Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Friday, January 29, 2010
PHI 2010 T,R 8:25am
13 comments:
Jose Medina
said...
I believe that using the First Amendment to justify corporate spending on political campaigns is a massive stretch. I must sound like a broken record, but this is merely an extension of a type of dialogical capitalism.
In this dialogical capitalism, we're intersecting two different planes; language, and capital—two subjects that could be categorized under "thesis and antithesis" (in a Hegelian sense). Speech (which most nearly means language) doesn't have a prima facie correlation to capital; I would argue that language is the only thing that serves as the bridge that can bring together those groups separated for capital reasons. However, this Supreme Court interpretation that seeks to permute language and money under a flimsy justification negates the liberating quality of language, a quality that Marxists such as Freire have considered to be necessary for a new praxis that allows the oppressed to escape from their condition.
Although capital and language are being held to the same level of importance, it would not be foolish to say that we can expect capitalism to slowly overtake language, and absorb it as a fundamental component of its ideology. The Supreme Court decision has already demonstrated consent by saying that limiting corporate donations limits speech, which adds a greater weight to consumerism and capitalism; the sanctity of language is now equivalent to the power of the dollar! This is bad in and of itself. [1/2]
Moreover, this type of "advanced capitalism" that is a subject of attention to the Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxists makes a prediction about political involvement. Jürgen Habermas believes that this system engenders "political abstinence" in privatism. Wide-scale corporate involvement in the political field through mass spending for campaigns only perpetuates Habermas' privatism, which will most likely serve to silence the political voices of those that live in the system, because they will be more interested in surviving the system on an individual, private level as opposed to the level of political theatrics. A rise in this privatism places democracy in the hands of the corporate supergiants, which, in the best case scenario, will coerce voters to elect the candidate on the more heavily funded side of the spectrum.
In our capitalist society, equality is a social ruse used by the influential to mask their subversive behavior towards those oppressed by them. Saying "the court should have likewise ruled that you cannot have equal speech without equal money — i.e., equal protection under the law" is essentially implying that equality and democracy ought to be on the same level. Equality (to a certain extent from certain perspectives) seems to be the closest thing to a universal social necessity, considering that the majority of political systems—both historical and current—seek to aim for a level of equality, whether it be through equal opportunity, equal distribution of resources, equal oppression, and so forth. However, at the point where equality is sacrificed for something such as free speech, it is difficult for the United States to be consistent with its ideals. This sort of inconsistency problematizes the United States political system: how can we solve these inconsistencies and preserve the goodness of equality?
Simple: don't let corporations donate as much money as they want to political campaigns! There's a fundamental difference between, "I approve of Candidate 1!" and "I approve of Candidate 1, there's $5,000,000 for your campaign!" and this difference is precisely what I elucidated in my second paragraph: the first is a statement grounded in language, the second is a statement grounded in a symbolic act attached to capital. Although Hegel may argue that the thesis and antithesis of capital may provide a synthesis into a higher truth, it seems that the only higher truth that this volatile combination will give birth to is that equality cannot be preserved when democracy and capitalism obscure the definitions of both when on the same stage. Democracy believes in equality based on the existence of competing advocacies that maintain dialectical process, whereas capitalism believes in equal opportunity, but renders the dialectical process void of value when capital is the primary determinant of the political participation that corporations seek to engage in. [2/2]
Money can't buy happiness, but i can definetly buy you a spot in a candidates political campaign. With that said it is clear that democracy is being threatened by corporation giants. If money equals speech a big part of middle America wouldn't be able to express themselves because of their lack of capital. Any candidate who take large sums of money from these corporate giants might as well be taking a bribe from a criminal, also any candidate who takes such large sums can not be deemed right as a political leader. People are easily corrupted by money and its important to educate other people about this because at the end its the people that are affected by any political decisions.
Just the other day one of my professors was explaining this case to us. i agree, money does in fact equal speech. Money helps you get your thoughts or views out. The government is right in realizing that controlling how much money a company can give to a political campaign is in violation of the first amendment. Then again when our forefathers came up with the amendments how could they have foreseen that we would need to relate the right of free speech to money.
