Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Freedom Of Speech Defended

 Why is everyone up in arms over the Supreme Court decision to defend free speech?

I mean, up till now, unions could give whatever they wanted. Now, it is an even playing field. Dems have been going after the cash that Republicans get in campaign contributions for the last several years, while sending our tax dollars to unions, so they could turn it around and give some back in campaign contributions.

What makes everyone think that now we will have every corporation on the planet running ads for republicans? Unions have millions after millions that they steal from their members and can do the same thing now. Right? This decision didn't say that only corporations can now run ads.... All it said was, now they can TOO.

I think the bad thing about this, or maybe I should say the annoying thing about this, is that come election time, we will be even more sick of the political ads.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c95a9cfac86aefd2216c6292d7f6e815.261&show_article=1

fnformetoo fnformetoo 51-55, M 14 Responses Jan 23, 2010

Your Response

Cancel

With the amout of information avaliable to the public today, it is hard for me to believe that a spin of some campaign add will turn the heads of enough people to turn the tide, but then again, I never thought we would end up where we are today !! <br />
<br />
Free speech is mandantory for a democracy to exist, so we must use the one we have. We have the power, and must use it by talking to our frieds, neighbors, etc.<br />
<br />
Phage, The corps can be controlled if people just study the products or services they use. The phrase...more hands makes the load lighter seems to apply. ( unless those hands are just using it to lighten their own load.) We do have a lot of those around !!

Yes, let everyone sling mud, even foreign dictators that own transnational corporations. The US has gone too long without having it's leaders handpicked by dictators and foreign governments. <br />
<br />
Yay free speech!

:::personal opinion::: but this ruling has little or nothing to do with the first amendment. It's about what corporations can do. truth is...I don't believe the ads from any side, about any one running, or any issue.In print, on on screen ...just about anything can be put through the spin to mean anything. This ruling just adds more garbage to the already abysmal mud fest. However...fair is fair... let every one through mud and garbage..there are enough people that will choose to believe anything; if it's in a fancy enough ad.

It won't be taken from us though! The republic that is. The left is falling into disorder and chaos, victims of their own hypocrisy. There are too many Democrats with common sense for the far left to succeed.

Corporations have always thrown money behind their cause. Now they can run an ad letting everyone know who they bought. It is all about the money. You're fooling yourself if you think goverment is for the people and by the people. Goverment serves itself and those who bank roll it.<br />
<br />
Kill your TV!

I'm reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome, where the captive grows to love and worship his/her captor.<br />
<br />
Go big, nice, kind corporations!!! They definitely know what's best for us.

I don't call all people who oppose Obama racist. I only call racists racists. Hell, I'M opposed to Obama as many republicans because I wish he would be as liberal as a president as he was as a candidate. <br />
<br />
And if women speak out against 'women's rights' then I demand that they give their reasons, I don't dismiss their arguments (unless they're stupid creationists, in which case they deserve to be dismissed. You cannot have a battle of wits with an unarmed person)<br />
<br />
femtoo, you're correct that this doesn't change the amount that corporations can actually give to a politician, but it now places no limit on how much a corporation spends on a candidate (or against a candidate.) It's a small distinction that some people won't even take the time to differentiate between. <br />
<br />
I agree with most of what Phage said, but I think some of you are missing the other implication of this ruling. Those of you that think that this ruling doesn't really change anything because it still comes back to the candidates making choices about what corporations they are going to be affiliated with, you're missing the point that big business now has unlimited power in advertising AGAINST candidates, which is not free speech, it is intimidation. Does anyone here anticipate that this ruling is going to help fix anything that's broken in our country? After the most recent economic crash, it's OBVIOUS that regulation is needed on Wall Street or else big banks are going to continue gambling with other people's money and they'll inevitably go too far, and the system will crash again. Is any regulation going to happen now that this horrid ruling is in place? Not a chance. Wall street merely has to scare senators by flashing hundreds of millions of dollars which they will promise to use to unseat that senator, and presto, another vote for regulation is lost. <br />
<br />
Of course, this same principle will apply to all areas of big business: Finance, Oil, Healthcare, etc etc etc. No reform will ever pass because the opponents of reform (businesses which only seek profits, to hell with everything else) now hold the keys to the kingdom. Principled senators will be bullied out of power and the corporations will pay for people that won't regulate them at all. YAY!!!! <br />
<br />
The bottom line is that Chavez (the devil that Republicans say they hate) can now funnel hundreds of millions or several billion for or against any candidate that he wants, since he's the sole owner of Citgo. Chavez isn't an American citizen, but he gets to fund the campaign of his choice because he owns a corporation. Yay free speech! I can't wait to see who Chavez and Castro and Little Kim in North Korea decides to give money to. Should be exciting,yes? <br />
<br />
Enjoy your 'free speech'.

