Score One for Free Speech: Supreme Court Ruled Government Can’t Ban Political Spending or Political Speech by Corporations in Elections
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on January 22, 2010
Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS building
I’m of the mind as of late that if Pres. Obama doesn’t like something and publicly denounces it, then it’s usually something I will very likely support.
On the surface, this new Supreme Court ruling may appear to protect those nasty corporations (you know, the evil ones who hire people like you and me and pay us for our work so that we can buy food, pay our rent, and have fairly healthy, safe, comfortable lives… oh, the horrors of it) to spend what they want and say what they want in political arenas during candidate elections, while squashing the little guy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It protects everyone, including the little guy… keeping the government from being able to punish political dissenters.
Freedom of speech protects all Americans, and the Supreme Court ruling prevents a distinction from being made to prevent free political speech or political funding if a corporation does it. There is outrage among liberals right now, because the sheeple rhetoric is that this ruling benefits the “bad guys”; ALL corporations are evil, Republican, and conservative… so laughable and pitifully ignorant when you look at how outrageously well off financially those in the DNC are. Corporation heads and other Democrat leaders and spokespeople are RICH. Bill Gates, David Geffen, and Warren Buffet are RICH. Rev. Jesse Jackson is RICH. Caroline Kennedy and John Kerry are RICH. Liberals in the arts and entertainment industries, ranging from hip hop artists to filmmakers to fashion designers to football players, and entertainers like Matt Damon and Sean Penn, Usher and Jennifer Aniston, Barbra Streisand and George Clooney — all Democrats who voted for Barack Obama — are FILTHY RICH, either serve on executive boards, have high ranking positions in liberal corporations (e.g., film, TV, or music industries), or are funded by liberal corporations for political projects that endorse Democrat candidates and politicians and/or target and/or intend to attack and malign Republican opposition (remember that about 30 of Obama’s lawyers were dispatched to Alaska to “dig up dirt” on VP running mate, Sarah Palin – who exactly PAID for those lawyers’ round-trip plane tickets, huge per-diem expenses, and hourly fees?). Republicans aren’t the only ones who have fat bank accounts (I’m a middle-class conservative and registered Republican, so please be aware that not every conservative nor Republican is wealthy, just as not every liberal nor Democrat is wealthy… I know that Obama fans don’t believe that’s remotely possible because of the lies they’re spoon-fed by the DNC, but it’s true). But I digress.
If all corporations were conservative and Republican (and, oh yes, don’t forget EVIL), where does that place Oprah Winfrey? She’s at the head of Harpo Productions, employs many people, has her own magazine and other interests and investments, yada yada. Where does that place liberal filmmaker and hypocrite Michael Moore or gazillionaire George Soros and his left-wing mouthpiece, Media Matters?
The list is lengthy… newspapers are corporations, as are book publishers, radio stations, retail outlets, engineering companies, Hollywood film companies, sports franchises, small businesses, bakeries, Microsoft, Sony, Dunkin’ Donuts, MSNBC, Harvard College (which is reportedly the oldest corporation in the western hemisphere)… not just “Big Oil” or Wall Street… corporations are not defined by their political affiliation, but usually by what they do and by them making a profit (unless they’re a non-profit or not-for-profit corporation, of course) by selling goods, services, and/or intellectual or creative properties.
Nothing on earth is wrong with that — it’s part of the American dream and legacy… unless you have a socialist/fascist mentality. Then, “profits” are to be detested, denounced (unless they are YOUR profits — more hypocrisy)… and must be given to the all-knowing government to help those “less fortunate.” The greater the profits made, the more loathsome a corporation is, and thus, must be punished for its prosperity with more taxes.
In a nutshell, a corporation is treated by the law as a separate “person,” distinct from the people who own or manage it. The corporation can enter into contracts, incur debts, and pay taxes. Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people.
This SCOTUS ruling throws out much of the restrictive, unconstitutional 2002 law, with its complicated rules, thus protecting us all and adhering to the intent of the First Amendment… even if you don’t agree with any given person’s ideology. Which is the whole point. Plus, Obama hates this Supreme Court ruling. All the more reason to not hate it.
This ruling permits liberal Keith “Left-wing Moonbat” Olbermann to continue being a liberal jackass. Which is his basic American right. It also protects Rush Limbaugh. See how that works? It protects ALL Americans, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Terrific summary about the Supreme Court’s decision, from Patterico’s Pontifications… here’s the opening of Why Yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision Was Right — A Rant:
I had to run out the door yesterday just after that wonderful Supreme Court decision came down, so I didn’t have time to write a little tribute to it. But it’s thrilling to see free speech reaffirmed like that, and I think I should explain why.
To sum it up: in the case the Supreme Court decided yesterday, the federal government tried to prevent a documentary about Hillary Clinton from being aired close to her election. The federal government tried to squelch political speech exactly when it was most needed and most effective. How? On the basis that the documentary was a corporate-funded television broadcast.
So? It’s speech. That’s what the Supreme Court recognized yesterday.
The scary implications of the movie-banners’ position became clear at oral argument when a government lawyer suggested the government could also ban corporate-funded books just before an election.
Now are you starting to see the problem? Of course, the government lawyer didn’t. He’s in the business of defending political censorship, after all. Why should it matter what form the speech we want to censor takes?
But this is oppressive and wrong. In America, we do not squelch political speech.
I have been a consistent opponent of this terrible, unconstitutional law forever. They passed this dog of a law back in 2002, and I have been railing against it since the inception of my blog in 2003, when I equated it to the repeal of the First Amendment.
In 2004, when the FEC wanted to regulate a Michael Moore movie, I was furious:
[A]dvisory counsel for the FEC has advised the Commission that, in his opinion, the McCain-Feingold law prevents Michael Moore from advertising his film “Fahrenheit 9/11″ after July 30, 2004.
I am not joking.
I’ll bet a lot of you thought I was being hysterical when I equated McCain-Feingold with the repeal of the First Amendment. How do you feel now? — now that there is a serious possibility that a filmmaker cannot advertise his film because it contains speech calculated to encourage people to oppose a sitting president?
I despise Michael Moore. But people like Kevin Murphy and me believe that jerks like Michael Moore have the right to make whatever ridiculous arguments they wish to make. And if those arguments are made in a film, and Moore or the distributor of his film wish to promote that film, they have that right under the First Amendment.
Now, the Supreme Court has recognized that right.
The Very Serious Law Professor Rick Hasen, quoted all over creation yesterday as bemoaning yesterday’s decision, once talked about whether government could take Stephen Colbert’s show away when he announced a tongue-in-cheek campaign for the presidency. I called his post “a very sober discussion — you can almost visualize Hasen furrowing his brow as he taps out the post — of whether someone can exercise his core First Amendment rights without running afoul of the blatantly unconstitutional obstacles that Our Caring Government has put in our way.”
This is how insane the pro-censorship crowd gets.
You have to defend these principles for the other guy — because if you don’t, you’ll lose them for yourself. Democrats tried to use this ridiculous law to squelch the speech of Swift Boat Vets in 2004. Democrats are notorious anti-free speech thugs, as they have repeatedly proven. No wonder Barack Obama is upset about yesterday’s decision. It removes the power of his Executive Branch to go around stamping out dissent — which he would sorely love to do under the rubric of “campaign finance reform.”
Sorry, Barry. Won’t wash. You’ll have to find some other excuse.
There is more… go to Patterico to read the rest of this excellent essay.
From Hot Air, Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down some McCain-Feingold provisions; Update: Opinion added:
Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.
The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.
Here’s the news report from New York Times: Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit:
WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business.
The decision will be felt most immediately in the coming midterm elections, given that it comes just two days after Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and as popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses continues to boil.
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
The justices in the majority brushed aside warnings about what might follow from their ruling in favor of a formal but fervent embrace of a broad interpretation of free speech rights.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
From The B.S. Report:
While I’m not a cheerleader for big corporations, this decision takes power away from the unions who wish to control us and gives them competition. This is a free speech issue and we shouldn’t have the government telling us whose views are proper and acceptable and whose aren’t. Interesting that Democrats actually come out proudly against the 1st Amendment.
