Active Users:148 Time:19/03/2024 04:45:51 AM
Yeah, really not playing the "liberal media bias game." Joel Send a noteboard - 19/02/2012 03:39:51 AM
At some point the GOP must face the fact that, for most people, the repellance of GOP policy is directly proportional to knowledge and understanding of it.
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.

Disclaimers do not demonstrate corporations have free speech, particularly since they serve to protect the corporations very human executives and employees. A corporation is not a sentient being; it CANNOT have opinions, thoughts, positions or beliefs of its own, only actuate those held by its directors. Corporate free speech obviates most need for disclaimers in the first place, because their right to say anything they wish is not subject to legal reprisal unless they slander/libel someone or incite a riot, and a disclaimer will not stop a boycott. None of that excuses Fox openly acting as a GOP mouthpiece, but since they inexplicably share the free speech rights of REAL people (while paying less taxes and facing no limits on PAC contributions) nothing stops them either.

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.

Thank you for climbing in my head and telling me why I hold my beliefs; should I return the favor? ;) McCain has never been a liberal, only a moderate on some issues; if he was doing regular guest columns in the NYT that kinda blows up claims of a liberal media conspiracy that promotes Dems and ignores Republicans (have a count on how many guest columns Obama did for the Times?) Perhaps not in the eyes of those who considered Reagan "too liberal," but it is hard to imagine who would NOT be too liberal by that standard. I would suggest McCarthy, but he only got elected to the Senate in the first place thanks to a communist run union that hated anti-communist Robert LaFollette Jr.

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).

Since the premise the media is an arm of the Democratic Party is absurd on its face, there is no reason any "other corporate campaign donations" merit the legitimacy that non-existent practice does not enjoy. Regarding countries donating mondy, they cannot, nor can foreign nationals, hence all the money you reference was presented as coming from US citizens. Some of it was rejected on the spot anyway due to suspicions about its origins, all of it was ultimately returned, and the people who donated it were convicted of breaking the law. Regardless, if you want the PRC out of influencing the White House you must go back in time and get Humphrey elected president in 1968. The only point I will grant in all of that is Big Finance owning Obama, though I think you underestimate him; GM is not part of Big Finance (though thanks to the Republicans repealing Glass-Steagall, Big Insurance is.)

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.

Anarchism is so 1900.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
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 77 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 249 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 156 Views
Sorry, not buying that. - 19/02/2012 02:56:43 AM 133 Views

Reply to Message