MSNBC Refused to Air This MoveOn.Org Ad
August 21st, 2010Target Ain’t People
MoveOn.Org‘s ad featuring a demonstration against Target due to the retail company’s campaign contributions mostly to Republicans was refused by MSNBC, which declined to air the ad. In the video, you can see it discusses the boycott on Target by gay marriage supporters.
So much for the idea that corporations would not abuse their new rights guaranteed by the Bush-Roberts Supreme Court to give unlimited amounts to conservative Republican political campaigns.
A few Target and Best Buy shareholders weighed in Thursday on the flap over the companies’ political donations in Minnesota, urging the boards of both retailers to increase their oversight of campaign contributions. Target gave $150,000 and Best Buy $100,000 to a business-focused political fund helping a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota, triggering a national backlash from gay rights groups and liberals.
The companies made the donations after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling freed them to spend corporate funds on elections.
AP: Target Faces Backlash for Conservative Political Gifts
Congress should write a new law banning corporate campaign contributions and dare the Supreme Court to strike it down again.
President Barack Obama is on the right side of this issue.
President Obama says Republicans should join him in opposing a Supreme Court ruling that vastly increased how much corporations and unions can spend on campaign ads. Instead, the GOP wants to “keep the public in the dark” about who’s behind the expenditures, Obama charged in his weekly radio and Internet address.
AP: Obama Challenges GOP on Campaign Finance Ruling
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Tags: Target Ain't People: MSNBC Refused to Air This MoveOn.Org Ad
August 21st, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Even if Congress did write a new law banning corporate contributions, it would be struck down again on First Amendment grounds.
For me as a libertarian, this is not about the baleful influence of corporate contributions (more on that later), but about the absolute nature of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Regardless of how much one may despise rightwing nationalist political positions, it is axiomatic that if that those who hold those positions cannot communicate them because of legal restriction, then “free speech” is meaningless. One day those of us who hold different opinions might well be targeted.
Corporate contributions are insidious when they are secret, viz: payoffs done in backrooms to politicians. (That still happens, but it has always happened, and continues to be illegal.) At least these contributions are public record, there for all to see, just as we have in this instance.
The Supreme Court ruling in question did not affect limits on contributions to *political campaign committees* of candidates and political parties. Those continue. What the Court ruling said was that corporations — and unions, lest we forget they were included as well — are “persons” under the law. As “persons,” they cannot be limited or directed by government in how they promote their views.
President Obama was elected to office with the largest amount of cash ever raised for a presidential candidate, and from the most donors, all thanks to the internet savvy of his campaign team. Anyone worried about the undue influence of rightwing money in politics ought to be working to ensure that those of other persuasions raise similar, or greater amounts of money.
Advocating limiting free speech, which is what an attempt at reversing this Supreme Court decision would be, sets a dangerous precedent. If free speech for corporations and unions is limited today, then tomorrow it might well be limited for the politically-unfavorable groups de jour.
A number of South American countries, Turkey, and some others are still living with the side effects of attempts at “guided democracy” that included restrictions or “guidance” on political speech and the press. Those effects include civil cultures that promote timidity before government and a reflexive, self-censoring style on the part of much if not all the various national medias in those countries.
In my opinon, it is far better to have near-absolute freedom of speech and the press than to apply selective political restrictions that will, inevitably, grow into a repressive regime of regulation and control.
And we might want to explore the underlying reasons big financial and special interests — from corporations to unions to various advocacy groups — are so vitally interested in who holds office, particularly federal office. That underlying reason is that federal politicians control vast amounts of money (government contracts, subsidies) and can pass legislation guaranteeing a particular industry or company or group money and privilege, or they can pass legislation that will destroy them.
Much of that is made possible through the system of adminstrative law that I have inveighed against in other posts here. And, a great deal of it is made possible through the income tax system which targets subsidies and favors politically.
What we should end, as soon as possible, is the vast system of corporate welfare that emanates from DC. That includes all the sweetheart (and non-bid) contracts, subsidies, etc. that run into the hundreds of billions annually. Not only would a tremendous dent be put in the national deficit, but a lot of the problems advocates of limits on corporate contributions suppose the latter would solve, would be solved into the bargain.
That is the major surgery required. Campaign contribution limits are a bandaid, and one that would effectly tape shut the mouths of unintended victims. Regaining control of the country cannot be done by restrictions on First Amendment freedoms, it has to be done by intelligent use of First Amendment and other freedoms. Otherwise, the probable end result will be bad, very bad, for all.
Once again, recommended reading for how free democratic countries transit into authoritarian autocracies is Frank Herbert’s “Dune” novels. Special strokes for, or against, special folks is the key ingredient in the recipe for feudalism.