Constitutional Amendment on Corporate Political Spending

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:58am

Politics

introduced by Reps Edwards + Conyers:

SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.

SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Says Edwards:

“The ruling reached by the Roberts’ Court [sic] overturned decades of legal precedent by allowing corporations unfettered spending in our political campaigns,” ... “Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision. A Constitutional Amendment is necessary to undo what this Court has done.

http://washingtonindependent.com/75562/a-bicameral-call-for-a-constitutional-amendment-to-nullify-citizens-united

Are there problems with the Amendment or do you agree with it? Will it pass? Is it good politics even if it doesn't? Is that its sole purpose?

Answers to these questions and more welcomed in comments.
--

Corporations have laws against gifts from customers.

(#205805)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 7:27am.

Congress should have a law against gifts from those they regulate. Simpler than a constitutional amendment, and better. Oh, you can take the money, but you have to resign from the Banking Committee if you take money from banks. There's Barney Frank, chairman of the Banking Committee, with so much cash he spreads it around to his buddies.

I don't think we're worried about corporations talking.

(#205766)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:58pm.

Truly, I don't. What we* are worried about is the ubiquity of false speech, an explosion of FUD and its debunking dominating public discourse at the expense of genuine discussion.

So: here's my proposal -- lower slander and libel requirements for non-human-beings. And be willing to pierce the corporate veil. That way, corporations and their ilk can say whatever they want, but they'll have to be careful to be more truthful than the usual participant. Nobody's particularly worse off, unless they like to lie a lot.

*in the abstract. In the specific, we all have our partisan biases.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Catch 22

(#205780)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:34pm.

If you pierce the corporate veil, you are going after actual human beings. . .who have full First Amendment rights including Sullivan-level protection against defamation suits. Ballgame over.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why I'm supposed to feel threatened by corporations spreading propaganda around, as opposed to George Soros (or, if you prefer, Richard Mellon Sciafe) spreading propaganda around. There's no problem here that can't be alleviated by toughening disclosure laws, or maybe creating a foundation or two designed to fund defamation suits to smack down those who step over the Sullivan line and therefore merit being squashed like bugs for their arrogant presumption that their victims wouldn't be able to fight back.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

No

(#205793)

Submitted by M Aurelius on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:23pm.

Corporations have multiple stakeholders. This is why they are not people.

If you are a stockholder and the corporation gives money to candidates you don't like, your only recourse is to sell the stock. But for a number of reasons you may not be able to.

So even though you are a part owner of the corporation, the people who control it are leveraging their position to use assets that belong to you, and others like you, for the purpose of furthering their speech.

The problem isn't that corporations are big. The problem is that the stakeholders are not, nor should need to be, politically aligned. Political allegiance is not in the mission statements of most corporations, for good reason.

It is similar with unions, or with any other organization not created expressly to further the goals of a particular political group. You can want good pay and working conditions without agreeing to whatever agenda the union leadership wants. Again, leverage in an asymmetrical organization is exploited by a select few.

We don't want to go to a world where the market no longer works because people invest or buy on the basis of political affinity rather than value.

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

Too silly for words.

(#205760)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:49pm.

Is there really anybody around here dumb enough to believe that big corporations (like, say, Goldman Sachs) threaten our "democracy" primarily (or even secondarily) through their contributions to political campaign ads?

Jeezus H. Christ.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

A rhetorical question

(#205769)

Submitted by TXG1112 on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:00pm.

Is there anyone around here stupid enough to think that corporate influence in Government isn't a threat to the Republic?

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

A rhetorical answer

(#205776)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:22pm.

Is there anyone around here stupid enough to think that the threat of corporate influence in Government can be cured by increasing the regulatory powers of government?

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

I proposed a civil solution above. -nt-

(#205779)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:31pm.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Currently or in future?

(#205764)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:54pm.

It's not like there's been no damage to legislation b/c of corporate-funded political advertising.

Whether or not you're happy or sad to see Health Care reform die, it still should be obvious that actual political advertising as well as the threat of political advertising was a central factor.

Obvious???

(#205773)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:14pm.

Most of the relevant corporations were perfectly happy with Obama's version of "Health Care reform."

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

'actual as well as the threat'

(#205778)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:25pm.

We know that AHIP actually shelled out around 20 million under the guise of US Chamber of Commerce advertising.

The threat that these corps would spend more was a significant factor in shaping the conservative Senate bill. That's part of what got the bill into trouble with the left wing and labor supporters in the House. The House + Senate are negotiating over the anti-trust exemption as we write.

Political advertising $ has already contributed to roadblocks in passing legislation. If caps are removed, it's not clear to me there won't be bigger road blocks for other legislation. Including some you might support.

OMG - 20 million!

(#205781)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:44pm.

In other news, I gather that George Soros chipped a fingernail this morning.

But, seriously: this just isn't serious.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

You always just pick on something to make fun of

(#205788)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:35pm.

and never answer a person's strongest counter-arguments.

It doesn't take that much effort and sometimes your participation in comments doesn't even rise to the level of entertainment.

Even for blogging, it's pretty lazy.

Seriously I would love to lose an argument to you sometime.

I'm sure it would happen, but you don't even play, let alone play to win.

