Comments on: Free Speech Victory in Citizens United

By: Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:13:29 +0000

@Jeremy

An ad doesn’t have to be negative to be influential.It can be full of fluffy bunnies. Corps aren’t dumb, they know PR.

@Brian

I’m not talking about “anything” someone doesn’t like, I’m talking about allowing corporations to gain even more political power by becoming major funders of politicians. It devalues my vote, makes me suspicious of anything Washington does, and discourages people from engaging in the political process because they believe it’s all bought and sold. I didn’t like the previous situation, and I fail to see how this is any more a solution. In fact, I think it’s worse. I think Lessig put it best:
http://action.change-congress.org/page/s/citizensunited

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:23:54 +0000

At least attacking free speech is a bipartisan affair!

Ken, re: your last point: how could any organization function if doing something that any employee disagrees with infringed upon their rights? Would this apply to unions? To non-profits? To governments?

Do you seriously think you have the rights you listed? The right to not be associated with political views you may not hold? In another thread, Joe called Tim a communist. Does that violate Tim’s rights? Or the right to determine whether or not the money/labor/items you gave to another person can use them for political speech or not? If I volunteer some time on a candidate’s campaign, can I veto any action they might take, if I dislike it?

By: Jeremy Morlan

Jeremy Morlan — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:19:45 +0000

This Swiftboat ad brought to you by Pepsi Co. I have a hard time seeing that. Corporation try to protect their image and I think are less likely to run a bad campaign ad than an individual with an ax to grind. I often wonder what planet these people who hate corporations live on.
If in the next election a canidate comes out with a platform that specificaly targets the banking sector. I think that my “evil” corporate bank should be able to run ads for the opposing canidate.

By: Ken Fisher

Ken Fisher — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:40:28 +0000

I appreciate your POV Tim, but I guess I disagree in at least three ways.

First, I personally do not believe that the Bill of Rights should apply wholesale to corporations. Already there are so many laws surrounding “free speech” issues that affect those of us in Media. I’d rather see Congress take steps towards protecting the playing field when it comes to elections. I think that the extra, hyper-civilian rights corps already have should limit their rights in other areas.

Second, I feel like the “ad versus K Street” bit isn’t an either/or situation. Why can’t we go after both? I think both are terrible, and the argument that one is better than the other just leaves me depressed when they are both affronts to democracy (IMO).

Last, I think this infringes on the rights of corp employees. Now if I work for company X and company X is out cheerleading for a candidate, I know that a) people might associate me with those political views, and b) part of profits of my labor are going to a candidate I had no say in supporting. Yes, I know that PACs could operate similarly. I just truly feel like this was a step in the wrong direction.