I believe that after this court decision we will end up listening the “ most expensive speech” in all presidential campaigns. I also believe that because court is part of the government, in a very discrete way, they are paying to themselves in a short and long term. We are now giving the freedom of speech to anybody that can have enough influence to get the money from big corporations. Monica Lastre
The more money someone has the more this person is taken into account. Therefore, money is power; obviously this only remains true in capitalism. Now, the moral side of it would say that this isn’t true, for example: freedom of speech is everyone’s right, so no one should be ‘heard more’ just because of their assets. So, if it is immoral to say that the value of someone’s opinion is measured by the amount of money they own then capitalism promotes immoral behavior. By this it is understandable that the government would decide the way they did due to their involvement in the market. The problem is that in capitalism the government should have any involvement in how companies invest their money regardless of who it affects unless it is against the law. Adam Smith was right all along, everyone acts within their self-interest.
Jose, I love how you just bully everyone intellectually.
Couple of things regarding yourpost. First : "don't let corporations donate as much money as they want to political campaigns! There's a fundamental difference between, "I approve of Candidate 1!" and "I approve of Candidate 1, there's $5,000,000 for your campaign!'"
Well, you do know that corporations cannot donate as much money to a political campaign directly. The ruling of the Supreme Court allows them to buy and broadcast their own ads supporting a candidate, but not direct contributions to said candidate.
Now, I dislike the decision of the Supreme Court, but I do agree with its reasoning, and I'm sure you would as well.
"Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion" (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf)
I believe that corporations are protected by "free speech", but to a certain extent. Big donors have always had influence on politicians. The more money donated, the more promises made to those donors. Letting corporations donate to political campaign put individuals in the back seat. Priority will be given to the needs of the corporations instead of looking out for the average Joe. One group that will be affected by this decision is union groups. Corporations will convince politicians to sign new legislations into law. Legislations that will give them the edge.
I believe it is immoral to measure the freedom of speech with capital. Freedom of speech allows a society to coexist, since capital divides a society. Equaling the freedom to express yourself to the value of capital, segregates society. Basically, if you have the capital, you'll be heard. Where if you do not, then your "voice" is worthless. Unfortunately, that is the risks of living under a capitalist government. The money giants rise as the weak are sunk into submission.
I understand the reasoning behind this court ruling, but I think it is a little sad. Unfortunately, those who have the most means (money) get to have the loudest voice, and they do not necessarily want the same things as the common person. When it comes to a company supporting a politician, so many red flags pop up. What do they want this support to achieve? Nobody gives out money for nothing. What do they expect in return? Surely, it's naive to think nothing. Individuals support a politician because they agree with his policies. Companies support politicians because they want something done for them. Unfortunately, they probably get more out of the deal than we do. They GET what they want! And I guess politicians get what they want to.... (MONEY) Damn.
Now and Days money is power sadly to say many people think that money is everythnig... When you have money you can buy anything in this world .... But the sad part is that many people take advantage of this power... Many of these people are candidates who corrupted many of the doners.... these candidetes always get whatever they want because of the power they have without thinking who they affect...
I can see why the Supreme Court justified massive corporate spending on political campaigns. It indeed is a strong argument. By limiting the amount of money I can contribute to a political campaign, is the same as restriciting professors to a word cap per class. The more you want to be heard, the more you have to pay.I want certain views heard, you want something in return... Heres $3,000,000.
I dont necessarily agree with it. Like many of my fellow peers, I feel that corporations have been given equal, if not more power than the citizens who reside in this country. But to be simple and sweet, Money talks. Wherever theres a money trail, there is sure to be loopholes and blood behind it.
It seems to me that many people are unaware of the what the ruling of the Supreme Court really means (even Jose, although I suspect he did that just to advance his points, and that he is completely aware of what it really is). The amount of money that a corporation, or individual, can donate DIRECTLY to a campaign is still limited, however, the ban on independent expenditures has been eliminated.
A lot of people are complaining about how corporations now have more rights that individuals, and that corporations are not persons. However, if you want to sue a corporations, or charge them with crimes, then at least for those purpose corporations need to be treated like people. Secondly, corporations have never had all the rights of a person because corporations cannot be married; cannot be murdered, and have not right of habeas corpus. Finally, and maybe most importantly, while corporations are not actually people, they are associations of people and those people still have free speech rights, which is why the Supreme Court held that when those people speak " the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity" (Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). Besides, the most money always goes to the candidate who is most likely to win, regardless of the political affiliation of the candidate.