Heh.

(#205763)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:52pm.

So, "Harry and Louise" are just figments of our imagination?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Sorry, Desiduosus...

(#205767)

Submitted by vinteuil on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:58pm.

...forgot about you.

So maybe the correct answer to my question was:

YES!

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Raises too many questions

(#205629)

Submitted by HankP on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:00pm.

as others here have mentioned. I'd prefer one that reads as

SECTION 1. Legally chartered organizations such as corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate entities shall in no way inherit any rights of citizenship or personhood except as granted by statute.

Avoids the 1st Amendment completely and gets right to the heart of the matter.

I blame it all on the Internet

I don't like that one

(#205737)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:40pm.

Too lenient. Let me offer an amendment:

SECTION 1. Legally chartered organizations such as corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate entities shall in no way inherit any rights of citizenship or personhood ~~except as granted by statute~~.

I think that works better.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

I put it in there for a reason

(#205750)

Submitted by HankP on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:23pm.

for example, if you want to be able to sue a corporation I believe you'd have to enable it by statute (if an amendment like this passed). If you take away rights you generally take away responsibilities as well. Corporations are not going away, they just need to be put in their proper place which is subordinate to human beings.

Any amendment would require a pretty severe reworking of existing law and precedent, I wouldn't want the language of the amendment to get in the way of that.

I blame it all on the Internet

That's still going pretty far

(#205752)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:35pm.

Under your amendment state governments would have the right to:

-- search and seize corporate property

-- Suppress the written output, on the basis of content, of non-profit political advocacy corps

-- Forbid religious services on corporate property, including churches (many of which are corps).

This all follows from denying people organized as corps protection under the Bill of Rights.

It's possible

(#205784)

Submitted by HankP on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:04pm.

but then again, look at asset forfeiture laws - they're enforced against people but corporations usually get exemptions. Maybe if they faced the same kind of problems we'd get them to use their influence for good. Because make no mistake, even without political contributions they'll still have a lot of influence as large employers.

PACs would probably get some kind of exemption, since they're incorporated specifically to advocate for political issues rather than for profit. Once again, though, they'd be subject to a lot of regulation that they don't face now.

As far as the religious stuff, most politicians that want to get re-elected have learned to make pleasant noises and not actually do much to interfere with it.

I blame it all on the Internet

I wasn't saying those things would likely happen in near future

(#205787)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:30pm.

just spelling out the legal consequences of your proposed amendment: they remove Constitutional protections against such actions by state and local governments.

As for whether some states or municipalities might take the opportunity to discriminate against minority religions, that's not a particularly far out hypothetical.

I think there has to be a convo. about when, where and why groups recognized by states should have the same rights as individuals. The problem seems to me to be with importing the exact same framework from individuals to corps.

You have to look at what's really happening here

(#205795)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:02am.

corporations are designed to limit liability. It started out as purely financial liability but has changed over time to limit their liabilities in other areas such as criminal liability; criminal prosecutions go after individuals but the corporation as a whole is bypassed even if there's a pattern of action that would lead to RICO prosecutions in other contexts. Therefore reducing their rights will naturally lead to increased liability. There's no free lunch, what's now free floating liability and responsibility will have to wind up somewhere. My preference is that it goes back where it belongs, to individuals.

I blame it all on the Internet

But corps don't enjoy financial and criminal limited liability

(#205797)

Submitted by catchy on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:11am.

b/c they're given protections under the Bill of Rights.

You're worrying about statutes and I can agree they're too favorable, and that white collar prosecutions have more teeth, etc.

Your amendment on the other hand is addressed to removing Constitutional protections.

I lean towards working out reasonable exceptions to the rights framework, but still haven't read a decent summary of the ruling.

It's all of a piece

(#205799)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:28am.

remove the foundation and all of a sudden legislation and regulation becomes much simpler specifically because there are no longer any constitutional issues to worry about.

BTW, I've enjoyed this conversation but I see absolutely no chance of this amendment or anything like it ever getting passed.

I blame it all on the Internet

There needs to be some reworking

(#205751)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:34pm.

Otherwise nothing happens. Congress already defines "person" to include a corporation in almost all legislation.

Your amendment says "Corporations don't have any rights except what Congress gives them". And then Congress gives corporations all the rights of people.

This would make it explicit

(#205783)

Submitted by HankP on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:59pm.

and my guess is that a lot of legislation wold have to be rewritten.

I don't believe Congress explicitly defined corporations as persons, I believe it all flows from the Santa Clara case. In any case, this would remove the constitutional bar to a lot of legislation.

I blame it all on the Internet

It has already been as such

(#206102)

Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 9:15pm.

Most every bill that passes Congress defines corporations as "people". It is redundant in many cases because Santa Clara already makes them people in the sense of the Constitution.

This is better. Still doesn't get around 1A language

(#205637)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:31pm.

that is, 'Congress shall make no law' is a prohibition of legislation, not an enumeration of a right...but for better or for worse the Court has found 1A to grant a positive right to free speech, so your amendment will work with current precedent.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

It's a prohibition of legislation affecting "freedom."

(#205654)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:03pm.

