January 20, 2012

"Occupy the Courts" protests hit the U.S. Supreme Court building and other federal courthouses today.

Why pick on the courts? The protesters wanted to express the opinion that Citizens United was decided the wrong way. As if it's admirable for courts to decide cases the way protesting throngs want them decided!

The protesters say they'd like a constitutional amendment. Cut back on the First Amendment? I remember a few years ago when there was a clamor to cut back the First Amendment to protect the flag which the Supreme Court said people had a free-speech right to desecrate. It turned out to be an embarrassment for everyone who didn't revere the Bill of Rights.
Asked if a constitutional amendment is a realistic goal, Joan Stallard, a demonstrator from D.C., said, “The constitution has been amended 27 times, and we can do it again.” She said more and more of the public is beginning to understand “the power of corporations in our political system” and will be receptive to a constitutional chance.
Yeah, but we never cut back the First Amendment.

123 comments:

mesquito said...

Okay. You want to amend the constitition? Give me the wording.

I suspect the result would be this: When mesquito goes from being mere individual to "Mesquito LLC" he loses his rights. Is that the case?

Jay Retread said...

Ann, do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?

(I know that she won't answer that.)

mesquito said...

Hey retread!

How about framing an amendment for us?

Maguro said...

The demonstration at the high court began with some light theater – black-robed “justices” dancing and singing.

Sounds pretty lame. Did someone forget to bring the giant papier-mache puppets?

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?"

The solution is not to leave govt as the only power left standing.

I prefer freedom, and a balance of powers.

Paddy O said...

Wonder what she would think about a constitutional amendment to cut down on protesting.

All those clamoring crowds have a disproportionate effect on the national conversation. By mobbing, they are pooling their individual free speech rights in a conglomerated message. Why should a crowd have a louder voice or more influence than me sitting in my living room?

mccullough said...

Wasn't Occupy the Courts Newt's idea?

He doesn't like judges who issues decisions he disagrees with and wants to rein them in, by arresting them if necessary. He also doesn't like people forming SuperPacs to criticize him so he doesn't like Citizens United either.

mesquito said...

I deny the growing power of corpotations in our politcal system. If they are so powerfeul, why is the corporate tax rate so high?

mesquito said...

Remedy for what, Jay Retread? You still haven't proven that corporation are too powerful and gorwing more so. I know all you friends say shit like that, but that doesn't make it a) true or b) any sort of consensus.

Browndog said...

Balance of power=Courts are the ultimate authority.

Arbitrary Law...."living"

Sorta like leaving a comment on Althouse she doesn't like-

stricken

Simon said...

No one should ever protest a court. Like Gingrich's rhetoric, it betrays a populist misunderstanding of what courts do in our system of government; they may as well all walk around yelling "I'm clueless and angry; pay attention to me!"

Protesting the the political branches is one thing; they're supposed to be accountable to the public. They're supposed to be responsive to public pressure. Judges aren't. When the political branches reverse course in response to public outcry, we think that's a good thing (setting aside the balance of wisdom on any specific issue); remember SOPA? If a court does so, don't we think that that's a bad thing (remember the Casey plurality, liberals?)?

mesquito said...

A corporation, Jay Retread, becomes too powerful when it becomes part of the government. Did the NTSB call off its investigation of the oddly flammable Chevy Volt because the car is actually safe, or to protect the prestige of President Humble McFoodstamps? Who can tell?

mesquito said...

How about framing an amendment so we can talk about it, Jay Retread?

Simon said...

Jay Retread said...
"Ann, do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?"

I'll take that one. How corporations can have political power when they can't vote and even if they paid someone to vote their way, the secret ballot prevents their verifying how anyone actually voted? The only place at which they can exert influence is by giving money to decisionmakers, but (1) disclosure rules limit that influence, and (2) unless you're willing to agree that records of Congressional votes be sealed, can you really complain?

mesquito said...

Come on, Jay. You're the one all hot and bothered about those nasty corporations. Frame for us a constitional amendment that will limit their awful (you say) influence.

I hereby challenge you.

shiloh said...

"but we never cut back the First Amendment."

And an African/American had never been elected president. Things change.

If "we the people" determine 'Citizens United' was a bad idea as re: to liberty and justice for all or equal protection under the law, etc. then public opinion could lead to a reversal.

Much like Prohibition came and went in the span of (14) years.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ...

ricpic said...

Unions, speak! Corporations, shut up!!

Chuck66 said...

