Active Users:183 Time:19/03/2024 02:00:22 AM
Free speech is the problem though - without donations for ads, the corporate media has a monopoly Cannoli Send a noteboard - 17/02/2012 07:55:30 PM
I am unsure which is more absurd, the notion corporations are people with rights to free speech, or that money IS free speech.
Money provides the means for a candidate to speak freely. The notion that corporations do NOT have free speech is refuted by all those disclaimers that this or that view or opinion "does not necessarily reflect the opinions, etc." of Channel X or CBMSNBCNN or whatever. Plainly they have speech issues, and thus need to legally protect themselves. As it is, Rupert Murdoch, even if he never, ever gives a dime to a candidate, can order his employees to give favorable coverage to his favored candidates and so on. Fox can never really be prevented from making contributions to candidates, because they provide the very thing on which candidates spend their contributions - air time & publicity! Hell, they can even invite the candidate in for an interview, which, if conducted in a certain manner, is basically a platform for the candidate to express himself, i.e. an advertisment. And the same for all the rest of the media corporations.

The reason why liberals push campaign finance reform so hard is they would LOVE a scenario where they only have to worry about conservative candidates being able to express themselves and their positions in the primaries and solely on Fox, while the liberal candidates retain MSNBC, CNN, PBS and the broadcast networks. What did John McCain have to worry about his source of corporate donations being cut off? He had no need to buy airtime or ad space, when the NY Times corporation donates their editorial page for him to run his own advertisements disguised as guest columns.

Since there is no way to prevent or regulate THIS form of campaign contribution, it isn't fair to cut off the others. And essential part of that "pursuit of happiness" is the right to spend your money as you choose. And then there are things like contributions from other sources. If a country can donate to a candidate, why not a corporation? I'd rather have a guy in the pockets of Big Oil in office than Red China (oh, wait. We've had one of each, right before the current presidency of Big Finance).

The real way to cut down on corporate influence, as well as all other untoward influence on candidates is to strip the government of power. If it can't DO things for companies, why would they give money to candidates? Surprisingly few of the enumerated constitutional powers of the President or Congress are really the kind of thing that might draw the interest of powerful conglomerates.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
One for the Road: Super PAC Money Untraceable - 13/02/2012 04:05:54 PM 717 Views
unfortunately the presidency has been for sale to the highest bidder for some time - 15/02/2012 02:15:00 PM 83 Views
Making the worst of a bad situation. - 15/02/2012 04:15:32 PM 76 Views
Free speech is the problem though - without donations for ads, the corporate media has a monopoly - 17/02/2012 07:55:30 PM 87 Views
Yeah, really not playing the "liberal media bias game." - 19/02/2012 03:39:51 AM 248 Views
So what? - 15/02/2012 02:20:36 PM 83 Views
Because selling government to the highest bidder is not democracy or republicanism, but plutocracy. - 15/02/2012 06:24:29 PM 87 Views
As opposed to a media-ocracy? - 17/02/2012 07:33:03 PM 155 Views
Sorry, not buying that. - 19/02/2012 02:56:43 AM 133 Views

Reply to Message