"Freedom" is something a cow or a car doesn't have.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

If corporations didn't have freedom of speech

(#205692)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:24pm.

you wouldn't need to abridge it.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

So now cows have 1st Amendment rights?

(#205707)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 5:32pm.

Come on, man.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The appropriate question is "can cows speak"?

(#205815)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:16pm.

Actually, the really appropriate question is "Can Congress pass laws against cows speaking?" The -- admittedly originalist -- answer would be no. SCOTUS isn't remotely originalist on the question of free speech.

But your reductio is false anyway.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

If money is speech,

(#205827)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:57pm.

how can action not be?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

If action is speech,

(#205842)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 2:04pm.

then every Congressional law abridging people's freedom of action is unconstitutional. I have to pay taxes or go to jail? Illegal!

Thank you! Vote Republican!

That's the thing

(#205870)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:24pm.

I've never heard the "money = speech" argument made in any other context. Has the argument ever been made that income taxes reduce free speech? That fines do? Of course not, because anyone could see that it's completely ridiculous in those circumstances.

You're reducing everyone's salary 5%? FREE SPEECH VIOLATION!

I blame it all on the Internet

Stinerman posted some to the effect

(#205873)

Submitted by brutusettu on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:30pm.

that the later amendments supersede previous amendments.

That system of later amendments taking in consideration first is the only way to make sense of the repeal of prohibition, the 2 aren't matter and anti-matter.

So the income tax amendment takes precedent, and overrides the 1st amendment question in that regard.

. . ..

That's fine for income tax

(#205878)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:40pm.

but it doesn't address any other situation where salaries are reduced or money is taken or withheld. Fraud isn't described as a free speech issue, nor is any other financial crime. Budget cuts aren't described as a free speech issue.

I'm not talking about which amendments override the others, I'm talking about the use of the argument "money = speech".

I blame it all on the Internet

This isn't very hard

(#206119)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:26pm.

5% tax on everyone - constitutional
5% tax on people making over $250K - constitutional
5% tax on people who criticize Hillary Clinton - unconstitutional

Property tax on all property - constitutional
Property tax on businesses - constitutional
Property tax on properties whose owners decline to consent to warrantless searches - unconstitutional

Tax breaks and limited liability for everyone - constitutional
Tax breaks and limited liability for corporations - constitutional
Tax breaks and limited liability for corporations, unless they make movies criticizing Hillary Clinton* - unconstitutional

I'll admit there are some hard borderline cases, but in general creating financial penalties or hardships to punish activities the BoR was clearly meant to protect isn't acceptable.

*Exactly the case at hand, in case anyone forgot.

Not really

(#206124)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:15pm.

Tax breaks and limited liability for non-profit corporations (specifically churches), only if they waive their first amendment rights to political speech - constitutional

I blame it all on the Internet

Yikes, that's a good one. Church exemption.

(#206169)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:15am.

I'll have to look up whether that rule ever faced a 1A challenge...I don't frankly see how it could survive. Can Congress make a law that pays people to give up their freedom of speech/press? That's exactly what the rule does.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

This court would probably strike it down

(#206181)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:27pm.

but it would be a case of the dog catching the car - churches really, really don't want to lose that tax exemption. If this ever made it to the court we might see "money = speech" used in a different context.

I blame it all on the Internet

Not necessarily

(#206321)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:00am.

The court could block the tax exemption, but they could equally well leave the tax exemption but remove the speech restriction. Best of both from the church's point of view.

But you do have a good point - this isn't acceptable, and ought to be corrected.

Good grief, no.

(#206350)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:06pm.

Any buyout that keeps the Churches from being direct political speakers on a candidate-by-candidate basis is worth the money.

Because people have free speech. But organizations just are. See?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The Church Exemption

(#206529)

Submitted by Model 62 on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:50pm.

and speech restriction has less to do with any given church's status as an organization and more to do with its status as a church. The Framers, for various reasons, were keen to keep organized religion at least an arm's length away from the government.

The other exceptions survive because any organization with a tax exemption would be using* government resources to do political work.

--------------
*yes, somewhat indirectly

**My recent ACLU renewal was not tax deductible for this reason.

We've been over why that argument doesn't work.

(#206511)

Submitted by Jordan on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:12am.

If organizations don't speak, then how could Congress pass laws preventing them from speaking? And if they do speak, then no law avoids the "shall make no law" clause.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

No, because if money = speech,

(#206519)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:06pm.

then Congress can pass no law regulating how organizations can spend their money.

You're working too hard, man. Organizations don't "speak." People do, and they sometimes do collectively through organizations. But the org itself takes no action, only the people within it.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Nonresponsive.

(#206520)

Submitted by Jordan on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:15pm.

If the organization doesn't "speak," then Congress can't very well pass a law regulating its speech, can it? And if Congress can pass a law regulating its speech, then it must be able to speak.

If only the people within the org speak, then Congress can't limit their speech either. Because they're people.

Can't have it both ways.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that this is productive conversatio

(#206521)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:18pm.

Your interpretation of the law is so strict that it makes it illegal for the government to mandate that official military secrets be kept secret, under force of law.