Jay, how do you feel about large corporations such as Best Buy lobbing for gay rights? To change tax laws to favor homosexuals? is that an abuse of power? Or how do you feel about WEAC giving Katheleen Vinehout $340,000 in 2010, which she used to get elected by less than 1% over her Republican challenger, who was wayyyyy underfunded?

Jay Retread said...

Real small government conservatives will come to rue this decision when corporations grow government for their own purpose. (which is happening as I type this and they have their president in Romney. And yes, they have bought Obama too.)

n.n said...

As I recall "Citizens United" upheld the right of all cooperatives to have their voice heard, which includes non-profits, NGOs, unions, etc. If that wasn't the case, then it certainly should be. There is no material difference between a corporation and any other cooperative.

Chuck66 said...

How about Herbie Kohl, using the wealth he made paying people minimum wage to work for him (and also never having to spend money on a woman) then using his personal wealth to purchase a US Senate seat.

mesquito said...

Let me get this straught, Mr. Retread:

The path to small government lays through the minute regulation by the federal government of political speech.

Is that about right?

Palladian said...

As opposed to unions "growing government for their own purpose", which is o.k.

Whose purpose is government supposed to be grown for?

Maguro said...

Real small government conservatives will come to rue this decision when corporations grow government for their own purpose.

WTF does this even mean? You're blathering. Giving politicians the power to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't is not going to keep money out of politics. Rather the opposite.

Jay Retread said...

All kinds of speech is regulated. Afterall, the right of free speech is not a death pact.

mesquito said...

And Mr. Retread, you'd be helping things if you actually frame an amendment we could discuss, but I'm afraid you have no clue where to begin.

Chuck66 said...

Jay R, I do agree with that...the best (meaning most savvy) corporations know how to use the gov't to get free stuff. As a true conservative, I hate corporate welfare.

But I still don't like speach restrictions, unless they apply to all non-human entities. If we silence businesses, then we must silence Big Unions.


Hey, anyone out there remember when the NAACP ran ads saying a vote for George Bush is a vote for lynching? I do. Maybe we need to force the NAACP to shut up.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I agree with Mesquito--let's see the proposed text.

Some weeks back, such a proposal was kicked around--I don't mean proposed by a commenter, but someone who supposedly had thought about it. It was laughable.

But perhaps someone here will take a stab at it?

edutcher said...

This is the sort of thing where the people running the mob eventually start dictating verdicts.

But that only happens in Chicago.

Right?

Jay Retread said...

Ann, do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?

The "growing political power of corporations" is mostly those in bed with the current Administration.

Retread never heard of Gibson Guitar or Government Motors, etc.

Tim said...

"Yeah, but we never cut back the First Amendment."

Really?

The people AA has voted for invoke the "living constitution."

Is only the First Amendment somehow immune to the effects of a "living constitution"?

shiloh said...

On a related note, a country founded on the basis of liberty and freedom, breaking away from the kingdom of England looking more and more like North Korea ie it was almost ...

Bush ~ Clinton ~ Bush ~ Clinton

One could easily argue the U.S. has been an Oligarchy for quite some time.

TY Barack Hussein Obama! :)

Simon said...

Jay Retread said...
"they have bought Obama too."

And in what ways are they getting their money's worth? A transaction where you pay money and get something in return is one thing; a transaction in which money is demanded of you lest bad things happen to you, well, we have another name for that.

Seven Machos said...

the right of free speech is not a death pact

Who is dying, ass clown? Nobody. You just aren't getting what you want. And you never, ever will. Your issue is a total, complete loser.

But feel free to continue to bitch and moan. Free speech, after all.

Jay Retread said...

Fine. If the imperative to support an absolutist view of speech rights of corporations means large numbers of Americans come to believe the U.S. political system is a sham then we will just have to suck it up.

Bring on the revolution a little quicker I guess.

Seven Machos said...

Proposed amendment to the Constitution:

Private citizens shall have power to kill individuals who bitch and moan about limiting the free speech by people those bitchers disagree with on incomes in any such way that is not cruel or unusual.

What do you leftist authoritarian losers think?

mccullough said...

Shiloh,

You forgot the Adams, the Harrison, and the Roosevelt family. I'd put the Bush family in that category.

Hillary Clinton, like Ted Kennedy, never won the nomination. The Clintons and Kennedys only aspired to aristocracy. The others reached it.

And the weirdest line-up is not Bush-Clinton-Bush. It is Cleveland-Harrison-Cleveland.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Jay:

What does your proposed amendment to the Constitution say? How can you expect anyone to endorse it until he or she has seen it?

Seven Machos said...

