Of course advertising doesn’t work… Here’s another example of advertising not working:
In the last California election, there was Proposition 29 on the ballot. This initiative asked Californians to put a levy on cigarettes and other tobacco products. This would go towards cancer research.
California is one of the least-smoky states (only 14% of Californians smoke) and the state is among the lowest when it comes to taxing tobacco products (even with the additional buck a pack proposed with Prop 29, California would only be 16th in the country in cigarette taxes).
The measure was supported by celebrity cyclist Lance Armstrong. It was polling extremely well as recently as a few months before the election:
However, at that point the campaigning against the measure began:
By the time voting came around, it was a dead heat. And it wasn’t because suddenly Californians decided that cancer was cool:
The ability to outspend your opponent means that you get to drive the narrative. This also means that you can lie. As anyone even vaguely familiar with the Straight Dope knows, fighting ignorance is hard. It’s really hard when you are able to shout out lies and half-truths that, even when corrected (and easily correctable) still permeate in the consciousness of the predisposed.
It’s why so many people still think that Obama is a Muslim, was not born here; it’s why Americans seem to think that most of the provisions in the Affordable Healthcare Act are good - but call it Obamacare and the same people say it’s bad.
It’s why a scientific illiterate population thinks that Intelligent Design and Creationism are fair game and that evolution is “just a theory.” It’s why climate change is still a partisan issue among politicians who waste time wondering if it exists rather than scientists who spend time trying to deal with it.
You can say that stupid people get the government that they deserve. Maybe so. But I see it more that gullible people can get taken in by snake oil salesmen. We created laws that regulated the sale of snake oil, ensured that the claims made by the salesmen of snake oil are based in truth. None of this was controversial.
We just have new salesmen selling a new kind of snake oil. And they should be regulated just like the last bunch.
One tiny, teeny point: “Snake oil” isn’t speech. I looked, but I didn’t find any protection for “snake oil” in the constitution. I can’t remember, but are you one of the folks who want to amend the constitution to modify the 1st amendment, or do you think it’s just OK to disregard it?
Did you read the part of the decision where the Court says:
To me, that reads much more like a statement that this facts are so extreme that they warrant action, but this is not an invitation to flood us with denied recusal motions from less extreme fact sets.
But to you, it says “directly related” to Citizens’ United, eh?
This was a Pit thread, but I guess I can fit most of it if I strip out the curses.
Constitutions are not perfect and eternal. They can be changed. We can do any of three things:
reinterpret the First Amendment to restrict campaign spending and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, as a way of restricting influence peddling–just like previous generations of Americans;
amend the Constitution to remove perfect freedom of the press (and it is freedom of the press that is at issue here, not the Newspeak construction of “speech”);
set fire to the whole Constitution, baby with the bathwater, and start over;
otherwise we’re straight into legal fraud and bribery. Any absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment is nothing less than the legalization of fraud and bribery.
Well, the Ninth Circuit says we can’t penalize people who claim to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor (the “Stolen Valor” laws) because the First Amendment entitles them to lie.
If Citizens United allows more “extreme” situations to arise, then yes, it is related. I think that the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s statement that is mentioned in the OP shows that at least some on the high court agree.
Well, inasmuch as Justice Ginsburg was a dissenter on the original decision, I suspect you’re right in thinking she still thinks it was decided wrongly.
I don’t see any clues that she thinks Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co., Inc., is a useful precedent to overturning Citizen’s United v. FCC.
I am sure that she does think it was wrongly decided, however her comment was not about the original decision being wrong. It actually referenced the majority opinion. To recap:
Please notice she says “since” the court’s decision… Examples of “corruption or the appearance of corruption” could change things. And in light of Montana and West Virginia, some people feel that is quite possible.
Why, no less than Karl Rove seems to have issues:
You bristled when people used the term “buy elections” before so I can see you would have to take the projecting Rove to task here.
Incidentally, here is a handy graphic that shows the huge percentage of Americans who feel the opposite of Bricker when it comes to how money affects the “appearance of corruption” this election cycle.
I realize that we do not vote on rights (unless you are gay and want to get married, but that’s another story) however it does show that Bricker’s views are in the minority when it comes to the corrupting influence of money. And we know that with a compelling interest, the government can regulate speech.
Bricker, both the Dems and the Repubs are in Wall Street’s pockets. The opinion of voters does not matter here. It’s the very definition of plutocracy.
