4 ms·

"Remember what citizens united was about, it was about people releasing a film -- that's it" It was about a bit more than the pretext, the Justices' attempts a

by nemo 12y ago

"Remember what citizens united was about, it was about people releasing a film -- that's it" It was about a bit more than the pretext, the Justices' attempts at legal arguments to justify the ruling were absolutely horrifying, and the effects of the ruling have been disastrous given that it's effectively equated money with speech, permitting some citizens be more equal than others.

dantheman 12y ago
No, it recognizes that people aren't equal. 1. Some are taller 2. Some are journalists 3. Some have lots of free time 4. Some are famous 5. Some own printing presses 6. Some are politicians 7. Some are beautiful 8. Some are rich 9. Some are retired ... Pretending that everyones voice is the same by removing money is wrong. It just increases the power of people with other advantages. Campaign finance laws are crazy.
- nemo 12y ago
  "Pretending that everyones voice is the same by removing money is wrong." I can't see how that's wrong at all. The wealthiest will always have more influence, but deliberately granting the wealthy more political influence is profoundly contrary to the principles of governance for a democratic society - it's naked plutocracy. The American way is political equality, regardless of other factors including wealth.
LLWM 12y ago
As opposed to the entirety of legal history before 2010, when rich newspaper owners had just as much power to exercise free speech as scruffy-looking homeless people? If documentation doesn't match behavior, and you're not going to change the behavior, change the documentation.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  As opposed to the entirety of legal history before 2010, when rich newspaper owners had just as much power to exercise free speech as scruffy-looking homeless people? (Shrug) The Internet has fixed that.
- nemo 12y ago
  "If documentation doesn't match behavior, and you're not going to change the behavior, change the documentation." I think it'd be better to fix the rules than design them to encourage things detrimental to society. We'd be better off undoing Reagan's damaging removal of the Fairness Doctrine from the FCC (which had helped fix the media issues you noted before it was gutted), than just writing rules to make plutocracy our official policy.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Whether it's detrimental is unclear. Although there are exceptions, of course, it seems fair to say that, as a general rule, people with a lot of money tend to be better educated, more intelligent, and more hardworking than those with no money. Like I said, for them to have more access to speech has been true for the entirety of human history, and it hasn't been that bad.

by nemo 12y ago

dantheman 12y ago

No, it recognizes that people aren't equal. 1. Some are taller 2. Some are journalists 3. Some have lots of free time 4. Some are famous 5. Some own printing presses 6. Some are politicians 7. Some are beautiful 8. Some are rich 9. Some are retired ... Pretending that everyones voice is the same by removing money is wrong. It just increases the power of people with other advantages. Campaign finance laws are crazy.

nemo 12y ago
"Pretending that everyones voice is the same by removing money is wrong." I can't see how that's wrong at all. The wealthiest will always have more influence, but deliberately granting the wealthy more political influence is profoundly contrary to the principles of governance for a democratic society - it's naked plutocracy. The American way is political equality, regardless of other factors including wealth.

LLWM 12y ago

As opposed to the entirety of legal history before 2010, when rich newspaper owners had just as much power to exercise free speech as scruffy-looking homeless people? If documentation doesn't match behavior, and you're not going to change the behavior, change the documentation.

CamperBob2 12y ago
As opposed to the entirety of legal history before 2010, when rich newspaper owners had just as much power to exercise free speech as scruffy-looking homeless people? (Shrug) The Internet has fixed that.
nemo 12y ago
"If documentation doesn't match behavior, and you're not going to change the behavior, change the documentation." I think it'd be better to fix the rules than design them to encourage things detrimental to society. We'd be better off undoing Reagan's damaging removal of the Fairness Doctrine from the FCC (which had helped fix the media issues you noted before it was gutted), than just writing rules to make plutocracy our official policy.
- LLWM 12y ago
  Whether it's detrimental is unclear. Although there are exceptions, of course, it seems fair to say that, as a general rule, people with a lot of money tend to be better educated, more intelligent, and more hardworking than those with no money. Like I said, for them to have more access to speech has been true for the entirety of human history, and it hasn't been that bad.