Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

Corporations will need unlimited spending to offset all the free,
biased MSM press coverage (i.e Time, Newsweek, LA Times, MY Times,
Boston Globe, MSNBC, CNN, et al) that liberals and their ilk
have recieved over the years.

It's about time the playing field leveled!

It doesn't surprise me the prez is upset with the ruling...the liberal monopoly is threatened!

I don't like it. Same as if the government itself does the spending, or as if the government-owned LLC does the campaign pending.

What about corporations owned by foreign governments?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What about corporations owned by foreign governments?

The most common ones are commonly referred to as the Catholic Church. Being an atheist, of course I don't take kindly to them -- or to the Vatican government they report to. But I think the 1st Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, should override all but the most homeopathic government attempts to regulate it.

How can you believe that it's wrong for the US government to lobby for itself at election time, but it's right for foreign governments to do so?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How can you believe that it's wrong for the US government to lobby for itself at election time, but it's right for foreign governments to do so?

Oh, come on, have a little humor.

As I stated several pages before, when I mentioned the case of Rupert Murdoch, I have no fundamental problem with distinctions based on nationality. But I wouldn't distinguish between foreign governments, foreign corporations, and foreign individuals.

Having one's elections ran by and participated in by members of one's group (and not outsiders) is a concept understood pretty much the world over; or is there some other nation who sets the example on this?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Having one's elections ran by and participated in by members of one's group (and not outsiders) is a concept understood pretty much the world over; or is there some other nation who sets the example on this?

1) No matter how often you repeat a claim, speaking up and publishing it is fundamentally different from running an election.

2) I don't see why foreign nationals, including governments, shouldn't at least in principle have the right to speak up. For example, suppose you're an Iraqi living in Baghdad. It's October 2004. America's military occupation is turning sour. Your life is in permanent danger because the US are screwing up security all over your place. Why shouldn't you have a right to go on American TV and say the following? "Dear Americans! Your current guy in the White House is literally killing us over here. You would help us a lot if you didn't reelect him. Please don't!" Since you'd obviously have a stake in the matter, why should the US government deny you the opportunity to make your voice heard?

Are you asking why there's a vested interest in preventing foreign sources from using their funds to influence the way we run our country?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Are you asking why there's a vested interest in preventing foreign sources from using their funds to influence the way we run our country?

What I'm saying is you're not just running your own country. You're running other people's countries too. And these people should have a right to speak up about it -- in American media.

It doesn't surprise me the prez is upset with the ruling...the liberal monopoly is threatened!

Quote:

It doesn't surprise me the prez is upset with the ruling...the liberal monopoly is threatened!

Well, Rahm Emanuel did say he thinks the First Amendment is highly overrated.

EDITORIAL:
Obama appointee: Freedom is exaggerated
The FCC's chief diversity officer attacks the Constitution


By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Yesterday's huge Supreme Court victory for free-speech rights
in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission serves
as a warning to the Obama administration on other speech-related issues.
Several Obama appointees have denigrated the importance
of the First Amendment, and one presidential appointee, Mark Lloyd,
holds views fundamentally at odds with the Supreme Court
and America's whole tradition of protecting free speech.

Mr. Lloyd was President Obama's choice to fill a newly created
position at the Federal Communications Commission called the
"chief diversity officer." When a government agency starts to define
what sorts of speech do and don't qualify as "diversity," it's time
to worry about your freedom - especially when Mr. Lloyd is in charge.

Conservative groups have been sounding the alarm about Mr. Lloyd
for several months, and rightly so. Consider Mr. Lloyd's 2006 book,
"Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America,"
in which he calls for a "confrontational movement" against private media.
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech
or the press," he admits. "This freedom is all too often an exaggeration.
At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press
serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies."

As reported by the Media Research Center, Mr. Lloyd in 2005 said,
"We have really, truly good white people in important positions.
And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of
those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have
more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will
not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say
who is going to step down so someone else can have power."

Does Mr. Obama agree with Mr. Lloyd that white broadcasters should
be forced by government to "step down so someone else can have power"?
Mr. Lloyd, like the president, is an open disciple of radical community
organizer Saul Alinsky. While writing that the "true opposition" is
"the [private] broadcasters," Mr. Lloyd repeatedly cited Alinsky while
advocating hugely punitive fees on private broadcasters in order
to finance expanded government-sponsored broadcasting.

Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling stands as a rebuke to Mr. Lloyd's dangerous creed.
There's nothing exaggerated about the importance of the First Amendment.
[Bolding added by David]

It strikes me as odd
that the despondent liberals act like the world is ending,
when we are only going back to how it was before 2002.

I don 't believe that thay 'd have carried on like this
if the MF bill had been defeated in Congress.

We got along fine for over 200 years without the MF law.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It strikes me as odd
that the despondent liberals act like the world is ending,
when we are only going back to how it was before 2002.

I don 't believe that thay 'd have carried on like this
if the MF bill had been defeated in Congress.

We got along fine for over 200 years without the MF law.

Imagine if instead of ruling Heller in the way you wanted, the courts had chosen the other side, David.
You would feel good about this?

Cycloptichorn