Campaign finance law
Emerson Lynn Jr.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether “Hillary, the Movie,” should have been allowed to be distributed.
The documentary made by Citizens United was an out-and-out anti-Clinton propaganda piece designed to defeat her nomination, and, if nominated, her election to the presidency. Citizens United calls itself an advocacy group and is financed largely by corporations. The legal question to be resolved is whether the laws governing the financing of elections forbids corporations from funding such efforts.
The case has sharply divided liberals. The American Civil Liberties Union believes that an earlier court decision against distributing the movie was a clear violation of the First Amendment. Common Cause, on the other side, argues that allowing corporations to pay for and, by extension, initiate, polemics favoring or opposing individual candidates would give big money even more control over the U.S. political process.
Both of these arguments are on solid ground. A truly tough philosophical battle lies ahead for the justices.
Those who would allow an individual, or any entity, to create or pay for and make public, political speech argue that the law could not ban “Hillary, the Movie,” without also opening the way to banning any book or pamphlet that argued for or against the election of a candidate. But partisan books and pamphlets have been a part of the U.S. political scene since the days of the Founding Fathers.
The First Amendment is part of the Constitution precisely because the FFs wanted to guarantee the right to criticize the holders of political office and those who aspired to those offices.
So much for history. Now let’s get with the current scene.
Like it, or not, government at every level is a huge player in the world of business. Corporations such as Koch Industries, just to pick a Kansas name, believe they have a very large stake in how government operates and are therefore willing to spend millions — make that tens of millions — in every election cycle to elect those they agree with and defeat those they feel oppose their interests.
The big spenders in elections have power beyond their numbers. A corporate executive who can spend millions of his or her stockholders’ money to elect or defeat a candidate sways a great many more votes than an ordinary U.S. citizen does. And, that, say advocates of campaign fi-nance controls, is unfair and unAmerican.
Conserative Sen. John McCain of Arizona and liberal Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin wrote and sponsored the political finance control law which is cited in the Hillary case.
The facts on the ground favor McCain-Feingold. Most Americans agree that far too much money is being spent every two and four years influencing national and state elections. Most of us also believe that big money, corporate money, has much too strong a role to play in what laws get passed and which are defeated.
Now, it seems, the nine justices of the high court must choose between the right to speak on politcal matters guaranteed by the First Amendment and the importance of keeping the political playing ground reasonably level so that millions of average American citizens cannot be out-voted by mere hundreds of corporate chieftains.
Think long and hard, you all; the shape of our future government(s), will be in your hands.
Emerson Lynn Jr.
Know1 (anonymous) says...
Tea Bagger BOSS Jenny Beth Martin, 912er PAID REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST
www.truthiest.blogspot.com/search?q=J...
From her personal website www.jenuinejen.com/about/ "Politics is my passion. I have been actively involved in the Republican Party on the county, district, and state levels. I have served as a volunteer on many campaigns. Currently, I am one of the National Coordinators for Tea Party Patriots and one of the Co-Coordinators for the Atlanta Tea Party. In 2008, I began getting paid for my political consulting services for the first time. From 1992 until July, 2007, I volunteered my time and services. ..."
There is evidence that Koch Industries moguls, big funders for all things Tea Party, are doing some of that paying. FreedomWorks is involved, according to an internet dialog on the Tea Party Patriots it was revealed that FreedomWorks owns the logo. The trademark for Tea Party Patriots is registered to Martin, and TEA PARTY PATRIOTS, INC. is incorporated at Martin's home.
WHOIS Nationwide Tea Party Coalition
www.truthiest.blogspot.com/2009/09/wh...
"The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition has started a "Hall Pass on That" campaign which encourages parents to contact schools and request that their children be excused from watching the speech..."
Who is Nationwide Tea Party Coalition to ask anything from anybody? Identify yourselves.
Dana Loesch is the SELF-APPOINTED National Spokesperson -- there is no record of an actual corporation, company or organization forming and hiring, appointing, or winning through elections, elevating Ms Loesch up to her exalted status.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537800,0... We're Not Paid 'GOP Hacks'
Friday, August 07, 2009
DANA LOESCH, RADIO HOST 97.1 FM TALK: I want to know who this "they" is. Who is this they? Republicans? Because I'm not a Republican and not every single person associated with the tea party movement is a Republican
Yes Dana (paid Fox New talk show blabbermouth), YOU ARE PAID REPUBLICAN HACKS.
The Missouri chapter of Americans for Prosperity, which is headed by a former Deputy Speaker of the Missouri State House of Representatives, Republican politician Carl Bearden, organized an anti-health-reform protest ... on July 17th. AFP organizers invited ... Tea Party organizer, and a local radio talk show host, Dana Loesch, who works for a Fox News affiliate station, to promote it. [1] [2] ... AFP, several local conservative bloggers and local radio talk show host Dana Loesch promoted the meeting on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs to attract a crowd. ... After the meeting, Dana Loesch, the conservative talk show radio host blogger who had promoted and attended the town hall meeting, appeared on the Fox News Channel television show, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, where she was referred to as a "radio host" and Tea Party organizer; Dana's affiliation with a Fox News affiliate station was not revealed...
September 3, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Our government has always been heavily influenced by the big banks. Google William Allen White Rockefeller Foundation. Mr White was a Charter member of this organization.
September 4, 2009 at 12:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dexter60 (anonymous) says...
Real Campaign Financing Reform is not sensible if it ignores the root cause of the need.
The passage of McCain-Feingold still left us with illegal contributions as a big problem. The idea that the law is enforced, is quite laughable since the laws are clearly not enforced and the question of legality is mired in continuous frivolous debate.
It is simply a matter of applying the laws that already exist, to the very people who make the law -- contributions to a candidate to be enumerated and reported as income and that taxes be paid on these sums by the candidate. That also means organizations formed to act as a conduit to these candidates. Failure of a candidate to do so is a violation of existing State and Federal laws and is punishable by forfeiture, fine, penalties and interest -- and even prison. No other 'remedy' wishes to address the responsibility of the individual candidate and assumes we may be distracted by an army of straw-man arguments; this to hide the fact that all the problems can be solved in this simple manner: by equal enforcement of the law, without additional cost to taxpayers. In fact this is a tax-law that all taxpayers would invite.
There would be no ill effect from such a tax, the only feature that is limited thereby are for those that are obviously unethical or dishonest. A suggestion of turning a blind eye to official tax evasion, which is where we are today, shows an un-nerving arrogance.
No cost is passed on to the taxpayers.
Our government must, above the plea of all others, remain consistent with the Constitution and not alter our freedoms (particularly of political speech) even by Constitutional amendment -- or the political scene will be changed by any means necessary.
September 16, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
snow (anonymous) says...
Well, I'm thinking the "Citizens United" case already decided in the USSCt has determined that corporations are no different than individuals when it comes to the right to free political speech.
Therefore, the big money is the only issue --- whether it is being spent by Koch Industries (a corporation) or by George Soros (an individual, I'm told).
I'm not sure how you could ban one from spending on speech, but not the other.
Further, how can you tell when what is being spent is "too much"? Is a Michael Moore movie too expensive?
How can you tell what promotes what? Is an Al Gore eco-fairy tale promoting something (other than his own bloated ego and wealth)?
This case goes nowhere. You want to make a movie, make a movie. It's America. Try to force somebody to watch your movie (or my kids in school without asking me first), and that's a different matter.
November 1, 2010 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )