PPLE
01-23-2007, 08:40 PM
I have an ex who is a brilliant UVA trained attorney, SMU professor, published author,and Katy award winner. Now the we no longer sleep together, I enjoy our arguments a lot more :)
Anyway, I sent him an email asking what he thought of political speech, referencing this NYT article.
Death Knell May Be Near for Public Election Funds (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=26923)
Here is response; I'll enjoy your comments, folks.
This is the problem with the entire political money as speech thing: no matter what, you run afoul of the constitution (which is something we always accuse Bush of doing).
Remember that email you sent me about taxing blogs? You found that offensive, right? Well, it's the SAME THING.
If you passed a law that said the government may restrict what money of ANY kind is spent on, you could feasible say that Time Inc. can't spent more than $1,000 year on political coverage (or tax then 85% of all income from publishing). Which means NO coverage. Everyone would agree that is wrong.
So why can't the GOP publish a newsletter -- perhaps written in such a way to even LOOK like a legitimate news organ (like FoxNews!) -- that says "Bush is brilliant and should be heralded as a genius!' Time sells ads, but Consumer Reports does not, relying on subscriptions and donations only; so people GIVE money to Con. Rep. to keep that publication in business. So can't the GOP do the same thing, accepting donations to fund their publication? And rather than publish their OWN mag, why not buy ads in someone else's? What, in other words, gives Time Inc. and Consumer Reports more rights than the GOP?
Keep in mind, the concept of "objective" journalism is of fairly recent birth -- think about the Federalist Papers and The Abolitionist. Should the govt have prevented THEM from publishing?
This is the problem of "political money." I give money to HRC (which is NOT a 501c3); they publish a newsletter advocating gay rights. They place ads in the Dallas Voice saying "these are the gay-friendly candidates you might want to vote for." Are you opposed to that? Should we be --- isn't that the POINT of the first amendment? Why should Lysol be able to buy an ad promoting their spray and HRC not buy an ad promoting their champions in congress?
The thing is, we need "corporate" speech -- we need it because ANY time more than one person is involved, you need protection for a "corporation." (Obviously, it does not need to be a corp -- an LLP, partnership, foundation, association, etc.) Henry Luce founded Time but he could not afford to publish it himself personally -- he needed investors. And he shouldn't lose his house if one of the writers he hired published something untrue and he was sued. If he was liable that way, he would never START Time, which would be the same as forbidding it. (You of all people should like corp. speech, as it allows people like our publisher to start a publication; if he couldn't form a corp. the only people who could afford to finance such things are people like Murdoch, which would decrease the voices out there.)
The entire first amendment is premised on the idea that more, not less, speech is good for society; that ideas that have widespread appeal will take root; and that people have the right to finance their ability to spread those ideas. (After all, the Federalists had access to a printing press; they were not required to loan that press to those with opposing viewpoints.)
The irony is that money ALONE allows some people to stifle free speech.
Anyway, I sent him an email asking what he thought of political speech, referencing this NYT article.
Death Knell May Be Near for Public Election Funds (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=26923)
Here is response; I'll enjoy your comments, folks.
This is the problem with the entire political money as speech thing: no matter what, you run afoul of the constitution (which is something we always accuse Bush of doing).
Remember that email you sent me about taxing blogs? You found that offensive, right? Well, it's the SAME THING.
If you passed a law that said the government may restrict what money of ANY kind is spent on, you could feasible say that Time Inc. can't spent more than $1,000 year on political coverage (or tax then 85% of all income from publishing). Which means NO coverage. Everyone would agree that is wrong.
So why can't the GOP publish a newsletter -- perhaps written in such a way to even LOOK like a legitimate news organ (like FoxNews!) -- that says "Bush is brilliant and should be heralded as a genius!' Time sells ads, but Consumer Reports does not, relying on subscriptions and donations only; so people GIVE money to Con. Rep. to keep that publication in business. So can't the GOP do the same thing, accepting donations to fund their publication? And rather than publish their OWN mag, why not buy ads in someone else's? What, in other words, gives Time Inc. and Consumer Reports more rights than the GOP?
Keep in mind, the concept of "objective" journalism is of fairly recent birth -- think about the Federalist Papers and The Abolitionist. Should the govt have prevented THEM from publishing?
This is the problem of "political money." I give money to HRC (which is NOT a 501c3); they publish a newsletter advocating gay rights. They place ads in the Dallas Voice saying "these are the gay-friendly candidates you might want to vote for." Are you opposed to that? Should we be --- isn't that the POINT of the first amendment? Why should Lysol be able to buy an ad promoting their spray and HRC not buy an ad promoting their champions in congress?
The thing is, we need "corporate" speech -- we need it because ANY time more than one person is involved, you need protection for a "corporation." (Obviously, it does not need to be a corp -- an LLP, partnership, foundation, association, etc.) Henry Luce founded Time but he could not afford to publish it himself personally -- he needed investors. And he shouldn't lose his house if one of the writers he hired published something untrue and he was sued. If he was liable that way, he would never START Time, which would be the same as forbidding it. (You of all people should like corp. speech, as it allows people like our publisher to start a publication; if he couldn't form a corp. the only people who could afford to finance such things are people like Murdoch, which would decrease the voices out there.)
The entire first amendment is premised on the idea that more, not less, speech is good for society; that ideas that have widespread appeal will take root; and that people have the right to finance their ability to spread those ideas. (After all, the Federalists had access to a printing press; they were not required to loan that press to those with opposing viewpoints.)
The irony is that money ALONE allows some people to stifle free speech.