From Mickey Edwards at The Iconoclast, The Atlantic:
Predictably, conservatives and liberals have taken quite different positions on the Supreme Court decision upholding the right of corporations to finance political advertising. To conservatives, the decision (which refused to strike down corporate funding of a political film) was a righteous affirmation of constitutional guarantees of free speech. Liberals saw the Court’s ruling as handing the keys of government to greedy corporate fat cats who would use huge warchests to buy or bludgeon legislators.
There is something inherently wrong with both positions. Both the Left and Right are more concerned with achieving the policy outcome – and the election results — they prefer than with ensuring that federal campaign law comports with the requirements of the Constitution. In fact, the Court, bound by bad precedent, managed to issue a constitutionally correct decision that results in bad law; the dissenters, on the other hand, mistaking their judicial robes for certificates of election, would have preferred making better law even if it was unconstitutional.
UPDATE — January 28, 2010 — A must read… John Nolte really nails the liberal confusion and the overall liberal hypocrisy of the SCOTUS ruling with this excellent Big Hollywood article: Barbra Streisand: SCOTUS ‘Enables Corporate Coup of Democracy’
Related reading:
Chris Berg, Big Government: Citizens United vs. FEC — Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights
Gateway Pundit: Figures. Obama Relies on Jim Crow Law In Opposing Free Speech Ruling
Ken Blackwell & Ken Lukowski, Big Government: Citizens United Huge Step Forward for Free Speech
David Bossie, Big Government: A Resounding Defense of the First Amendment: “Congress Shall Make No Law”
Nick Gillespie, Big Government: Discussing Citzens United, Free Speech, Congressional Corruption, and More With Bill Moyers and Larry Lessig and Reason.tv: 3 Reasons Not to Sweat Citizens United
John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Director Adam McKay: SCOTUS Ruling in Favor of Free Speech is ‘Treason’
Diary of a Mad Conservative: SCOTUS rules to protect free speech
The Divine Lamp: The Supreme Court And Free Speech
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck: The Highly Anticipated “Free Speech in Jeopardy” Interview (5-part video) and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Attacks Rush Limbaugh on House Floor: First Amendment & American Dream Not for Everyone and Regular Americans Vilified by Congress More Than Ever Before: How DC Politicians See the World (video)
rightofcourse.com: The Corporations are coming!
Riehl World View: Feds Use Intimidation To Silence Critics On Health Care Reform
John Loudon, Big Government: The Moral Hazard of Big Governments
Washington Post: Citizens United used ‘Hillary: The Movie’ to take on McCain-Feingold
About the author
Vicki,… how ironic.
Your comment on the fact that Obama opposes this is exactly why I like it.
Just today I had a discussion with a small business owner who told me that if the health care bill passed she would have to shut the doors of her business because she could never afford to pay the health care coverage mandated by the health care plan.
We also discussed the fact that Obama dislikes the SCOTUS ruling, and agreed that it must be good for conservatives.
If Obama doesn’t like it, and the unions don’t like it, it must be good for the country.
Let Freedom Ring !
We had an ESP moment, AFVET! Love it!
[...] and Astroturfing Trying To Make A Comeback and About Obama’s Approval Ratings… Frugal Café: Score One for Free Speech: Supreme Court Ruled Government Can’t Ban Political Spending or Politica… and Score One for Free Speech: Supreme Court Ruled Government Can’t Ban Political [...]
[...] Score One for Free Speech: Supreme Court Ruled Government Can’t Ban Political Spending or Politica… [...]
[...] Score One for Free Speech: Supreme Court Ruled Government Can’t Ban Political Spending or Politica… [...]
Vicki,
I laughed out loud at your first sentence, because like you, and the commenter above, I too know that if Obama and the unions are against something, then it must be good for America, and I am probably for it.
Great post! Lots of work on your part, excellent job. Included today in Pup’s Picks.