(I recommend that you all, except those of you who have already read it, read Frekonomics)
13 comments:
I believe that using the First Amendment to justify corporate spending on political campaigns is a massive stretch. I must sound like a broken record, but this is merely an extension of a type of dialogical capitalism.
In this dialogical capitalism, we're intersecting two different planes; language, and capital—two subjects that could be categorized under "thesis and antithesis" (in a Hegelian sense). Speech (which most nearly means language) doesn't have a prima facie correlation to capital; I would argue that language is the only thing that serves as the bridge that can bring together those groups separated for capital reasons. However, this Supreme Court interpretation that seeks to permute language and money under a flimsy justification negates the liberating quality of language, a quality that Marxists such as Freire have considered to be necessary for a new praxis that allows the oppressed to escape from their condition.
Although capital and language are being held to the same level of importance, it would not be foolish to say that we can expect capitalism to slowly overtake language, and absorb it as a fundamental component of its ideology. The Supreme Court decision has already demonstrated consent by saying that limiting corporate donations limits speech, which adds a greater weight to consumerism and capitalism; the sanctity of language is now equivalent to the power of the dollar! This is bad in and of itself. [1/2]
Moreover, this type of "advanced capitalism" that is a subject of attention to the Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxists makes a prediction about political involvement. Jürgen Habermas believes that this system engenders "political abstinence" in privatism. Wide-scale corporate involvement in the political field through mass spending for campaigns only perpetuates Habermas' privatism, which will most likely serve to silence the political voices of those that live in the system, because they will be more interested in surviving the system on an individual, private level as opposed to the level of political theatrics. A rise in this privatism places democracy in the hands of the corporate supergiants, which, in the best case scenario, will coerce voters to elect the candidate on the more heavily funded side of the spectrum.
In our capitalist society, equality is a social ruse used by the influential to mask their subversive behavior towards those oppressed by them. Saying "the court should have likewise ruled that you cannot have equal speech without equal money — i.e., equal protection under the law" is essentially implying that equality and democracy ought to be on the same level. Equality (to a certain extent from certain perspectives) seems to be the closest thing to a universal social necessity, considering that the majority of political systems—both historical and current—seek to aim for a level of equality, whether it be through equal opportunity, equal distribution of resources, equal oppression, and so forth. However, at the point where equality is sacrificed for something such as free speech, it is difficult for the United States to be consistent with its ideals. This sort of inconsistency problematizes the United States political system: how can we solve these inconsistencies and preserve the goodness of equality?
Simple: don't let corporations donate as much money as they want to political campaigns! There's a fundamental difference between, "I approve of Candidate 1!" and "I approve of Candidate 1, there's $5,000,000 for your campaign!" and this difference is precisely what I elucidated in my second paragraph: the first is a statement grounded in language, the second is a statement grounded in a symbolic act attached to capital. Although Hegel may argue that the thesis and antithesis of capital may provide a synthesis into a higher truth, it seems that the only higher truth that this volatile combination will give birth to is that equality cannot be preserved when democracy and capitalism obscure the definitions of both when on the same stage. Democracy believes in equality based on the existence of competing advocacies that maintain dialectical process, whereas capitalism believes in equal opportunity, but renders the dialectical process void of value when capital is the primary determinant of the political participation that corporations seek to engage in. [2/2]
Money can't buy happiness, but i can definetly buy you a spot in a candidates political campaign. With that said it is clear that democracy is being threatened by corporation giants. If money equals speech a big part of middle America wouldn't be able to express themselves because of their lack of capital. Any candidate who take large sums of money from these corporate giants might as well be taking a bribe from a criminal, also any candidate who takes such large sums can not be deemed right as a political leader. People are easily corrupted by money and its important to educate other people about this because at the end its the people that are affected by any political decisions.
Just the other day one of my professors was explaining this case to us. i agree, money does in fact equal speech. Money helps you get your thoughts or views out. The government is right in realizing that controlling how much money a company can give to a political campaign is in violation of the first amendment. Then again when our forefathers came up with the amendments how could they have foreseen that we would need to relate the right of free speech to money.
I believe that after this court decision we will end up listening the “ most expensive speech” in all presidential campaigns. I also believe that because court is part of the government, in a very discrete way, they are paying to themselves in a short and long term. We are now giving the freedom of speech to anybody that can have enough influence to get the money from big corporations.
Monica Lastre
The more money someone has the more this person is taken into account. Therefore, money is power; obviously this only remains true in capitalism. Now, the moral side of it would say that this isn’t true, for example: freedom of speech is everyone’s right, so no one should be ‘heard more’ just because of their assets. So, if it is immoral to say that the value of someone’s opinion is measured by the amount of money they own then capitalism promotes immoral behavior. By this it is understandable that the government would decide the way they did due to their involvement in the market. The problem is that in capitalism the government should have any involvement in how companies invest their money regardless of who it affects unless it is against the law. Adam Smith was right all along, everyone acts within their self-interest.
Jose, I love how you just bully everyone intellectually.
Couple of things regarding yourpost. First : "don't let
corporations donate as much money as they want to political campaigns! There's a fundamental difference between, "I approve of Candidate 1!" and "I approve of Candidate 1, there's $5,000,000 for your campaign!'"
Well, you do know that corporations cannot donate as much money to a political campaign directly. The ruling of the Supreme Court allows them to buy and broadcast their own ads supporting a candidate, but not direct contributions to said candidate.
Now, I dislike the decision of the Supreme Court, but I do agree with its reasoning, and I'm sure you would as well.
"Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain
preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion" (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf)
Ruth chama Duchatelier said...
I believe that corporations are protected by "free speech", but to a certain extent. Big donors have always had influence on politicians. The more money donated, the more promises made to those donors. Letting corporations donate to political campaign put individuals in the back seat. Priority will be given to the needs of the corporations instead of looking out for the average Joe. One group that will be affected by this decision is union groups. Corporations will convince politicians to sign new legislations into law. Legislations that will give them the edge.
Ruth Chama Duchatelier
I believe it is immoral to measure the freedom of speech with capital. Freedom of speech allows a society to coexist, since capital divides a society. Equaling the freedom to express yourself to the value of capital, segregates society. Basically, if you have the capital, you'll be heard. Where if you do not, then your "voice" is worthless. Unfortunately, that is the risks of living under a capitalist government. The money giants rise as the weak are sunk into submission.
I understand the reasoning behind this court ruling, but I think it is a little sad. Unfortunately, those who have the most means (money) get to have the loudest voice, and they do not necessarily want the same things as the common person. When it comes to a company supporting a politician, so many red flags pop up. What do they want this support to achieve? Nobody gives out money for nothing. What do they expect in return? Surely, it's naive to think nothing. Individuals support a politician because they agree with his policies. Companies support politicians because they want something done for them. Unfortunately, they probably get more out of the deal than we do. They GET what they want! And I guess politicians get what they want to.... (MONEY) Damn.
Now and Days money is power sadly to say many people think that money is everythnig... When you have money you can buy anything in this world .... But the sad part is that many people take advantage of this power... Many of these people are candidates who corrupted many of the doners.... these candidetes always get whatever they want because of the power they have without thinking who they affect...
I can see why the Supreme Court justified massive corporate spending on political campaigns. It indeed is a strong argument. By limiting the amount of money I can contribute to a political campaign, is the same as restriciting professors to a word cap per class. The more you want to be heard, the more you have to pay.I want certain views heard, you want something in return... Heres $3,000,000.
I dont necessarily agree with it. Like many of my fellow peers, I feel that corporations have been given equal, if not more power than the citizens who reside in this country. But to be simple and sweet, Money talks. Wherever theres a money trail, there is sure to be loopholes and blood behind it.
It seems to me that many people are unaware of the what the ruling of the Supreme Court really means (even Jose, although I suspect he did that just to advance his points, and that he is completely aware of what it really is). The amount of money that a corporation, or individual, can donate DIRECTLY to a campaign is still limited, however, the ban on independent expenditures has been eliminated.
A lot of people are complaining about how corporations now have more rights that individuals, and that corporations are not persons. However, if you want to sue a corporations, or charge them with crimes, then at least for those purpose corporations need to be treated like people. Secondly, corporations have never had all the rights of a person because corporations cannot be married; cannot be murdered, and have not right of habeas corpus. Finally, and maybe most importantly, while corporations are not actually people, they are associations of people and those people still have free speech rights, which is why the Supreme Court held that when those people speak " the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity" (Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). Besides, the most money always goes to the candidate who is most likely to win, regardless of the political affiliation of the candidate.
(I recommend that you all, except those of you who have already read it, read Frekonomics)
Post a Comment