You're asking me how much speech angels on a pin can have. Enjoy that, but I don't see it as meaningful. In general, when you multiply by infinity, or divide by zero, you can sustain or destroy any logical edifice. So . . . don't.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Is there some equivalent to military secrets/nat'l security/

(#206533)

Submitted by Jordan on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:14pm.

fraud/yelling fire in a theater that trumps free speech in the case of corporations? If you don't have some specific legal concept in mind (public good, anti-trust, something), then I'm afraid you're just railing at me for making too much sense.

It may seem self-evident that money corrupts election outcomes. It does to me. But there's not a shred of precedent to hang legal action on as far as I can tell.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

How about treason?

(#205879)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:42pm.

Shouldn't it be superseded by the First Amendment, if the Constitution is an ordinal document?

Please the Court, I was merely expressing my right to help the country's enemies annihilate 3ID....

Thank you! Vote Republican!

It would be

(#206108)

Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 9:37pm.

If we took every word of the Constitution literally. I'd rather we did, but that isn't how it works. Justices make charitable interpretations when intent is more obvious.

Give me a break

(#206125)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:17pm.

no fraud laws, no espionage laws? This is just getting silly.

I blame it all on the Internet

Perhaps I'll write a diary on the subject

(#206143)

Submitted by stinerman on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 2:54am.

I believe laws should be interpreted extremely literally so that bad laws get amended, not because I believe that fraud should be legal.

When there is room for interpretation, the borders of what is legal behavior is in doubt. If the legislature did its job properly, a computer program should be able to do the job of interpreting most of our laws.

Recall Chief Justice Robert's "balls and strikes" comment. He's right, so it's a shame he doesn't take his own advice.

You're not talking about laws,

(#206156)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 4:57am.

you're talking about the constitution (which includes treason, by the way, the only crime defined in the original unamended text). A constitutional amendment for fraud laws? Crazy, a recipe for no laws at all.

People are not computers or programs, and expecting them to act that way will lead to disaster.

I blame it all on the Internet

Don't be so literal

(#206171)

Submitted by stinerman on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 10:42am.

Laws, constitution, whatever. Same thing.

As long as precedent is rock-solid, I can manage. My point is that we shouldn't need to rely on precedent so much.

Everything was going along pretty well until the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights over the states. It was great for certain people of the South, but it really jacked up proper reading of the Constitution.

I strongly believe that if something says "Congress shall make no law", that should mean "Congress shall make no law". Not "Congress shall make no law unless it has a compelling government interest in making such a law". This goes the same for the stretching of the commerce clause from "The Congress shall have power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" to "Congress can regulate anything they want so long as it might have an incidental effect on commerce".

Law will always be interpreted

(#206180)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:23pm.

like I said, it's not a computer program and never will be. Trying to remove human interpretation from law is pointless. Besides, laws are aspirational, not a physical rendering of reality.

Laws and the constitution are not the same, laws are meant to change as needed while the bar to changing the constitution is very high.

I blame it all on the Internet

Except...

(#206177)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 1:07pm.

...that that's the only sensible reading of that clause in the context of the existence of pollution.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Which, by the way,

(#206188)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 5:47pm.

is part of why that clause is so good -- it allows us to reflect our changing scientific understanding of the world and its interconnectedness in our interpretation of the principle behind it.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Good point

(#205890)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 5:06pm.

"Congress shall make no law" seems to have gotten a bit trampled there.

I blame it all on the Internet

What if Congress passed an Amendment

(#205877)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:40pm.

postulating that it go before the other Amendments? The "new" First Amendment, as it were? I even have some draft language prepared for the occasion:

First!

Anyway, the idea that the Constitution is a sequential document seems legally & logically suspect to me. It's not a computer program, it's a body of law.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

I don't know

(#206106)

Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 9:34pm.

That'd be interesting. It'd also have to be part of the amendment.

In Ohio, we voters have to approve any amendments to the state constitution by majority vote (something I strongly disagree with, but that's neither here nor there). So when there is some grand liberal plan to wrong a particular ill, there is invariably instructions to the judiciary on how to interpret the amendment.

The backers of the amendment know that the public doesn't really care about the minutia, so they sneak in a lot of that stuff to see what they can get away with. This is how, on our 2009 ballot, giving a particular gaming company monopoly rights to build casinos on particular plots of land in particular cities became "You want casinos?".

So to bring us back after my sidebar, we haven't done it in the federal constitution, but I think states have done something similar. To what respect our Supreme Court gives those instructions merit, I can't say.

While not a program, it is assertions

(#205937)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 8:48pm.

which do have a place in programming.

There are problem with assertions: I seldom use them myself. They have a bad habit of subtly changing memory-based data and they mangle threads.

But other than that, yes, the US Constitution does resemble an AI ruleset. Given a body of evidence and the rules themselves, we toss it all into the AI feed hopper and watch the mills of the gods grind ever so slowly.

dup

(#205936)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 8:48pm.

Depends on how you ask the question

(#205736)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:37pm.

As many on the starboard side are fond of saying:

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it restricts government.

That's absolutely true if you actually read the document.

So what does the Constitution say about speech? It says Congress may not abridge it. It doesn't say that people have free speech; it says Congress may not abridge free speech. Notice that it makes no distinction as to who is doing the speaking.

The question to ask is not "who has the right to free speech?" it is "Is Congress abridging any speech with this law?". If the answer to the latter is "yes" the law in question is unconstitutional (outside of already accepted precedent).

Neither cows nor kites...

(#205757)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:39pm.

...nor corporations "speak," unless legally recognized as entities which do so.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Actually corporations do "speak" and they quite certainly

(#205816)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:17pm.

use the press, so your analogy is invalid. Neither cows nor kites do either.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Actually, that's my point.

(#205829)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:58pm.

People "speak." Corporations only "speak" insofar as the people in them take action -- leave the people out, and the buildings and computers and joint option statements just kinda sit there.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

You could say the same about

(#205840)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 2:02pm.

the government itself. Think of a corporation not as a building with staplers in it, but rather as a club made up of people who choose representatives to speak for them. Same diddly.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Red staplers.

(#205846)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 2:29pm.

Nina: Now Milton, don't be greedy, let's pass it along and make sure everyone gets a piece.
Milton Waddams: Yeah, but last time I didn't receive a piece. And I was told...
Nina: Just pass.
[while the cake passes Milton mutters - eventually everybody but Milton gets a piece]
Milton Waddams: [muttering] I could set the building on fire.

Unnecessary

(#205625)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:44am.

Congress can pass some draconian disclosure laws that keep Corporations from dong too much damage.

If I find out Company X is producing political ads I am going to stop buying Company X's products. My guess is a lot of people will feel the same way. My next guess is a building full of corporate lawyers will find a way around the disclosure laws and the cat and mouse game will go on and on.

This is just politics. The Dems are going to use this as a wedge issue and this is a good way to start.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Excellent approach that doesn't require amending the

(#205695)

Submitted by tomsyl on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:30pm.

Constitution. And boycotts wouldn't be necessary either if the disclosures had to be made before the elections in a transparent and readily accessible way - we would know who was bought and therefore who not to vote for.

Amending the Constitution in a knee-jerk, short-sighted way like this strikes me as a bad idea.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

Blue, you're forgetting that a ton of corporations

(#205683)

Submitted by corky on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:00pm.

do not produce products directly consumed by...consumers.

I don't know what the percentage is, but I bet it's over 50%.

Joe Corn, Co. could spend unlimited amounts of money on lobbying for corn (hell, somehow they do it anyway) and no one is going to stop buying corn from them because no one person does. Kelloggs does. Coca-cola does.

I, personally, think that corporations should be able to spend "some" amount of money on speech. I don't want to live in a world where Ralph Nader, LLC can bash any/all corps without letting them fight back. Unlimited funding seems to be extreme...

It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me

Publicly traded companies have to worry about...

(#205688)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:18pm.

....their stock price as well. That should keep them from going too crazy with the political advertising.

It is important to remember that the businesses we are talking about exist to make money, not to get politicians elected. Publicly backing a politician is a risky thing to do. If the pol you are backing loses you have made an enemy. If the public finds out you are funding attack ads that may hurt your bottom line or stock price. That is why I don't think we will see big companies doing much direct political advertising.

I am on your side on this issue, I just think there are a lot of practical reasons corporate America will refrain from spending a ton of $$ on elections.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

The place I'm really stuck on...

(#205690)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:21pm.

...is this idea that a nontrivial number of Americans would be aware of, much less disapprove of, corporate political advertising.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

What about Fox News viewers?

(#205699)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:40pm.

If Widget Corp. runs an ad against Senator McConnell don't you think Fox News and their viewers will go apeshnt? I do.

If I were the CEO of Widget Corp I wouldn't take that risk. What I would do is funnel $$ to the America Rulz! Fund so they can attack the good Senator. The way to prevent that from getting out of hand is to require political advertisers to disclose their ownership/funding.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Yeah.

(#205708)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 5:36pm.

Because I'm worried about corporations running ads against nutbar conservatives. That's the big thing I needed to be reassured about.

Well, tell you what. I am. I am totally reassured that nutbar conservatives will be essentially untouched by total corporate control of our media and political process.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Absolutely.

(#205635)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:27pm.

And if I find out Company X puts melamine in their milk, I will also magically know before purchasing it for my children that they do, because I have an infinite quantity of time to spend researching every purchasing decision, and an infinite number of competing companies to choose from for every decision, and an infinite amount of energy to spend schlepping from place to place to implement my decision.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

You are overstating the problem

(#205649)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:54pm.

The reward big companies will receive from political advertising is much less than the risk of turning off potential customers. That along with strong disclosure laws should keep the big corps from spending gobs of $$ on political advertisements.

What don't you understand about that?

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

I have no idea what you're talking about.

(#205652)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:01pm.

Seriously, how deeply do you think people in general follow politics, such that any company at any time would conceivably get a penalty for political advertising?

You can drop the theory that I'm stupid, by the way. It turns out, I'm not. So if I disagree with you, it's for a different reason.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Des, not for nothing, but....

(#205667)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:32pm.

.....you yourself generally observe "so if I disagree with you, it's for a different reason" in the breach. You do make the minor addition that the disagreeable person must be either stupid or evil, but this tends not to help matters. Just sayin'.

