the business' service or product. Commercial speech is not just economically interested speech.
" I think that we all agree that the there should be a new Constitutional Amendment changing this"
Speak for yourself. Change what?
"Commercial speech means a "speech which does 'no more than propose a commercial transaction'," and as "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience." U.S. Olympic Comm. v. Am. Media, Inc., 156 F. Supp. 2d 1200, 1207 (D. Colo. 2001)"
definitions.uslegal.com/c/comm...speech/
As such, proposing economic legislation or trying to influence Congress, the President, politicians or regulators to produce a favorable regulatory environment does more than just propose a commercial transaction, and hence would not be commercial speech.
So, to elaborate...
When a guy in a bar says to the bartender "Can I buy you a drink?", that is not commercial speech.
When the bartender says to a guy in a bar "You wanna buy a drink? We got a special on draft beer.", that is commercial speech.
When a prostitute says to a guy in a bar "I'll treat you special if you give me $1000." that's commercial speech.
When a politician says to a guy in a bar "I'll treat you special if you give my campaign $1000." that's not commercial speech.
However, if a guy in a bar says to a politician "How much for you to treat me special?" that's illegal... unless the guy in a bar is a lobbyist.
These categories aren't arbitrary. The point the Supremes have made in making categories that run from political speech (highest value) to obscenity and fighting words (lowest value) is that political speech deals with matters of public interest, and thus it's important for a robust democracy to maximize free discussion about such issues (marketplace of ideas). Trying to sell Grandma's Chili to someone is not considered as socially important as trying to argue for, say, an overhaul of the health care system, and the later is worthy of more protection than the former. Even so, the Supremes have elevated even commercial speech to the highest level of protection if they thought the commercial speech reflected a significant matter of public importance (such as in one case the advertising of abortion services - commercial speech, but the Supremes protected it against a prohibition). If revamping the regulatory system would affect the public, then that is much more of a reason for the Supremes to consider it something to be given the highest of constitutional protections than the fact that the matter may have economic implications.
<These categories aren't arbitrary.>
I think the categories are arbitrary and not constitutional.
To suggest that the selling of health insurance, or sell abortions, is of greater public interest than selling food is arbitrary.
To suggest that an offer to buy a hamburger is commercial speech, but an offer to buy political favor is not commercial speech is arbitrary.
In any case, the issue debated (in Citizens United vs. FEC) was not so much WHAT (political issue) is being discussed, or categories of speech , as much as WHO (political candidate) is being discussed, WHEN they were being discussed, and who was spending the MONEY used to discuss the candidate.
The Court has found that money is necessary to disseminate speech. The law limits how much the individual person can contribute to a candidates campaign to disseminate speech about themselves. A candidate can however spend unlimited funcds from their personal wealth. That creates an advantage for a single millionaire candidate over a monetarily poor candidate who is supported by a hundred individuals. (This is how Bloomberg got elected mayor of New York.) It had little or nothing to do with protecting or fairly reflecting matters of the public importance.
<< To bad for your argument that my belief on the LAW aligns with Ron >>
Appeal to dubious authority is still appeal to authority, chum.
And you *still* don't argue very well.
<< To suggest that the selling of health insurance, or sell abortions, is of greater public interest than selling food is arbitrary.
To suggest that an offer to buy a hamburger is commercial speech, but an offer to buy political favor is not commercial speech is arbitrary. >>
It's only arbitrary when you view it as logic and morality.
If your goal is to lock in existing unfree, undemocratic political arrangements forever, then it makes perfect sense.
<< A candidate can however spend unlimited funcds from their personal wealth. That creates an advantage for a single millionaire candidate over a monetarily poor candidate who is supported by a hundred individuals. (This is how Bloomberg got elected mayor of New York.) It had little or nothing to do with protecting or fairly reflecting matters of the public importance. >>
It's anti-democratic to its core, but that's the whole point. The Supreme Court's wingnut majority isn't going to last forever, so "movement conservatism" (ie plutocracy) must resort to other means.
<The Supreme Court's wingnut majority isn't going to last forever, so "movement conservatism" (ie plutocracy) must resort to other means.>
BILL MOYERS: With me now is a man who has been tracking the political and economic history of American wealth for a long time. Kevin Phillips and I were both young men in Washington in the 60s. We were on different sides but had a mutual interest in politics that reached workaday people. He was the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon's victory in 1968 and wrote the bombshell book on the emerging republican majority. Ten years ago his best-selling book on the politics of rich and poor influenced the 1992 elections. In his new book, WEALTH AND DEMOCRACY, he is writing about how big money and political power are the invisible hand in the hidden story of the American experience. Good to see you again.
Good to see you again.
KEVIN PHILLIPS: Nice to be here.
BILL MOYERS: You keep referring in "Wealth and Democracy" to a plutocracy. What do you mean by that?
KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, the plutocracy ... and I think we have one now and we didn't, 12 years ago when I wrote THE POLITICS OF RICH AND POOR is when money has ceased just entertaining itself with leveraged buyouts and all the stuff they did in the '80s, and really takes over politics, and takes it over on both sides when money not only talks, money screams. When you start developing philosophies in which giving a check is a First Amendment right. That's incredible. But what you've got is that this is what money has done. It's produced the fusion of money and government. And that is plutocracy.
BILL MOYERS: But hasn't money always held politics hostage?
KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, it's usually been very influential. And sometimes it really hasn't been too influential,
But what we've seen in the '80s and '90s is that it's taken control of both parties, pretty much taken control of the culture, and controls the whole dynamics of politics. And that is ...
BILL MOYERS: But the si- ...
KEVIN PHILLIPS: ... a plutocracy in a way that we haven't had before, since the gilded age....
...KEVIN PHILLIPS: I think there are two stages, the 18- ... the 1980s were the first stage in the sense that Ronald Reagan wanted people to have a chance to get rich. He liked entrepreneurs, he liked people who owned 14 department stores or two movie studios. It wasn't for the big old steel companies or anything, but he liked money. And he and Don Regan, the Treasury secretary, created a political culture in which fashion became in, making money became in, paper entrepreneurialism was the key, all the leveraged buyouts. And that was a whole culture of... people got a lot of money at the top.
But what you got then in the 1990s was, in my opinion, stage two. And this was the technology mania, and the rise of the securities markets, taking technology and making this incredible bubble out of it. And a new crowd of people got rich. Plenty of the old people, but a whole lot of new people. New people who tended to have a more liberal politics in many cases, to name Internet companies, things like Yahoo! and AskJeeves, and what have you.
If you look at the list of new money in the Forbes 400 say in 199... 1998 or 1999, when the Internet crowd was coming in big time, we've got an awful lot of Democrats. And the Democratic Party has in its own way started to be a party of a different type of wealth. The Republicans have the smoke stacks and the polluters and the ranchers and the oil companies, and the Democrats have a lot of the communications media, a lot of biotechnology, a lot of the coming stuff ...
So what we've got are two sets of people in Washington who basically because of the whole demand of financing campaigns go to people with money. They go to different sets of money and you've sort of got what you had in politics before the Civil War: the Democratic Party, that basically was in with a southern plantation aristocracy, and Republicans who are in with the merging industry. Nobody was for the little guy.
www.pbs.org/now/transcri...phillips.html
All I know is that if you have enough money, you can buy a venue or medium for your speech to be aired. You can buy billboards, radio time, newspaper ads, t.v. commercials, broadcasters, talk show hosts, heck, you can even buy politicians to be your mouthpiece.
At least he can make a distinction between political speech and commercial speech selling laundry detergent.
Obama won because money is speech. Kinda sad that being an awesome orator and story teller who has the money gets you into the Oval Office, but that's how it's always been.
Yes Fortune33, with sufficient funds you can buy a lot of racket.
But why is that bad? The money is your property and it is several property to do with as you please.
Juli, I'm not saying that buying an opportunity to be heard is bad, I was just pointing out that in many cases you can buy a forum for your message, and sometimes we, the public are bombarded, almost exclusively, with the views or certain entities because those entities can afford to keep paying to be seen and heard..
In an ideal world, perhaps the access to huge forums would not depend so much on materialistic resources, and the playing field would be less controlled by those having almost exclusive control over certain media .
Money is not speech. What you can do with money can be speech.
Money is nothing more than fungible power. It's like a battery pack. It represents all sorts of things in a condensed form. So you can work at something and accept money in exchange and there is your effort all neatly rolled into a handy little package that is easy to carry and easy to use. It represents the transaction between you and the person/s to whom you sold your labor or your products or other commodities. You put money in your pocket and wherever you go, you have the power that the money represents to get things you want or need.
If you want to speak a little louder or to more people at once you can use the money to make that happen.
Once you use the money to accomplish this the people who got your money can recycle the power in the money however they please.
SO the act of commerce is what facilitates the speech.
It appears that your post shows an inability to distinguish between the tool and the result.
Money is just the tool.
So if money represents your labor, whenever government prints more, it reaches into your pocket and steals a little of the value you had stored there. It steals your labor. It makes your money worth less
But here you are saying that there is something wrong with using the results your own labor to facilitate your ability to speak out?
I don't get it.
That makes about as much sense as if you said it was evil to raise crops harvest them put them in a bag and use them to feed yourself while you went to a political convention or event.
Your "money" (the food in the bag you carry) is what is making it possible for you to attend and to speak out.
But you say this is some how evil?
I don't get it.
Maybe you think that if you have dump trucks full of food that you raised and harvested and put in those trucks that this some how corrupts the process of you speaking out?
Why? Why does the scale change anything?
Is it only fair if you have only so much food in your bag?
Who says how much food is enough?
Who gets to sit in that high and mighty position as overlord of us all?
"Who gets to sit in that high and mighty position as overlord of us all? "
Obama thinks he does.
Yes Fortune33 it can be very very annoying. Especially if one lives in a swing state. Just yesterday I was visiting with a relative who drove up from SC where the political ads have pretty taken over everything. He was quite unhappy with it.
But there's a counter argument. It's that no matter how pervasive and annoying they are the private citizen must first place herself in the path of these advertisements. That is you first have to do something all on your own volition. You have to turn on a radio or TV program where these ads are playing and you then have to pay attention.
Arguably this is a burden for people who just want to watch American Idol or cheer when some one is voted off the island, but still they have to tune in. They have a choice.
