They say it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. And those of you who have met me in person know I am nothing if not a big man.
I may be wrong.
Senator Elect Scott Brown may be the wisest man since Solomon, and a legislator to rival Daniel Webster. Tying the Obama Administration in knots may be the key event that saves America from the Red Menace. Stopping people from being able to see their doctors when they are sick may have just prevented us all from having to dress the same and carry the President's autobiography around with us everywhere we go. Torture may be a key element of the war on terror, and climate change may just be some loony plot cooked up during a hash reverie at The Nation magazine. Saving corporations from having any restrictions on political spending may be the key that unlocks the new American Arcadia.
Charlie Pierce does not agree.
Maybe Charlie and I are wrong.
But I doubt it.
For the last part, you are probably referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision to stop censoring political speech. Which had little to do with corporate power, and everything to do with restoring lost First Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteOn to the main subject, on the main liberal blog I read, the strong liberal hostess is claiming that Brown is really fairly liberal, and that his victory will only help Obama get done what he needs to get done.
As for another specific, I'm glad Brown's victory stops the Congressional Dems efforts to prevent people from seeing their own doctor (and the related efforts to force people to cut food and college spending to waste money on health insurance plans they don't need, plans to force med equipment suppliers to increase their costs, and other measures created to damage health care).
As someone who campaigned for Scott Brown, I can tell you that I'm sure Charlie is dead wrong about him and you may be as well.
ReplyDeletePeople around the country should come and talk to some of the people in Massachusetts who actually do have forced health care and they may find out it's not all that it is cracked up to be. I for instance, am now paying twice what I used to pay for premiums and have less coverage. I am forced to carry a $100 co-pay for an ER visit, when the $200 co-pay I had 2 years ago was perfectly acceptable to me, or I would face a $2000 fine. Where exactly does any of that make any sense?
I agree that something needs to be done for the people who can not afford health care, but forcing the rest of us to pay for coverage we don't want or need is ridiculous.
DMarks-Despite what SCOTUS has said, corporations aren't people. Where are corporations mentioned in the First Amendment? Furthermore, corporations are entities owned by their stockholders. We outlawed the owning of persons in the Constitution, too.
ReplyDeleteWe disagree about health care reform at nearly every turn-I don't believe that the proposed health reform does anything you say it does.
And Paulie-I'm sure health care in Massachusetts is far from perfect. You shouldn't have to pay more. I think, if the system is allowed to work, eventually you won't. But none of us knows that.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, though-you do need it. I do, everybody does, no matter your state of health. The same way you need to be insured against damage to your car. I don't care how well you take care of yourself, any of us can be hit by a bus.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, Mike. I am living health care reform now. It is costing me a fortune and the state is 250 million dollars in the hole because of it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael said: "DMarks-Despite what SCOTUS has said, corporations aren't people."
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS never said anything even remotely like this. However, it is true that individuals who happen to choose to be members of organizations are people, and don't lose their Constitutional rights just by joining organizations.
"Where are corporations mentioned in the First Amendment?"
Great point. They aren't. There's no exemption in the Bill of Rights for individuals who are members of organizations. After all, no corporation can say one single word. It's people who speak, write, make press releases, and make commercials.
Now, the idea you put forth that corporations should be censored is quite a dangerous one. Most newspapers and book publishers are incorporated (as to have some protection from frivolous lawsuits). So, would you like the government to be able to have complete control over, say, the content of the New York Times, since the Times is a corporation?
"Furthermore, corporations are entities owned by their stockholders. We outlawed the owning of persons in the Constitution, too."
...which changes the subject to something entirely outside of the ruling.
Now lets get back to basics: "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."
Note that there is absolutely nothing referring to WHO is speaking, or who is running the press. The Constitution does not care.
Actually, SCOTUS said precisely that in 1886.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html#118US394
Specifically,
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
Paulie-it is absolutely true-you are living in it, I am not. I think, given enough time, it will work. I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd DM-it is, of course, true that employees of corporations don't surrender their Constitutional rights to speak out on behalf of political candidates. (Interesting, though, that you mostly do inside the workplace.) The personhood of corporations does raise that interesting questions-corporations can do everything citizens can do except vote. So how can they be owned by anyone? But, as you say, this is a separate issue.
