You’re confusing the press with the media. The press is the printing press, the means of mass communication. You’re endorsing freedom of “the media”, but the Constitution was never written to grant special rights to a privileged class. Freedom of the press applies to all of us.
I’m fairly sure I could offer a pretty good rebuttal of that if I could distinguish heads from tails. Da fuq? to paraphrase Jefferson. If communication is accomplished by pressing ink to paper, it is not part of “the media”? And rights that are enjoyed by the press are not necessarily enjoyed by “the media”? Huh? Wha?
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
This may be your best moment, 'luci! (And that’s saying something!)
I’m not confusing anything. You used the phrase “freedom of the press”. That phrase has a clear and specific meaning, and I was responding to that. It was also worth pointing out the absurdity of conservatives’ favorite fiction that the indisputable right of media to speak to the public is somehow exactly equivalent to unlimited electioneering by a self-serving oligarchy.
Yes, free speech applies to all of us, including the Koch brothers. But you’re damn right that the Constitution was never written to grant special rights to a privileged class, such as the class of plutocrats who can spend $900 million to change the course of elections and drive self-serving public policy. When the course of democracy is distorted to such an obscenely large extent by a self-interested oligarchy whose political influence the rest of us cannot hope to match, then there is not only a justification but a solemn duty to put reasonable limits on such influence. All nations including the US have seen this need. What is amazing in the present day is not that Republicans naturally oppose it, since it’s counter to their interests, but the extraordinary activism of the Roberts court in dismantling those protections.
Princeton University study shows we no longer live in a democracy
Thanks for that interesting link. It’s what I’ve been saying for years. The scary thing is that the article describes the baseline environment before the Roberts court started their ambitious campaign to dismantle what little was left of political spending regulations, during which all of the following were ruled in favor of the wealthy oligarchy, most of them by the predictable 5-4 margin:
2006 - Randall v. Sorrell
2007 - FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
2008 - Davis v. FEC
2010 - Citizens United v. FEC
2011 - Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett
2012 - American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock
2014 - McCutcheon v. FEC
And more to come:
The most insidious thing about decisions like Citizens United is that its focus on allowing unlimited independent political spending represents an explicit license for the oligarchy to spend the most money precisely where they were spending it anyway, a trend that’s been accelerating since even before groups like the Swift Boaters managed to scuttle John Kerry’s presidential run. In 2000, the Democratic and Republican parties together ran two-thirds of all ads in the presidential election, in 2004 it was one-third, in 2008, one-fourth, and by 2012 just 6% of all ads were sponsored by political parties (Ref). Independent groups, secretive individuals, and dark money donor organizations are dominating the political landscape, and to make matters worse, many of them, like the Koch brothers, are ruthless extremists.
While current campaign finance laws have been struck down by 5-4 margins, there has never been a law against independent spending by individuals. No such law is possible. It would be struck down 9-0. The minority dissent in Citizens United plus the precedent of the Buckley case bind the court. In any case, no such law has ever been proposed either. Nor do any proposed constitutional amendments give Congress the power to control independent spending by individuals. They only propose to control spending by corporations.
Those who want to stop the Kochs and Adelson and Soros are staking out pretty radical ground.
Always has been radical ground. The Founders were well aware that political power must be carefully conserved and not scattered about willy-nilly, it should be reserved for sober men of substance and property. “Thank you very much for your lovely pamphlets, Mr. Paine, we won’t be needing you any longer…”.
Name me one movement for greater and more widespread political power that was not greeted as “radical” by the Powers That Be.
The radicals hack out the trail and clear the site. The progressives build the cabins and the fireplaces, the liberals arrive when the hot showers have been installed.
Well its not in the first amendment, but they do include bribery under high crimes and misdemeanors right along side treason, so I would say that they recognized that money can have a corrupting influence on elected officials.
Saying that buying a multi-million dollar media blitz against a politician’s opponent, won’t cause that politician to look kindly at your interests is hopelessly naive (see my post #93). The difference in influence between writing a $10,000 check to candidate’s personal bank account, and writing a much larger check to a “independent” campaign whose sole purpose is to get the candidate elected is miniscule.
Not only that, but I think anyone who did a little digging would find that the majority of what the Kochs are spending is institutional money, no doubt much of it from their corporations and some of it culled from others and pooled in donor organizations. Limitations on corporate spending and 501(c) type organizations would go a long, long way to reducing the huge degree of plutocratic domination of the political system. The Koch political organization, far from being David Koch’s personal bank account, actually sounds rather hugely complex. Citizens United itself is a 501(c)(4) funded by a 501(c)(3) foundation, and currently is free to do whatever the hell it wants, without limit. And really, I don’t see a problem with limiting individual spending, either, on advertising that is clearly and specifically seeking to influence an election.
The Roberts court and the usual gang of 5 of course see a problem with any kind of limit on any kind of political spending, but that’s the Roberts court. It was not always so. As Russ Feingold put it after the Citizens United ruling, “Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president.”
John Paul Stevens wrote a lengthy 90-page dissent, which began with the statement that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation … a democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold” and that “the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection”. He agreed with Feingold that "the Court addressed a question not raised by the litigants when it found BCRA §203 to be facially unconstitutional, and that the majority ‘changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law’. " He then went on, with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor concurring, to refute the specific arguments of the majority decision, on the general theme that the decision opened the floodgates to the corrupting influence of money in politics. They knew what they were talking about.
Its the Golden Rule: guy who’s got the gold, makes the rules. You want to change the rules, go get some gold!
What’s CNN’s annual budget? Do you deny that the media has a HUGE role in making or breaking politicians, or in setting the nation’s agenda?
MSNBC is essentially a Democrat party public relations firm. How much money should MSNBC be allowed to spend championing their preferred candidates while trashing all opposition?
As much as they want. They are part of the privileged class, along with the political parties. Only people outside those classes must ask for permission.
Someone should tell Joe Scarborough…he didn’t get the memo.:mad:
MSNBC, like the NY Times, does have conservatives, but it is still clearly a Democratic-leaning network. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Objective journalism is actually a fairly recent and short-lived concept. Our country was founded with an overtly partisan media and now we’re getting back to that.
And after that, the conservatives declare that they’ve always lived there and don’t see any need to move again!
And why, oh why, do we want to destroy what they have so carefully built?!
Gotta be careful here, could be a trap! If I say “yes”, then…he’s trying to get me to agree with myself! The crafty devil!
Chris “tingly-leg” Matthews must have gotten Scarborough’s memo. 
Or maybe Mika “my father is famous” Brzezinski intercepted it.