ven... van... what's the difference?<br />
<br />
This isn't about how much can be give directly to a candidates campaign. That still has the same limitations.<br />
<br />
This is about anyone being able to run a political ad.<br />
<br />
I agree with hammer. It's funny how the left says they are for womens rights and free speech. Unless of course a woman tries to oppose them, or they do not agree with your point of view.<br />
<br />
If you do not agree with their point of view, then your free speech is hate speech and you are a racist.

Which, at best, means that they can't outright lie in a way which can be legally proven to be slanderous. Which is something, but there's a lot of gray area between the truth and a lie which can be taken to court, and especially in politics a lot which is open to interpretation--the sort of interpretation which tends to be partisan in nature and as such utterly unreliable.<br />
<br />
But more than that, advertisements are effective. We're a democracy, a country ruled by public opinion, but that opinion isn't generated in a vacuum, and most people believe what they're told to believe. Especially if it's something which they want to hear. The fact that they're told to believe many different, mutually exclusive things mitigates the effect some, but by and large people are sheep. So by allowing major corporations yet another way (they already have the news) to tell people how to think is hardly a good thing.<br />
<br />
Also, while dems may scream about how this benefits republicans, nothing could be further from the truth. Oh, it will no doubt help the republican party, by which I mean people running for office, but the party isn't the people. All it does is gives candidates who're in the pocket of big business--the ones who truly deserve Bitlord's colorful pejorative "repigs"--one more way to manipulate people.<br />
<br />
Noshadow, you often talk about small business, and the need to support small business. I couldn't agree more, but as you're no doubt aware multinational corporations succeed largely at the expense of small business--they already have a great advantage competing in most developed markets. All this is going to do is exacerbate a problems the republicans have been having for years now--that their party is becoming more about large corporations and less about their actual constituencies.

Be it union or corp, it still goes back to free speech. Like it or not, it's what mkles this country what it is. We just need to make them accountable for what they put in those adds.

I have to (more or less) go with "Ven" on this one. Corporations being able to run campaign adds isn't any more of a good thing than unions being able to. It's more of a bad thing, but on the bright side it's only one small bad thing in a whole host of awfulness which comprises this country's political system.

It's "Ven", but thanks for trying. <br />
<br />
You're equating unions (which are almost non-existent after Reagan accomplished his goal of ridding America of its manufacturing base) with gigantic transnational corporations, which ALREADY rule the playing field in Washington... hahaha, ok. Sure, unions and corporations hold the same exact power and wealth (I can't even type that sentence with a straight face). <br />
<br />
FINALLY! We'll FINALLY get some corporate influence in Washington! About time! <br />
<br />
Morons.

Van.... you surely don't think they would have limited unions also do you?<br />
<br />
So, the only alternative was to make it an even playing field.<br />
<br />
Hammer... I agree. It's funny how union money going to campaigns has been free speech, but corporate money has been corruption all this time.

Regarding how there will be more sleazy political attack ads.... Gee, ya think so, Gus? <br />
<br />
So the answer to fix a problem (unions spending money on campaigns) is to make the problem worse on both sides (corporations and unions?)<br />
<br />
What's really funny is to see all the people and politicians who used to run around saying that campaign finance reform was so uber important, how money is just corrupting our political system, but now they're ok with this decision. Pathetic.