Tell us about this revolution, Jay! I must hear everything. Who will lead it? What changes will emanate? Where will you get the guns?

To the barricades! With Jay! With our lattes! In our Volvos!

mccullough said...

Jay Retread,

The only people bitching about Citizens United are hard-core liberals. They are also the ones who bitch about Heller and McDonald. They are bitter, but they don't want to cling to their guns.

So how are these folks going to start a revolution when they don't own a gun? Are they going to bludgeon us with their Noam Chomsky books or strangle us with their Hope and Change t-shirts?

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"The solution is not to leave govt as the only power left standing.

I prefer freedom, and a balance of powers."


So, the gov was the only power left standing before the CU decision allowed super PACs?

Now, since CU, we have freedom, and the gov is no longer the only power left standing?




BTW, If you are a business looking for easy to satisfy customers wouldn't it be good business to buy...er...I mean "support" pols that support subcontracting gov work to businesses. As a result the gov becomes more responsive to businesses who are supporting the pols, who are in charge of spending gov dough. How do you have separate powers if the donor businesses who pay for elections are the folks living off of the gov? If cons tell us that this sort of relationship is bad when unions are in the driver's seat, why is it cool when a corporation is at the wheel?

You could have the perfect feedback loop for a private-contractor-complex.

YoungHegelian said...

@Jay,

You realize that your assumption that all corporations share political goals that are opposed to some other group (e.g. the middle class, union workers) is basically an undefendable piece of Marxist BS. It assumes that the very act of being in a C corporation invests its owners with a class consciousness.

What I think one sees when one looks at the intersection of the political/corporate arena is corporations struggling amongst each other for influence with the government.

SOPA is a prime example of this corporate clash, with classical entertainment media vs techno-media.

shiloh said...

But unfortunately many "we the people" just don't care as indicated by the pathetic voter turn out % year after year.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

As always, America survives despite itself!

>

mccullough, thanx for the addendum. :)

"We" get what we deserve as name recognition has always been a big plus in any election. Which makes Barack Hussein Obama's historic win all the more remarkable. D.L. Hughley said early 2008 that Bush43 had f*cked up so bad, America may elect a Black man. :D

Jeff with one 'f' said...

I would argue that the FCC violates the First Amendment with fines for broadcasting "obsenity".

Chip Ahoy said...

Sorta like leaving a comment on Althouse she doesn't like

No, Browndog, it isn't sorta like it at all. Not in the slightest and saying so does not make it so. And if you cannot see the vast differences between the two situations then I cannot help you even if you wanted help, which you don't want, otherwise you would not reach so ridiculously far just to be an antagonistic little pixie prick.

Seven Machos said...

PBJ -- What you miss and what you miss in all these threads lately is the fact that all these things you hate -- like "super pacs" have developed in response to the loopholes in speech-restricting laws. A better solution would be to jettison all these laws, and let people and unions and corporations and schools and religions spend freely.

Incidentally, I would certainly agree with a limitation saying that all politicians must report all receipts and their actual sources. But that's not a limitation on speech.

Peano said...

With all those vermin on the court steps, it would have been a perfect time to test the fire hydrants.

edutcher said...

mccullough said...

Shiloh,

You forgot the Adams, the Harrison, and the Roosevelt family. I'd put the Bush family in that category.


The Adamses barely count and the Harrisons aren't even in the ballpark.

Now the Longs and Daleys are another kettle of fish, but they're machine politicians, like Barry.

Surname doesn't matter as much as it's the machine that decides.

shiloh said...

On a related note, a country founded on the basis of liberty and freedom, breaking away from the kingdom of England looking more and more like North Korea ie it was almost ...

Bush ~ Clinton ~ Bush ~ Clinton

One could easily argue the U.S. has been an Oligarchy for quite some time.

TY Barack Hussein Obama! :)


Hardly.

Unless one counts Chelsea, the Ozark Mafia hardly count as oligarchs.

And I don't doubt Moochelle would love to succeed GodZero so she can finally be really proud of her country.

Jay Retread said...

Do "conservatives" here believe that our political system becoming more dominated by big corporate money won't lead to Americans of all political stripes becoming cynical about our "democracy"? Also, do "conservatives" here really think this big money is being spent to reduce the size of government?

Don't get me wrong. I am an asshole anarchist. I am lmao watching your shit being smashed.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Jay:

Wait--you're an "anarchist"? And you want an increase in government power?

Do you know what "anarchy" means?

By the way, I'd still like to see your proposed amendment before I say whether I favor it. The point being--in case it's not clear--that if you even can't manage to write a first draft for it, then why should I agree with your proposal?

