Your statement here remind me of part of “Profiles in Courage,” in which one of the featured senators became irate that some bank was not paying his honorarium (that’s pronounced “bribe”) on time. The book mocked the idea that such a practice was viewed as constructive and helpful at the time, but in hindsight was ridiculous and corrupt. I suppose that particular senator (Daniel Webster?) would have thought it “wrong and counterproductive” to eliminate payoffs of elected officials.
ETA: I wonder why so many corporations and billionaires are so eager to spend huge amounts of money to influence elections if their money doesn’t have any influence on voters…?
All you’re doing is saying you disagree that it is wrong and counterproductive. I still say it is. Explain why you disagree please.
I didn’t say they have no influence on voters (though it may be overstated). I said the voters are the ones responsible for it. The voters are not stupid idiots who do whatever they are told by TV ads (if you think they are, your issue is with democracy and letting idiots vote, not money). The voters choose to be influenced, and they are entirely responsible for their choices.
Yes, let’s have a straight answer to this question.
Technically, though, it didn’t ban the books or movies, just the publication or promotion (or possibly public screening in movie theatres) of them. You could copy the books by hand, one by one, and give them (can’t sell them) to people. Or you could tell people about your film by word of mouth-no paid ads-and screen it in your living room. As long as you didn’t spend any money, you were okay. Money corrupts politics, after all. It’s not regulation of speech, just money! :smack:
Are you going to get hung up on the word “banned?”
The film’s producer was forbidden from spending money to advertise the film because it was a political film.
That was what was at stake in the Citizens United decision.
Do you think it is okay to ban ads to promote films because they express political views?
Also, in the case, the governments’ lawyers said the law gave them to power to ban the sale or distribution of some political books too, at least for a certain time before an election. What do you think of that?
Heh. You’re being a bit pedantic for the side that’s been complaining the court’s ruled “money equals speech” and that “corporations are people”.
I suppose if I wanted to play that game I could point out that I never claimed a movie was banned just that the law struck down in Citizen’s United, McCain-Feingold, did exactly that which was the position of the lawyers defending the case.
However I won’t, I’ll merely say that yes, I could have been a little more precise, thought I’m not sure the people squealing about how “money equals speech” are the ones to make such a claim.
What I should have said, as I’ve done repeatedly was say that it “effectively banned” the documentary. After all, every reasonable person would agree that outright banning a movie vs. limiting the ability of the the makers to promote and/or distribute the movie have the same effect.
So, do you think that the Federal should be empowered to determine if documentaries and books coming out during an election season are for the purpose of promoting or criticizing a political candidate and if the case is yes, that they should be able to limit the ability of the makers to promoter or distribute the documentaries or books?
First of all, you should read this thread and more specifically what I’ve written in it. If you have not read what I have written, then you should not accuse me of representing some side that you literally have no idea whether I’m associated with or not.
Had you bothered to do so, you would see that my first posts were ENTIRELY about the phrase “money equals speech” and how it is bullshit.
I’ll give you some time to go back and read what I have contributed to this thread, before I respond to any more of your uninformed assertions. Perhaps you’ll come back and apologize for your incredibly embarrassing effort to tar me with a position that I most clearly do not hold.
I’ll jump in and answer: no. Political speech must remain free, even if it means that big corporations can put millions of dollars into advertising.
I don’t like that a whole lot, but the cure would be worse than the disease. It would put weird limits on many kinds of speech.
What about editorials? If a newspaper, without taking money for it, endorses Candidate XYZ, that’s obviously political speech. Why would that be permitted, but it would be forbidden for me, or me and my friends, or me and my corporation, to buy a half-page ad saying Vote for XYZ?
I know a small-town newspaper editor who writes favorable “news stories” covering the candidates he favors. They aren’t ads, and they aren’t editorials. They’re “news features.” He also accepts money from “friends” of the candidate to write these news features.
To enforce against this, you’d have to have a board or committee or bureau that reviewed everything that appears in every newspaper, every newsletter, ever Internet blog, every Facebook post… Insane. Impossible.
I could get behind taking away the right of corporations to buy political advertising…but not of private groups and organizations – PACs – to do so. And in that case, what’s the damn difference?
Actually, I view it as quite impolite to misrepresent my position, whether it is out of ignorance or malice. Had I done the same, I would apologize for the error.
I will be happy to answer your question, but I think it is important in any debate to actually listen to what one’s adversary is saying. Don’t you?
Can’t you do both? Explain your view, clarify any errors, and actually address the issues. You’re only doing the former here.
Probably everyone here agrees that accuracy in representing a position in debate is vital. Otherwise, it descends into straw-manning and pseudo-debate. “So, what you’re really saying is you hate Jesus and have relations with Baleen Whales, right?”
I’ll merely note that you had dodged answering my question by demanding to proof that a movie had been banned, before I made the comment that upset you.
That being said, now that I’ve apologized, please, for I believe now the fourth time, answer my question.
**
Do you think that the Federal should be empowered to determine if documentaries and books coming out during an election season are for the purpose of promoting or criticizing a political candidate and if the case is yes, that they should be able to limit the ability of the makers to promoter or distribute the documentaries or books?**
Trinopus - You make a fair point. So, here’s my thoughts on whether a movie or book might violate campaign rules: it depends.
I never saw the Citizens United movie, or the ads for it, but I’ll take the appeals court judgment at face value that the movie had no purpose but for electioneering. However, in my opinion, there’s a big difference between a movie and, say, a TV ad or various other campaign materials like pamphlets and yard signs.
For a movie, viewers generally have to pay to see it, whether in a theater or on PPV. I think that makes it different than other political activity that doesn’t require the viewer to make a substantial effort to take in the message. I think I’d probably be deferential to concluding that the producers of the movie shouldn’t be penalized for release it to theaters shortly before an election.
However, my opinion would change if the plan was to distribute DVDs to voters in some kind of coordinated way. In that case, I would be totally fine with the producers being subject to financial penalties as is generally the case with other campaign finance violations.
Would you also be OK with the author of a book being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute books to voters in some kind of coordinated way?
Would you also be OK with the author of a magazine being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute magazines to voters in some kind of coordinated way?
Would you also be OK with the author of a magazine *article *being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute articles to voters in some kind of coordinated way?
Would you also be OK with the author of a leaflet being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute leaflets to voters in some kind of coordinated way?
Would you also be OK with the author of a song being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute the song to voters in some kind of coordinated way?
Because I don’t see any obvious difference in *kind *between any of these activities. Yet it seems that you would end up endorsing the governments right to fine people for handing out leaflets or chanting slogans.
I assume you see some sort of line somewhere on the spectrum between leaflets and slogans and DVDs. Can you tell us where that line is and why you placed it there?
So then, since Michael Moore has all but admitted that he made the movie Fahrenheit 911 in hopes that it would help defeat George Bush and did in fact provide free screenings for it at various campuses and encourage people to bring people to said screenings in hopes that they would convince people to vote against them, then you do feel that under Citizens United, then he and the company that made the movie Fahrenheit 911 should have been sanctioned?
Now, every Presidential election cycle various biographies are produced of different political candidates that are clearly designed to either “agitate for or against” said political candidates.
From the same election cycle, you might remember the biography of John Kerry entitled Unfit for Command, by the leader of the famous “Swift Boat Veterans”.
Do you think Regnery Publishing should have been sanctioned?
Obviously, most of us don’t like the idea of book burning and think the government shouldn’t be doing it. Perhaps you could explain why you do favor the sanctioning of the effective banning of books and movies critical of political candidates?
Would you also apply this to all groups, including media groups like say Fox News or MSNBC as well?