Picked for Pup’s Picks AGAIN??? Woo hoo – two weeks in a row, VERRRRY sweet!
Thanks a million, Pup – you’re awesome, as is your blog.
[...] most excellent post by Vicki at The Frugal Cafe Blog Zone about the Supreme’s decision supporting free speech and knocking down [...]
[...] Score One for Free Speech: Supreme Court Ruled Government Can’t Ban Political Spending or Politica… [...]
Last time I checked, Bill Gates, David Geffen, Warren Buffet, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Caroline Kennedy, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Usher, Jennifer Aniston, Barbra Streisand and George Clooney aren’t corporations.
Gee, you’re right. That isn’t what I wrote. Please read it again carefully.
Lambasting “corporations” as to being just Republican and evil is empty-headed on the part of liberals. Because it’s PEOPLE who head or run corporations, and those people don’t have just conservative ideologies, but liberal ones as well. Many corporate heads or owners of large organizations or mouthpieces for those corporations are liberals. And many of those liberals, as cited, are rich as a result of the profits made from those corporations. Hollywood is one of the biggest hypocritical industries out there. And no, before you start a response that “Hollywood” isn’t a corporation, I remind you that the many film and television studios that produce Hollywood films and TV programs ARE corporations – likewise for the music industry. Actors and filmmakers who denounce “corporations” for wanting to “make money” and “turn profits” are trying to play it both ways, trying to deny that they benefit handsomely from the big film and TV corporations, that only “Republican corporations” are despicable. Such dishonesty there. Many actors are also executive producers, which gives them an even greater split in the corporations’ profits. Why is that OK for them, but not for other corporations?
You can’t have it both ways, Gee. If a corporation can be considered “Republican,” as liberals have been decrying, then it CAN also be “Democrat.” If liberal Bill Gates, now retired, was the originator and head of the corporation Microsoft, then saying that Microsoft is liberal and Democrat would be fairly accurate, especially since I believe that Gates has donated money to the DNC – of course, a few people at his corporation may not be Democrat or liberal, but Gates was the top CEO enchilada for decades. Democrat David Geffen was one of the creators and heads of the DreamWorks SKG corporation as well as several incorporated record companies.
A corporation, if you don’t accept that it’s comprised of people who are registered Democrats, then also can’t possibly ever be “Republican.” No one named “Big Oil” or “Mr. Wall Street” voted in an election, but the corporate heads did. Likewise, no one named “Dreamworks” or “First Artists Production Company” or “Harpo Productions” voted either, but its corporate heads very likely did.
You’re being obtuse.
All I’m suggesting is that you’re muddying the issue. There is an almost incalculable difference between Matt Damon doing whatever it is that Matt Damon does, and Monsanto investing millions in electing officials who will deregulate their industry and allow them to police themselves. Or Microsoft investing millions in electing officials who will make it easier for them to snuff out their competition. Or Altria investing millions in electing officials who won’t force them to tax the cancer that they hock on the streets. And so on and so on down the line. I don’t care whether I agree with their politics or not- I want my media outlets, my corporate entities, and my politicians as compartmentalized as possible.
I’m not saying “Sumner Redstone shouldn’t be allowed to support the political candidate of his choice.” I AM saying “VIACOM should not be allowed to use it’s bottomless wealth to produce its own election ads, defame whomever it wants, and run those ads on its own stations.” This is exactly the type of influence peddling that turned Teddy Roosevelt’s stomach.
And for what it’s worth, I agree with you: no corporation is inherently evil. Except Ticketmaster.
Love the Ticketmaster reference.
With all due respect, Matt Damon has become a louder liberal (likely socialist) supporter, and with his money from salaries paid to him corporations in the film industry, is becoming a loud proponent of the radicalism of activist Howard Zinn (who just died this week) – time will tell how much funding Damon will provide for promoting his political speech. The corporate monies from many of George Soros’ enterprises have funded liberal causes, promos, activism, publications, etc. The SCOTUS ruling is free speech for all, including corporations, free political speech even for those with whom we don’t agree… which has never been a problem for liberals, but now, the playing field has become more leveled and MAYBE there will be more transparency (I’m not holding my breath). Your points are valid, but if VIACOM can’t use its “bottomless wealth,” then why has Soros and other libs been able to that very thing without reprimand?