Maguro said...

Retread, are you really dumb enough to believe that giving Congress the power to regulate speech will reduce the importance of money in politics? Think about what you're saying, man.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"Incidentally, I would certainly agree with a limitation saying that all politicians must report all receipts and their actual sources. But that's not a limitation on speech."

Do you think donations should be traceable to the individuals making the contributions? Or, do you think it's fine to simply name a donating outside 501(c)(4) or transfer from an affiliated (c)(4), where the actual funders of the (c)(4) remain undisclosed?

mccullough said...

Jay,

Would you just rather have the speech of the corporate media? The country's a lot better off now than we people took Walter Cronkite seriously. The nice thing about the internet is that it's decentralized. A lot of information out there.

Who is even remotely influenced by these SuperPac ads or any political ad? Do you know anyone who takes them at face value? They're basically just porn for partisans.

mesquito said...

Anarchists for government regulation of speech.

No wonder Retread won't frame and amendment. He's barely clinging to sanity.

caplight45 said...

The core of the problem with corporate money lies in the fact that the government and it's bureaucrats and unelected enforcers and unlegislated regulations makes it a game corporations must play in order to survive. The ubiquity of government influence and intrusion drives the money machine. They also must compete with all the lefty utopian groups who, having failed to win the hearts and minds of the populace, seek to use their kindred spirits in the government to wield control for them.

Paco Wové said...

"Wait--you're an "anarchist"?"

Nah, I think he's just the "asshole" part.

Jay Retread said...

Marty Fox- I am not an Anarchist. I am asshole anarchist. Big difference.

Rampant big corporate money will lead many Americans to come to realize their precious "democracy" is a sham. Fuck them losers.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

What Jay is missing, and all leftists miss, is something Mitt said recently.

Corporations are people.

I work for a corporation. Probably half of us here work for corporations. Maybe Jay Retread works for a corporation, although I think Collective Child Care Unit No.68 is probably more like it. The corporation I work for has employed me for twenty-seven years, helped pay for the births of my kids, contributed substantially to my rather large health-care expenses, and contributed large sums to my private retirement account. They've treated me fairly, and I've come to believe that their interests are my interests. By the same token, the corporation I work for has no nefarious agenda afoot to rob the middle class or strip Collective Child Care Unit No.68 of its pablum allowance. The corporation I work for should be allowed to afford itself of the same First Amendment rights that WEAC and Media Matters have.

rhhardin said...

How can there be a balance of power if jokes are allowed.

Jay Retread said...

I am supporting Romney btw. Petal to the metal mama. The first Citizen United prez less than two years after the ruling. Too funny!

Jay Retread said...

Tyrone "I am a little corporate robot and my corporate mommy even wipes my butt!" Slothrop

Too fucking funny!

Crimso said...

'Rampant big corporate money will lead many Americans to come to realize their precious "democracy" is a sham. Fuck them losers.'

They are losers if they think they live in a democracy. As to being an "asshole anarchist," I'll steal from Lincoln and suggest that for any man who believes in (asshole or otherwise) anarchy, I say first let it be tried on him.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Jayjay:

I take you've thrown in the towel on offering any sort of amendment text. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you can't express it in words, I'm not signing on. I think you'll find 99% will feel the same.

But you can test this.

Take a sheet of paper, and write the following on it:

"Will you support the proposed amendment written below?" Then leave the rest of the page blank.

Let us know how many signatures you get.

AJ Lynch said...

Mesquito said:

"Okay. You want to amend the constitition? Give me the wording."

How about this? No candidate for the US Senate or a governor's seat can ever again do what Jon Corzine did with his own money.

Nah - who am I kidding- the Dems see nothing worrisome aboout it when it is their own big bucks guy.

Phil 3:14 said...

Jay Retread said... Ann, do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?

I don't know, all that money didn't seem to help Rick Perry. And if it were just money, Romney would already be nominated.

Now if its money for the right cause well then...

Hagar said...

Taking a chance on change, Professor?

Phil 3:14 said...

And an African/American had never been elected president. Things change.

Oh wow, what a rhetorical flourish!!

WV: dollarzz (seriously) Well that hasn't changed

Michael said...

Jay Retread is an anarchist? Holy shit! Did you turn over cars Tuesday night when the Canucks lost to the Kings? If not, why not?

AJ Lynch said...

And remember this - libruls don't want to take money out of politics. They want to limit private money but they want to use our taxpayer money to publicly fund campaigns because libruls are control freaks.

Seven Machos said...

So, as much as I don't want to go all historical, because nobody but me appreciates history, all this bitching by Jay sounds exactly like what leftists have been saying in the United States for decades.

Plop Jay down in the 1920s, or 30s, or 40s, etc, etc, and he would be telling us how people are going to rise up any day now over what always amount to class issues.

Why hasn't it happened? And what makes you think it will now in a culture that is so ridiculously diffuse that it is problematic?

You are just silly, Jay, and all you preening leftists. But go on and drink your lattes and bitch how others -- not you, but others -- should have their speech restricted. Or should have to pay more taxes. Or whatever new limitation you've thought up this morning. Hilarious.

Phil 3:14 said...

Then Ann what is your remedy besides bitching at those who are trying to counter this political power imbalance?

Was the Professor "bitching " or just reporting. Again Jay you presume, "imbalance". I'm pretty sure a "non-Corporatist" Democrat is President, the same party controls the upper house.

Seven Machos said...

I also love anarchists who want to have a bunch of new laws and don't see the hilarious irony.

I myself am a vegan who eats tasty animals and dairy products on a daily basis.

Paco Wové said...

"Ann what is your remedy besides bitching"

I also love trolls, especially juvenile hecklers like "Jay", who complain about other people "bitching". Wassamatter, "Jay", is she horning in on your territory?

Simon said...

caplight45 said...
"The core of the problem with corporate money lies in the fact that the government and it's bureaucrats and unelected enforcers and unlegislated regulations makes it a game corporations must play in order to survive. The ubiquity of government influence and intrusion drives the money machine. They also must compete with all the lefty utopian groups who, having failed to win the hearts and minds of the populace, seek to use their kindred spirits in the government to wield control for them."

Seconded. If one is against money in government, one should ask what drives money to government in the first place and solve that problem. A minimally interventionist government will attract much less rent seeking.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Jay Retread said...

Tyrone "I am a little corporate robot and my corporate mommy even wipes my butt!" Slothrop

Too fucking funny!


Thanks for confirming what I already knew to be true-- when confronted with a real argument, all your little commie punk ass can come up with is dirty words. Go troll at Kos where they will tickle your asshole with a feather, loser.

Jay Retread said...

Tea Party who? What ever happen to the tea party? I guess their usefulness dissipated after Citizen United.

Carol_Herman said...

Some day it won't matter that buckets of money are spent on advertising. Because the populace will grow up. They'll smell the bullshit.

Heck, if Kodak can go out of business, anybody can go out of business!

All you need is that the majority of folk STOP buying your message.

Lots of them, by the way, have left the movie theaters.

What if Newt Gingrich did NOT get hurt by ABC's old second wife news bit?

Does your mind change that easily?

I think Newt's happily married.

And, I think, ahead, we will have politicians who can win the presidency without staying for two years at various Motel 6's.

This way of "doing business" will go with the Fuller Brush Man.

Nixon was right. Just spell his name properly.

Paco Wové said...

"Jay:

What does your proposed amendment to the Constitution say? How can you expect anyone to endorse it until he or she has seen it?"


We can easily simulate what a Jay R. amendment would look like -- just run together a random string of puerile insults and obscenities.

That'll show those stupid bourgeois! 'Cause he's a big bad anarkist! (Note the anarchic, no-boundaries spelling.) Boo!

AJ Lynch said...

At one time, I was in favor of limits on campaign contributions. I thought the limit could be as follows:
[a] only eligible voters could contribute so a Congress candidate could only accept money from someone who lived in his district, etc. and
[b] the amount contributed could not exceed the average American's annual salary and
[c] the limit applied to the candidate's own money as well.

I no longer believe in restrictions nor limits.

Browndog said...

@chip Ahoy

Calm down, chief.

First of all, who the fuck are you?

Your inane rant aside, the two are related-

Libtard judges, who were taught by libtard law professors that the U.S. Constitution is a living document..ever changing...

Changing on the whims of their own personal interpretations, creating case law, and basing the Constitution based on that case law, and forever trying to justify/rectify it-

Freedom of speech is whatever ONE judge says it is on any given day-

Arbitrary--

Althouse, the former cesspool of free speech- has opted for the same.

Deleted comments on how she happens to feel about something at that particular moment-

Arbitrary free speech-

And the judge is the sole arbiter of what that is--

Not the "rules", not the "law".

Next time you come for me, step up your game.

Good day.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Browndog:

Your argument breaks down when you rant about lack of free speech on this blog.

This blog is private property. You have no free speech rights here; none of us do.

mesquito said...