Edit: Actually, to be fair, sometimes you go for stupid and evil. :^)

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Dude, my thesis is that conservatism is evil.

(#205676)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:46pm.

And you'll note that I had a very different response to, for example, Wagster's ongoing thesis that opposition to passing the Senate bill is evil.

Not that it matters -- I understand that conservatives are people and liberals aren't, so any pattern which includes conservatives and excludes liberals includes all people.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Extending that logic, BG,

(#205734)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:35pm.

because conservatism is evil and you and I ascribe to conservative principles, we must also be evil, or at best evildoers, or perhaps Satan's spawn.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Politically, yes.

(#205758)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:47pm.

Sheesh.

The 2004 re-nomination of George W. Bush without controversy showed without a doubt that the conservative movement, and its organ in US politics, does not have as one of its major goals the welfare of this country or the people in it. I can't think of any other reason why W's re-nomination would be uncontroversial, given his then-known record.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Sheesh indeed

(#205771)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 9:05pm.

I didn't know there was a difference between politically evil and just plain evil. Speaking of evil, when it came to Bush, the people chose the lesser of, which is how it works in presidential politics.

Bush's renomination was indeed uncontroversial. He was the incumbent, and the economy was doing decently at the time.

When you say that the conservative movement "does not have as one of its major goals the welfare of this country or the people in it," it is just an opinion from a person who has said that "conservatism is evil," which is also just an opinion.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

BD, I know you don't read my posts,

(#205800)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:48am.

which is fine, but I said "re-nomination," and that doesn't refer to "lesser of two evils," it refers to "no serious opponent."

Yes, it is my opinion that "conservatism is evil." That's my opinion. Insofar as you get conservatism on you, you get evil on you. People are complicated, and basically kind and decent folks can do truly awful things. Certainly, that's one of the great lessons of the 20th Century.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Really?

(#205802)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 3:16am.

Judging by your comment, you didn't read my post, since I mentioned Bush's renomination. FTR, I do read your comments, and then I dismiss most of them because they're extremist, such as your "conservatism is evil" bullsh*t. But I do find them mildly entertaining, contentless and factless as they are.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

"And the economy was doing decent at the time."

(#205811)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:08pm.

Bush was the first President since Hoover to preside over a net job loss.

GDP growth in 2003 was 2.48%, which is well below trend. His nomination was sealed by February of 2004, when the unemployment rate was 5.4%, a little worse than good.

I don't understand why you say things that just aren't true in your posts and then complain that others' statements are either contentless or factless.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Misleading

(#205857)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 3:55pm.

Your first sentence is irrelevant because you're the one who brought up his renomination, not his entire term. I don't understand why you say things that are misleading or move the goalposts.

At the time of his renomination, employment was growing and moving a toward a net job gain by November 2004. GDP growth in the first 3 quarters of 2004 was 2.82%, 2.84% and 2.94%. Not great, but decent, and it was a strong enough of an economy to work in Bush's favor, which was my point.

A 5.4% unemployment rate is not far from full employment, so your complaint makes little sense.

I'm glad you actually inserted a few facts, which is an improvement over the thousands of contentless and factless comments that you've put forth previously.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Yes.

(#205738)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:42pm.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

I respond in kind

(#205662)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:16pm.

Your snark filled comment about infinite time and magical thinking didn't lead me to believe you think my IQ has 3 digits. If you want a better response from me then maybe you should lighten up on the snark.

The point I am making is that large companies will avoid directly paying for political advertising because it will be bad for business.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Right, but it's based on fantasy.

(#205666)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:23pm.

Which is my point, and the point of others here. Having a fallacious step in a line of reasoning is very different from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of reading your thesis. I read your thesis, and I think there's a fallacious step.

To put it another way, what's your plan for buying groceries when every grocery store in your city is a contributor? Because I guarantee you -- they already are.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

"they already are"

(#205671)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:40pm.

That is exactly the point. Things won't change too much because large companies are already funneling their political spending through other entities. They won't change this because directly funding political ads will be bad for business.

What will change is that instead of paying PACs, the money will go to corporations, LLC's and non-profits. Since it is easier to hide ownership of a corporation, LLC or non-profit Congress needs to enact tougher disclosure laws (as well as foreign ownership/funding laws). Once those laws are in place things will look like they do now.

As a result, I won't need an infinite amount of time to decide where to go grocery shopping.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Sure you will.

(#205674)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:44pm.

Since you'll need to budget 3 hours back and forth to the one place that managed to hide things pretty well.

Also, you exemplify the average American, so they all will, too.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

LOL

(#205684)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:02pm.

If you say so.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Furthermore,

(#205689)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:20pm.

there will rarely or never come a time when the policy priority -- union-busting, for example -- is more important than the few customers which would be lost.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

If it isn't important enough for people to care....

(#205723)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:15pm.

...why is it important enough to regulate?

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

To save us all time

(#205725)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:23pm.

Don't you value it?

Consumer regs that....

(#205735)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:38pm.

...impose a given standard save me time, assuming that the standard is really universal enough that I accept it.

i.e. reg that says crib must not be able to fall apart and kill infant = basically universally accepted by anybody likely to buy a crib

But Desi's example doesn't cross that threshold. You can tell people 'till you're blue in the face that Wal-mart union-busts; most couldn't care less. I'll still buy there routinely, and I've never seen it empty.