We’ve not ever seen the list of online contributors to Obama’s presidential campaign, despite rules/regs that be provided. Whether or not the SCOTUS ruling will force that information to be made available is unclear.
Stifling political speech goes against the Constitution. It would be much like stifling or dismantling the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, in an effort to prevent “bad guys” from getting guns. That’s been shown, where implemented, to be terrible for law-abiding people, because bad guys always can get guns, and making it illegal will not stop them. It will, though, stop law-abiding folks from being able to protect and defend themselves, thus making them easy targets. Similar consequences when trying to muzzle freedom of political speech. Abiding by the Constitution is paramount.
It’s a touchy subject, I admit, but I believe in the long run, it will balance things in the politico world more than they’ve been for the past 20 years. We’ll see… more to come, I’m sure.
It’s obviously a very thin, very blurry line between free speech and the purchasing of political power. But what you’re saying regarding Matt Damon and George Soros sort of reinforces my point: that they’re people. They’re free to make as much money as they want, and spend it however they like. And you’re right- I’d take a guess if you counted up all the money and figured out who owned it, you’d probably find a relatively even split between liberals and conservatives. But the issue here isn’t whether the playing field is level for liberals and conservatives, it’s about whether the playing field is level for corporations and regular people. It’s about Rupert Murdoch being *the same* as NewsCorp, or Matt Damon being *the same* as Universal Pictures. It just boils down to whether or not you believe corporations should be afforded the same rights as individuals. 5 justices do, 4 justices don’t, and that’s that. For me it’s less of a battle between conservatives and liberals as it is a battle between haves and have-nots.
(Howard Zinn, JD Salinger and Zelda Rubenstein in a 24-hour period. It was a tough day for liberals, bookworms, and fans of “Poltergeist.”)
I knew about Zinn and Salinger, but somehow missed it on Zelda Rubenstein. Thanks for the info… so sad to hear that she died. She was amazing in “Poltergeist.”
By definition, a corporation is an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital. So, by law, and my opinion really bears no weight on this, corporations ARE legally defined to be individuals. If they were not, then the application of freedom of political speech should be different.
This brings up the question: Who are “regular” people? I’m sure Hollywood celebrities and corporate heads believe they are, as you and I in the trenches of America also believe we are, as people on welfare likely also think. Political speech freedoms are for all people, per our Constitution — their economic status must have no bearing. And since corporations are considered individuals, there should be no distinction between them and the rights and privileges granted to them. “Regular” people is very subjective.
I despise Keith Olbermann’s expression of free political speech, but I’d never try to silence him through law (unless he actually broke a law). His ideology is vile and disgusting to me, but I’d support him (unhappily) if a law tried to outlaw his rights as an American to freely express them. If he owned a corporation (I don’t think he does) and used his corporation to solicit funds, hold fundraising dinners and concerts, siphon off his corporation’s profits, and then donate tons of money to the Democrat party, to fund political ads, independent polls, etc., he and his corporation have the right to do that. As do any corporations owned by Republicans. While you’re right that the line is blurry, as a nation that upholds inherent freedoms, we need to be vigilant to protect the rights of the individuals, to err on that side of the line, if you will.
Additionally, this “corporation” issue started to snowball. It started with a documentary of Hillary Clinton that was denied being aired during the election period because it was argued that it was meant to influence people. A film is not a corporation, but was financed and produced by one. Based on that, if films can be banned because of their political speech or endorsement of a candidate, what about books? If a book pushes a political view, or is a biography of a candidate, or even has just one politically slanted sentence in it, should all book stores be forced to remove it from store shelves during an election? What about magazine articles? What about songs? What about audio clips on radio shows? What about greeting cards or bumper stickers or T-shirts with political slogans on them? What about a pastor at the pulpit telling his congregation that they should vote for Barack Obama — should organizations such as ACORN, which are funded by taxpayers’ dollars as well as corporation donations, be allowed to do this? (I used this last one as an example because there is possible evidence that this happened across the nation — the taxpayer part is an issue, the corporation part, I don’t believe is). This is where the policing and suppression of political speech starts to become a voracious monster. It becomes more and more oppressive on the part of our government in trying to button down corporations’ input in an election or in expressing political ideas/candidate support.