Damn. I wathed a whole Cary Grant movie and Jay Retread still hasn't offered us an amendment.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Professor Althouse:

Speaking of the First Amendment, are you aware of the Obama Administration's issuance of rules regarding contraceptive coverage in insurance plans? It's application to those who have moral or religious objections to contraception would seem to involve "free exercise" issues.

It was part of the Administration's Friday dump.

DADvocate said...

Mob rule. That's the answer.

Jay Retread said...

Citizen United is here to stay. The aftermath is going to be fun to watch.

Prediction, corporatists like Romney will try to buy off the rabble by forming an alliance between the corporate state and the welfare state. I can promise you Romney will expand the welfare/corporate state the same way Bush did with his elderly drug program. Romney will get away with shit that Obama only dreamed of doing.

But fools like Seven Machos believe that Romney will challenge the system that he is in the middle of.

shiloh said...

Re: deletions. That's what's great about the internet, everyone can have their own frickin' blog. So if you are zapped, put it on your own damn blog.

No biggie as the truth is out there!

Political blogs are good for redundancy ie Bush sucks er Obama sucks er mitten sucks er Newt sucks er you suck, no you really, really suck! :D

Nothing new under the sun, so hopefully a political blog is entertaining.

>

carry on w/your favorite politician being bought and sold by the highest bidder ...

Nightbird Glineux said...

@mesquito: We have to pass the Amendment so that you can find out what is in it.

Synova said...

"Then Ann what is your remedy besides bitching at those who are trying to counter this political power imbalance?"

I'm sure someone already mentioned this but...

Why is it morally superior to have the job of "asking questions"?

Why is it morally superior to ask questions and then demand that others come up with the solutions of which you approve?

This is Trutherism. It's Rosie O'Donnell saying, "I'm just asking questions!" The presence of questions is proof... PROOF!... that some nebulous nasty thing is going on. No possible other scenarios, no matter how fantastic or unusual or bizarre, can even be supposed and yet... obviously something ELSE happened... because there are questions.

Same/same.

Jay Retread doesn't have to promote a solution, he has only to ask questions. If he can not be satisfied by other's solutions then his questions themselves are proof.

Lazy thinking. Lazy, loose, pointless EMOTING as a replacement for any sort of reason or rationality.

OWS standard operating procedure. Raise awareness! Ask questions. Fuss! Fuss some more.

No one has to understand free speech (or economics) or care or even want to care about principles or how the world works... they just need to emote about an event, an injustice. Everyone else has to worry about externalities and systems, because the important part is done. The part that matters is done.

But in the real world "raising awareness" is worthless self-pleasuring. The grownups will worry about freedom, about externalities or consequences.

Synova said...

"And an African/American had never been elected president. Things change.

If "we the people" determine 'Citizens United' was a bad idea as re: to liberty and justice for all or equal protection under the law, etc. then public opinion could lead to a reversal.
"

And if "we the people" determine that blacks should not vote, that it was a bad idea, that it is counter productive to liberty and justice... then public opinion could lead to a reversal.

GAWD you're an idiot.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here was Scott Turow's proposal for an amendment to the First Amendment (discussed some time back on this very blog):

“The Congress and the States shall regulate the direct and indirect expenditure of private funds on the electoral process in order to ensure that no group, entity or individual exercises unequal influence on an election by those means.”

Let's help out Jayjay and submit this in his behalf as his proposed amendment. Unless he wants to disown it?

garage mahal said...

OWS standard operating procedure. Raise awareness! Ask questions. Fuss! Fuss some more.

Pesky peasants again, always talking about things that should only be discussed in board, er, I mean quiet rooms!

Synova said...

How much more did Obama spend than McCain?

Obama promised to limit his expenditures by taking public funds.

He made so much more money than McCain that he forgot that promise.

But that wasn't DIRTY corporate money... or was it?

The HYPOCRISY is astounding.

shiloh said...

Synova, your inane non-sequitur notwithstanding, in the first moderation thread I mentioned someone, who shall remain nameless, who regularly posted very, very long blather signifying nothing ...

take care

Synova said...

Pesky peasants... making content free noise... over and over and over.

Garage... it's not ENOUGH to ask questions and make noise. It's not the moral high-ground to fuss and make noise.

In fact, in this risk-free environment, it's such an easy cop-out that it's the opposite of moral or high. It's childish.

Good intentions, proper attitudes, "doing something" that never works... if you're not part of the *solution*, you're part of the problem.

That makes you a bad-guy. Not a good-guy. A bad-guy.

Synova said...

OMG, Shiloh is threatening me?

Fr Martin Fox said...

The really funny thing about Scott Turow and his amendment?

He's a lawyer! A lawyer wrote that mess! (No doubt to generate endless work as a litigator.)

Jay Retread said...

Who's the good guys again?

Synova, your self important droning is hypnotic.

William said...

Some corporations have more free speech than others. Disney, Time Warner, Fox, etc. have a great deal more free speech than Exxon or Dow Chemical. With the exception of Fox, the only way a conservative can interject his view into the debate is to pay for it. And paid commericals have less effect on public opinion than SNL skits or Spielberg movies. The left already has a dominant position in the markplace of ideas, and they're lobbying for a total monopoly.....OK, I'm off point, but at yesterday's debate Gingrich got a standing ovation when he attacked the media. In the post debate analysis, I didn't hear a single reporter speculate that perhaps their leftward bias is responsible for such animosity.

Synova said...

Have you suggested a way to limit free speech yet, Jay?

Jay Retread said...

Marty Fox, I don't want an amendment. Citizen United is quickly reshaping how Americans view their political system. Heck even Republican primary voters are viewing it as a sham. Fucking hillbillies.

Let Citizen United undermine American's faith in the political process. I'm LMAO! Fuck the system! Let Citizen United run it's course.

Synova said...

Perhaps Shiloh will explain how "we the people" can overthrow one portion of the Constitution without allowing the overthrow of any other part "we the people" decide we don't like.

No?

Is that someone else's job, too?

Henry said...

Which elections has Citizens United actually affected?

Hello?

Does Citizens United have anything to do with the $240M Obama has raised so far for his re-election campaign?

No. It doesn't apply.

Does Citizens United have anything to do with the $745M Obama raised for this 2008 re-election campaign?

No. It hadn't been decided yet. And it wouldn't have applied.

Does Citizens United explain why Congress is full of Millionaires? Does it explain why lobbyists draw big salaries? Does it explain Bill Clinton's speaking fees, Newt Gingrich's consulting fees, Lyndon Johnson's radio and television wealth?

The kids on the left would sell out the first amendment for a mess of pottage. Learn some history. Look at the big picture. Is that so hard?

Chuck66 said...

Would the fleabaggers have run away to Illinois if their union masters didn't give them so much money? Perhaps we need to restrict the rights of Big Labor to purchase politicians.

Chuck66 said...

William, good point. I have heard a stat (don't have a source, so can't verify it) that 50% of Americans think Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house".

Perhaps if we are going to do away with free speach, we should start with Big Media before we restrict basic rights of unionists or business people.

Bender said...

It should be noted that, by far, the biggest corporations that seek to influence the political system are not the pikers who spend a million here or a million there, but the New York Times, the Washington Post, GE (owns NBC, etc.), Disney (owns ABC, etc.), Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and several other media outlets.

And yes, some of these corporations, e.g. New York Times, have grossly distorted our political process. Perhaps we ought to constitutionally limit the power of corporations after all.

MartyH said...

I don't have text for an amendment, but if you want to reduce money in campaigns, tax it heavily, with a tilt toward donations to candidates over PACs or lobbyists. For example, if the tax rates for candidates is X, the tax rates for PACs is 1.25X, and the tax rates for lobbyist is 1.5X, money will tend to go to candidates, not PACs. If taxation is highly progressive, then recipients will see less benefit from large donations, reducing the relative influence of big money.

For example, no limits on contributions, but contributions to candidates are taxed as follows:

0-$200: 0%
$201-$2000: entire amount taxed at 20%
$2001-$20,000: entire amount tax at 40%
$20,001+: entire amount taxed at 60%

Again, contributions to PACs are 25% higher than this, and contributions to lobbyists are 50% higher.

We could tax incumbents as well. Every % of GDP deficit spending you vote for is a % that your campaign is taxed. Failure to pass a full year debt ceiling increase and budget before the August recess is a 10% donation tax on all members. This incumbent tax is cumulative; if an incumbent's tax rate hits 100% then they are termed out.

Tax the politicians!

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"GE (owns NBC, etc.)"

Isn't it 49%, w/ 51% and control @ CMCSA

Joe said...

Wow, in all these posts and nobody pointed out the obvious: one group of people are using their freedom of speech demanding that another group of people be denied that right.

Even more ironic; the main backer of these protesters is... a corporation. Amazing, isn't it?

Common Cause is a corporation and is leading the fight to prevent corporations being able to speak freely.

Joe said...

do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?

Yes, because I'm not a historical idiot. Corporations and companies ARE the political system. The way to stop that isn't to restrict speech more, but to restrict it less with one caveat--transparency.

I've asked this here before and will ask again; why are liberals so afraid of free speech?

Kirk Parker said...

shiloh,

"Much like prohibition..."

Exactly, except for the two equal and offsetting constitutional amendments which started and ended it... in other words, not at all like Prohibition.

Fr. Martin,

I disagree: if Turow made the proposal seriously (rather than "modestly") then he's not funny, he's evil.

Mick said...

Citizens v. FEC has been misrepresented so many times, starting w/ the criminal Usurper in office.

It did not matter whether Corporations are "persons".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"-- 1st Amendment

"Congress SHALL make no law". If Corporations cannot advertize for Political candidates then Newspapers can't either (they are corporations). This is about restricting speech that the Lefties don't like. FEC was not about Corporate political donations, it was about their right to advertize.

Issob Morocco said...

And just who is Joan Stallard? Another concerned citizen swept up by the O___ (fill in the acronym blank) protestations?

No she is a professional activist, much like our friend who was the voice of the Madison Takeover in all of the media.

It is time to start calling out the media for not calling out just who are these protestors. Hey we know Gingrich's background why not know Joan Stallard's or for that matter Obama's lost years that created the empty suit that now occupies the Presidency.

Real citizens want to know all of the story, not just what the media thinks we want to know.

Rusty said...

Tea Party who? What ever happen to the tea party? I guess their usefulness dissipated after Citizen United.


We're still here.


Watching


Incorporating.

SGT Ted said...

OTC is an even bigger FAIL than OWS.

Funny, a bunch of leftards organized by a Corporation, supported by the union Corporations and openly supported by the media Corporations calling for restrictions to Corporate free speech that weren't applied to them at all.

Are you really that stupid? Do you really think that there are those of us that don't remember the time before this idiot finance law was passed that actually restricted some peoples speech but not others?

Did you not think that when a movie was censored by the FEC within 60 days of an election that it wasn't a 1st Amendment violation by the Government? That it wasn't an outragious usurping of the 1st Amendment by the News Corporations, who were exempt from such speech restrictions?

Citizens United is a victory for Liberty for ALL of us.

But, keep up with the incoherent "anarkist/Commie" ignorance on a stick about how YOUR favored corporations are better than those other stinky profitable corporations that need to SHUT UP. You'll get a Republican elected for sure.

Curious George said...

"Jay Retread said...
Ann, do you deny the growing political power of corporations in our political system?"

One thing you can count on from the left, is that the world started recently.

Corporations have always had power in this country...it is actually much less today than in years past. The balance comes from the ability of information to flow from anyone to anyone.

Phil 3:14 said...

So...are you a troll or an idiot?

THE metaphysical question of the day.

Tank said...

Look, when the left talks about freedom, any freedom, not just speech, they mean the freedom to do and say things THEIR way.

Their way or the highway.

That's the left. (Many on the right too.)

Jay said...

The protesters wanted to express the opinion that Citizens United was decided the wrong way.

Hilarious.

And I'm willing to bet 80% of them don't even know when the decision was handed down.

SGT Ted said...

For the left, it is about controlling speech they don't approve of. Thats why, when the law in which created CU vs US granted special exemptions to their political allies in the press, they were all for it. They knew that it helped their control of speech by giving media corporations special treatment not afforded to other corporations, setting up media corporations as gatekeepers of political speech 60 days prior to an election.

CU vs US was about the government suppression of a movie made criticizing a leftwing politician during a Presidential election cycle. It is about the idea that people do not give up their right to free speech when they exercise their right to free association.

Only anti-American Leftists, calling themselves OWS/OTC, think suppressing the free speech of some citizens during elections is desirable.

Browndog said...

Fr Martin Fox said...

Browndog:

Your argument breaks down when you rant about lack of free speech on this blog.

This blog is private property. You have no free speech rights here; none of us do.


Your argument breaks down twice.

First, I never made a claim that Althouse doesn't have the right--private property--and all that.

That is a straw man-

As far as the second, I'll let you-Capt. Obvious-try to figure that out on your own.

Do so in good faith...

Ann Althouse said...

Many comments were deleted in this thread, including some from good faith commenters who were simply pushing back the bad faith commenters. (It's okay to do that, but when the deletions come, yours must go down too.)

Alex said...

I can see all my previous Jay-tard slamming comments were deleted by the good professor!

Nicolas Martin said...

The greater government's power is over business, the greater becomes the reciprocal power of business over government.

instantinsurance said...

Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..Corporate Entertainment