Des is taking the above to be a flaw. I say it's a feature. If you don't care enough for a clearly stated corporate behavior to matter as far as your own behavior, then said corporate behavior doesn't matter.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

(#205804)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 7:19am.

Corporate money is sewage, pig slop thrown in the political troughs. It perverts justice. It destroys regulation.

Walmart is a nightmarish corporation: I'd never shop there, knowing they lock in their workers and pay people caca. I'm a Costco man, and always will be. Walmart is for people who don't know and in your case, don't care that Walmart does these things. I'm cheap, but I'm not low rent, and anyone who patronizes Walmart is one step down from trailer trash.

Oh, I know, greed is a tenet of Guerreristianity and Gordon Gekko is y'all's patron saint. Reminds me of Quark in DS9 and the Rules of Acquisition.

That's basically the issue.

(#205759)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 8:50pm.

If you think that corporate ownership of our political process is bad, then you have to accept that there is no way, outside of regulation, that such an activity could be prevented.

BG, you know as well as I do that there are "tragedy of the commons" issues all over this problem. For example, I could completely care about this set of issues, but be aware that, in the absence of an organized boycott, my actions are totally irrelevant.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I don't think that problem.....

(#205786)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:23pm.

...is at all insurmountable in this case. A fairly widespread boycott can be organized pretty quickly in the age of Teh Webs. All it takes is some viral email, a good story and maybe a green-light from Snopes. See Wholefoods.

Now, whether people care enough about your pet peeves (or mine) to actually take part in such things is another story. I think you're on better ground with the idea that if corporate contributions are widespread enough you might not find any "clean hands" to buy from. But IMHO, most CEOs are actually bad-publicity averse, particularly in consumer facing industries.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

This seems like a cheap way to replace...

(#205801)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 1:59am.

...our prison system...

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The Scarlet G? - nt

(#205808)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:14am.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

No, no,

(#205812)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:39am.

even simpler -- someone will publish a list, and we'll all be able to memorize it and apply it immediately and proportionately, depending on expense.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Suicidal Tendencies...

(#205685)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:11pm.

Thanks for the blast from the past!!! Those guys were great! Apart from getting a good thumping at their concert in the Top Hat in Dublin, nothing but good memories :)

I don't like this attitude

(#205628)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:54am.

If I find out Company X is producing political ads I am going to stop buying Company X's products. My guess is a lot of people will feel the same way.

Ordinary citizens who have jobs and families and limited time should be able to outsource some of these tasks to public officials. That's one reason libertarian opposition to the FDA is so ridiculous.

I don't want to have to read another set of investigative reports on political advertising contributions to inform my consumer decision-making. Just as I don't want to have to investigate who's producing dangerous products, who uses sweatshops, or who doesn't give their employees healthcare.

I just want some standards legally codified and enforced so everyone doesn't have to waste all their time and energy being a super-informed consumer. That time and energy is better-spent by the majority of the public elsewhere and should be turned over to pubic servants.

Ideally this should apply to corporations making political advertisements. Consumer-choices can't, and shouldn't be expected to, police everything.

Can't speak

(#205687)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 2:11pm.

for purist libertarians, but I'd be satisfied with a system where non-FDA approved drugs are allowed, but had to carry a large skull-and-crossbones and "Danger: Not FDA Approved" in large type.

On your larger point - You've got some behavior you think is unethical. Depending on how strongly you feel, you might want to (a) outright ban it because it's unethical, or (b) simply boycott it. You appear to be arguing for a ban not on a basis of the behavior being unethical, but on the basis of boycotts being too inconvenient for the busy or uninformed. I would argue that if the behavior itself isn't bad enough to justify an outright ban, then convenience is certainly insufficient.

Or to make it simpler, if someone is beating children in sweatshops, our convenience in knowing about it is not the major issue.

I'm for the same system

(#205730)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:30pm.

The FDA should be advisory, not regulatory.

Why the skull-and-crossbones?

(#205722)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:09pm.

What a nanny-stater you are.

I probably wasn't clear. Suppose you identify something a large majority disapprove of -- defective children's toys, excessive corporate political contributions.

The question is what mechanism you prefer for stopping it -- boycotts or public regulators.

I think the tradeoffs are often too high to lean towards boycotts: 300 million people having to hyper-educate themselves before shopping is a calamitous waste of resources when 38 regulators serving the public interest could handle many situations.

I personally resent the strain on my time as it is -- wondering whether I should have money in this under-regulated bank, whether Walmart is still screwing its employees, whether Starbucks is paying their bean pickers slave wages this year, etc.

Ideally I want to designate someone to handle this crap, and expect this when there's a broad consensus against something, e.g. excessive political contributions from corps.

Public regulators should save everyone the trouble.

The larger point is...

(#205632)

Submitted by Blue Neponset on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:10pm.

...multinational corporations know that directly funding political ads is bad for business so they will avoid it. Instead they will fund PAC's like they do now. If the disclosure laws are tough enough it will discourage big corps from spending large sums of $$ on elections.

I just don't think we need to amend the Constitution to deal with this issue.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Yes, no, no, yes, yes.

(#205620)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:20am.

Problems? Let's start with the precedent set by our first ever instance of officially repealing part of the Bill of Rights. Then 20-50 years of court cases trying to clarify who qualifies as the "press". But above all, the great gaping loophole allowing unlimited regulation of individual speech, if they are related in any way, including buying from one, selling to one, working for one, or investing their money with one, because that's exactly the reasoning that is already used in interpreting the interstate commerce power, and is the basis for most federal regulations that affect our daily lives. The 1st Amendment offers zero protection, because this amendment comes after, and therefore overrides, the 1st Amendment.

Agree with it? Heh.

Will it pass? No. More than 1/4 of the states are Republican and this is a Democrat bill.

Good politics? Yes, for Edwards and Conyers. Gets their base excited but has no chance of actual consequences.

Is that its sole purpose? Obviously politics is the whole point.

Not repealing the Bill of Rights

(#205626)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:45am.

overturning a SCOTUS case that went beyond what the BOR ever said.

Then 20-50 years of court cases trying to clarify who qualifies as the "press".

As opposed to 20-50 yrs. of court cases deciding what counts as a 'foriegn' vs. 'domestic' corp. Take your pick.

But above all, the great gaping loophole allowing unlimited regulation of individual speech, if they are related in any way, including buying from one, selling to one, working for one, or investing their money with one, because that's exactly the reasoning that is already used in interpreting the interstate commerce power...

Interesting pt. and I think you're right that the scope would have to be narrowed in some way, but I don't know how to formulate it to avoid the probs you mentioned.

What eeyn524 and Bird Dog said....

(#205624)

Submitted by Jay C on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:38am.

Good politics, no chance of passage.

"Good" IMHO, of course: the problem of how to keep the political playing as level as possible without stepping on someone or other's "free speech" rights is a tricky one: but as usual, the current SCOTUS has gone for the privileges of money. What a surprise.

Don't think it'd pass judicial review.

(#205612)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:12am.

Section 2 probably doesn't nullify 1A to begin with...even if it does, SCOTUS would destroy this for exactly what it would be. A giant gaping hole through which Congress can limit speech/press pretty much whenever it wants. Wouldn't a press itself be a corporation, LLC or other corporate entity? Bingo, regulation of the press.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but the Court's legal dilemma is quite a bit bigger than this amendment can fix.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Judicial review?

(#205615)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:33am.

How could a court find an Amendment to the Constitution Unconstitutional?

This is proposed in order to bypass judicial review.

Wouldn't a press itself be a corporation, LLC or other corporate entity?

So there's a prob. with the amend.

In past we've made distinctions between press corps. and non-press corps.

I don't think that's any more or less tenable than drawing a distinction e.g. between foreign and non-foreign corp.

I don't think an Amendment is immune to review,

(#205633)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:23pm.

especially if it conflicts with other enumerated rights. Imagine an amendment repealing the 14th Amendment, or an amendment granting Congress the power to command an army. I doubt that kind of thing would go uncontested, though obviously if an amendment actually passes the Court is pretty much SOL.

Not a chance in hell of this one passing.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Where'd you get that?

(#205728)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:28pm.

Amendments can't clash with others? Ever heard of the 21st Amendment?

The whole idea of an amendment is to ... amend sections of the Constitution. By definition a Constitutional amendment is constitutional. Later amendments supersede newer ones.

Problems galore

(#205610)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:05am.

Any corporation, LLC, etc. that wants to express political speech can create a separate press subsidiary or the like, and they'll still be able to produce messages that you don't like. To me, better to have immediate, accurate and transparent disclosures. Plus, such an amendment is a complete pipe dream.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Replying to myself

(#205669)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 1:31pm.

There may be one avenue where corporate political speech could be more regulated. Just like business entities are required to be truthful in their advertising and labeling (or face penalities), perhaps a similar standard could be applied to political speech, where provably false claims could be fined.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

That would involve overturning more 1A precedent

(#205727)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:27pm.

than Citizens United.

Oh, wouldn't that be the day

(#205726)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 7:24pm.

Now if only we could fine pundits and politicians for saying demonstrably false things.

What is meant by 'the press'

(#205613)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:17am.

is already something that has to be addressed.

GE and Newscorp. already enjoy advantages other corps don't.

better to have immediate, accurate and transparent disclosures

Enforcing that seems more difficult than defining 'the press'.

Plus, such an amendment is a complete pipe dream.

So it's just a political stunt. Is it a good one?

You can define what "press" is,

(#205621)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 11:29am.

but it doesn't mean that such a definition is constitutional. Personally, I take the broad view that, with the Internet and all, everyone is a journalist, and a that a free press is a natural extension of free speech.

As to whether Edwards-Conyers is a political stunt, the answer is, of course it is. How else do you define legislation proposed by majority members that has exactly zero chance of passage? This is all about sending a message. If the political stunt were a good one, you would expect some practical result to come out of it, and I see none in this case. It seems like their time would be more productively spent crafting some passable legislation that would actually address the issues and loopholes that arose from the Citizens United case, instead of the pipe dream of trying to override a USSC decision.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy