As the country awaits a key Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law, several recent lower-court decisions have rolled back longstanding restrictions on political ad spending, a possible boost for Republicans in this election year. —JCL
The New York Times:
Even before a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law expected within days, a series of other court decisions is reshaping the political battlefield by freeing corporations, unions and other interest groups from many of the restrictions on their advertising about issues and candidates.
Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate. The end of decades-old restrictions could unleash a torrent of negative advertisements, help cash-poor Republicans in a pivotal year and push President Obama to bring in more money for his party.
If the Supreme Court, as widely expected, rules against core elements of the existing limits, Democrats say they will try to enact new laws to reinstate the restrictions in time for the midterm elections in November. And advocates of stricter campaign finance laws say they hope the developments will prod the president to fulfill a campaign promise to update the presidential campaign financing system, even though it would diminish his edge as incumbent.
Many legal experts say they expect the court to use its imminent ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to eliminate the remaining restrictions on advertisements for or against candidates paid for by corporations, unions and advocacy organizations. (The case centers on whether spending restrictions apply to a conservative group’s documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.”)
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
Media is owned by the same self serving interests which elect candidates who are beholding to their interests.
The intentional denial of media attention given to Ron Paul during the Republican primary was reprehensible and I hope all media news professionals are ashamed of it as they should be.
We need a big anti trust push to free the media and restrict those who would control all of what we see and hear.
By L.B. Shannon, January 9, 2010 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The core problem still remains that the Supreme Court ruled in 1887 that corporations have the status of a person without the same responsibilities. Little known anecdote- this was not written in the decision nor had it been argued- the court clerk picked up an offhand oral comment by the Chief Justice and wrote it into the decision.
Corporations do not have the same responsibilities as people. The whole purpose of allowing the existence of corporations as an entity is to create special entities with special rights for the aggregation of investment without full responsibility. Its also ironic to point out to insane libertarian free marketeers that corporations are a creation of government.
An additional problem is the reliance of political messaging on electronic media. Remember one more give away in the 90’s deregulation created by the 1990’s Contract on America was deregulation of the airwaves.
The only bright spot on any of this is that in five or ten years, social networking could make tv ads nearly obsolete. Lets pray for that. But this is more fuel on the fire for a disastorous election year, if we don’t get off our butts and fight to at least have a chance at progressive progress. And while we all have intense frustrations (See: Glass Steagall repeal, and the need to reenact something similar) to give up will be like saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
This decision will be the most truly activist action by the most activist SCOTUS we have ever had- radical conservative activism. God help the Republic.
“Campaign finance reform and media reform are directed at the same societal illness—the influence of private corporate money that improperly negates civic need and public choice.”
(Ben Bagdikian)
“Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congresses and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media.”
(Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace)
“Along with Sri Lanka, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that do not give politicians free broadcast time.”
(Peter Levine, The New Progressive Era)
” ... the airwaves belong to the people. “
(from the 1934 Communications Act)
Truthdiggers of the Week: 400,000 Canadians Launching the ‘Maple Spring’
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
By PatrickHenry, January 10, 2010 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
Media is owned by the same self serving interests which elect candidates who are beholding to their interests.
The intentional denial of media attention given to Ron Paul during the Republican primary was reprehensible and I hope all media news professionals are ashamed of it as they should be.
We need a big anti trust push to free the media and restrict those who would control all of what we see and hear.
Report thisBy L.B. Shannon, January 9, 2010 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The core problem still remains that the Supreme Court ruled in 1887 that corporations have the status of a person without the same responsibilities. Little known anecdote- this was not written in the decision nor had it been argued- the court clerk picked up an offhand oral comment by the Chief Justice and wrote it into the decision.
Corporations do not have the same responsibilities as people. The whole purpose of allowing the existence of corporations as an entity is to create special entities with special rights for the aggregation of investment without full responsibility. Its also ironic to point out to insane libertarian free marketeers that corporations are a creation of government.
An additional problem is the reliance of political messaging on electronic media. Remember one more give away in the 90’s deregulation created by the 1990’s Contract on America was deregulation of the airwaves.
The only bright spot on any of this is that in five or ten years, social networking could make tv ads nearly obsolete. Lets pray for that. But this is more fuel on the fire for a disastorous election year, if we don’t get off our butts and fight to at least have a chance at progressive progress. And while we all have intense frustrations (See: Glass Steagall repeal, and the need to reenact something similar) to give up will be like saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
Report thisThis decision will be the most truly activist action by the most activist SCOTUS we have ever had- radical conservative activism. God help the Republic.
By FRTothus, January 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
“Campaign finance reform and media reform are directed at the same societal illness—the influence of private corporate money that improperly negates civic need and public choice.”
(Ben Bagdikian)
“Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congresses and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media.”
(Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace)
“Along with Sri Lanka, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that do not give politicians free broadcast time.”
(Peter Levine, The New Progressive Era)
” ... the airwaves belong to the people. “
Report this(from the 1934 Communications Act)