ReplyDeleteThe entire crux of the point is this-yes, if ExxonMobil contributes to elect Joe Blow, someone, with a full set of constitutional rights, is doing the speaking. But ExxonMobil as a group can outspend all but a few rich individuals. In every material way, ExxonMobil (or a teacher's union, or a bank) can make its voice the loudest one in the marketplace of ideas and drown out all others.
You have to be a fool to believe that contributors do not have a voice in policy, and that large contributors don't have louder voices. Do we, as a society, really truly want the malefactors of great wealth to control the levers of power to a greater extent than they do already?
... 'lost First Amendment rights'... for corporations?
ReplyDeleteFor once, I am struck speechless. (only for three seconds, though)
All I can say is this: Scott Brown is a wonderful example.
For Levi Johnston. So, huzzah! There is hope that someday Levi will wrap up HIS stripping career, package up HIS welfare-dependent mother and pimp out his son as "available" (after he gets custody) on the dias of public misery...
Ah... all he has to do is follow in Scotty's footsteps.
"Interesting, though, that you mostly do inside the workplace."
ReplyDeleteWell, in that situation you are being paid to do something specifically. By your own agreement.
"ExxonMobil (or a teacher's union, or a bank) can make its voice the loudest one in the marketplace of ideas and drown out all others."
Then amend the Constitution. The first amendment does single out loud speech for censorship. It now prohibits censoring someone for being "loud"
Drowning out would be a big problem, if it were happening. However, the long-term trend of strong growth in the number and diversity and outlets of media voices makes this impossible.
ExxonMobile might, for example, buy all of the advertising time on the NBC network. But the NBC network is just one of many many voices out there, and even its market share is dwindling. I can't recall the last time I watched NBC, either. Oh. it was a week or two ago, when I watched a few minutes of Leno.
There's also a technical consideration. In the media, no voice can "drown out" others. If you change the channel, visit a web site, or toss down a newspaper and pick up another, that first "voice" is entirely silenced in favor of the second "voice" you have chosen.
Drowned-out voices could happen with medieval town criers on nearby street corners yelling, but not in the media marketplace.
"I don't believe that the proposed health reform does anything you say it does."
ReplyDeleteI can go into specifics. For example, the provision to force people to buy certain health insurance plans whether or not they need them. For families making hard choices, this means cutting money from other things to pay for it. Answer? Let people choose. This has nothing to do with corporate power. It has to do with the rights of Americans to control their own family budgets.
On another, a big tax is put on medical equipment. For those of us who rely on it, this will mean big cost increases, that will spread through the healthcare system. Answer? Get rid of provisions like this that specifically increase the cost of health care.
Both of these are... or were, specifically in the healthcare plan.
We need healthcare reform, and I hope it comes back. But without the provision to wreak havoc with family budgets and without requiring equipment makers to charge more for equipment.
It really doesn't matter now, because health care reform is deader than Socrates.
ReplyDeleteBut of course media voices can crowd out all the others. Yes, you, as an individual person, can read redstate.org, or dailykos.org, or whatever. You can look at the New York Times online, or the Wall Street Journal, or the New Orleans Times-Picayune. You can watch MSNBC, or Fox, or CNN, or ABC.
But when someone is running for judge, or alderman, or mayor? How hard would it be for Exxon to make sure that electorate only sees ads for one of the two candidates. How about state government? You think a candidate for Congress can't get defeated by blanket advertising across his or her district?
Granted, Senate or Presidential races are harder. But those races are never very close-a turn of a few hundred thousand votes changes two of the last three presidential races. Scott Brown's margin was only 100,000 votes.
You, and I, and everyone reading these words, are NOT LIKE MOST PEOPLE. Most people watch So You Think You Can Dance, and then go to sleep. All they know is what television tells them, and if all they hear is about how Mary Jones is going to make gas prices go up, they're going to vote against Mary Jones.
You and I, DM, and certainly Jeanne, are smart enough to say, "Gosh, is that really true?", and go look it up in a reputable source. We might see that Mary Jones' opponent is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exxon, and more from Shell, and Getty, and think, "Well, her opponent is clearly being influenced by oil money. Maybe that should influence our vote."
You, and I, and Jeanne, do that. And Mary Jones loses, 128,000-3.
Yes, in a perfect world, voters do their homework and advertising doesn't influence them.
In the real world, they don't and it does.
I don't see how allowing corporations more influence over everything-from town zoning laws to the West Wing-helps anyone but the corporations.