My understanding of the McCain-Feingold law was that it was originally a bit of a hissy fit on the part of McCain when he was handicapped in his campaign financing, as opposed to the Democrat party’s, a few decades back. He brought this to the table a number of times, and the final McCain-Feingold Bill was originally the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The first part of the bill was about “soft money” contributions, money which comes from organizations and groups, rather than political campaigns and parties. Before passage of the McCain-Feingold Bill, soft money contributions could be used in unlimited amounts to support political campaigns, with no government oversight. The bill also took on issue ads, forcing campaigns and organizations to stand behind their political advertisements. Political ads in the United States end with the statement “paid for by Organization X,” or “I’m Candidate, and I approved this message,” so that voters understand the source of the ad and the statements it contains. This provision was designed to slow down/stop the rampant issues advertisements which were used to manipulate voters into choosing specific candidates, or into rejecting others. But as we’ve witnessed, it really never did that.
This law was a bit of a vendetta on McCain’s part, and it never resolved the problem that he thought it would. It just made it more difficult for some people to play by the rules, and when they did, they were at a disadvantage because others, who never did play by the rules, went around the rules and financially benefited.
Throwing this bill out, leveling the playing field for everyone, following the Constitution, and making the reporting of campaign donations be more transparent is the better direction. I also am not convinced that he who has the most money wins elections… look at what has recently happened in NY, NJ, and Mass. Sometimes the paltry few dollars donated by a million regular people (Scott Brown’s Internet “money bomb” fundraiser is a perfect example) will surpass what a few corporations can pump in. Heck, I donated $20 to him and I live in AZ. The DNC’s deep pockets to buy lots of airtime and its political support of Martha Coakley didn’t guarantee her the Senate seat win.
I may not be expressing this well. I’ve recently added a new link to an outstanding commentary that is on Big Hollywood. It lays it out much better than I can. I recommend you give it a read… it makes things much clearer about the SCOTUS decision.
No, no- I think you’re expressing it very well. When I say “regular people”, I guess I mean all human beings, or at least all American human beings for this example. My fear is that our voices are going to be drowned out because we don’t have the funds to act as a megaphone. On top of that, I’m concerned about the sort of tangential effects of the ruling. What happens to employees and stockholders of businesses with whom they disagree politically? What about the excessive influence of foreign money on our elections? What happens when a company from my 401k funds an ad defaming a candidate that I support? Worst case scenario, we end up with Republican and Democratic corporations. It’ll be like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome in no time.
My only issue with the Hillary movie is that it was produced by a PAC. I think we’re going to see a deluge of this stuff in the future- documentaries brought to you by ACORN, hour-long TV specials brought to you by the NRA, the Exxon/Mobil Smile Time Family Variety Hour…
But your second to last paragraph! That’s it, man- that’s what I hope will continue to happen. Admittedly I wasn’t happy with the results, but at least it was an example of the people’s will. (Side note: I live in NJ and I’m a registered Democrat, but even I couldn’t vote for Corzine.)
Corzine… *shudder*
You bring up a number of valid concerns, and I agree that most, if not all could indeed come to pass. But that’s a risk we have to take to preserve everyone’s freedom of political speech as it was intended in the Constitution. Good and bad, poor and rich, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and everything in between — freedom of political speech for all. It might get ugly, but hey, we’re getting used to that, right? Freedom of speech or political expression can’t be selective for American citizens. I believe that SCOTUS made the correct decision in upholding the First Amendment.
The “Exxon/Mobil Smile Time Family Variety Hour” you mentioned doesn’t sound like it would be TOO partisan… lol.