Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Expected Political Ad Transparency
T Murphy writes "The Supreme Court, when ruling that corporate and union political donations were allowed under free speech, assumed the source of the donation would be disclosed immediately under current donation laws. Due to loopholes, this has not been the case, eliminating the hoped-for transparency the Supreme Court ruled to be vital to democracy. Justice Kennedy, who sided with the majority on the ruling, has been called naive for his expectation that there would be greater transparency. In the meantime, campaign spending for House candidates alone is expected to reach $1.5 billion."
Dude, the freedom of speech is not the same thing as the freedom to lie about your identity. That is NOT what the Constitution was meant to protect. But whatever, enjoy your corporate overlords -- you deserve them.
>>>all funding must come from the gov't,
And of course third parties like the Libertarians or Reformers or Communists would get no funds. Or else only ~1% what the Democrats/Republicans get. Your idea would merely solidify the Duopoly of the present parties, and lock-out any challengers. Brilliant (for them, not us).
And of course religious parties (constitutionalists) would not be allowed to get any money.
Just as religious schools can't get any government money.
So that's another form of suppression of voter speech.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The problem isn't one private entity giving their one word, but one private entity speaking as if it were a thousand voices in a thousand places.
So now your issue isn't with speech, it's with the SCALE of that speech? Show me the text in the 1st amendment that grants Congress the power to ensure that everyone gets to speak at the same volume level in a crowded room.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I tell you what. When foreign contributions become a real problem, then you can tell us, "I told you so". In the meantime, I'm not going to let words from one of the most mendacious presidents ever and a small amount of foreign money (which incidentally didn't go to elections) overwhelm my reasoning facilities.
Fine. Corrected:
For example Microsoft shareholders retain their rights, but the actual Microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights. It is a THING and things don't have rights, although the individuals inside that thing still retain all their Human rights (to speak, lobby, etc).
.
>>>the two are identical.
No. They aren't. I know Bill Gates is not the "owner" but for sake of argument let's suppose he is. He has the right to speak and hire lobbyists out of his OWN pocket. But Microsoft should have zero right to spend the money out of its own Treasury, because MS has no more rights than a building. It's a Thing not a person.
Humans rights are for humans. Not things.
Bill Gates is a human. He has rights.
Microsoft is a thing. It does not.
Unless you want to continue watching Congress STEAL your taxpayer money in 700 billion dollar bailouts? Because that's what the current system has created. It has become "We The Corporations" and "The Bill of Corporation Rights" while the human beings no longer matter.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall