Is Sanders Hypocritical about Super PACs and the Citizens United Decision?

[Underhill]

As i already noted, a large problem with the law struck down in Citizens United was how to define the difference between "media" corporations and all others. Is RF a "media" corporation? Why should New York Times be allowed to engage in "electioneering communications" prior to primaries and general elections? Are not the electioneering communications of "media" corporations just as influential as those of other corporations and unions?

They are only thanks to the lack of regulation in newer media which has led us to our current mess of partisan news outlets. 40 years ago, it wasn't a problem.

 

[Nous]

They are only thanks to the lack of regulation in newer media which has led us to our current mess of partisan news outlets. 40 years ago, it wasn't a problem.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that even "media" corporations should be disallowed to speak or sponsor "electioneering communications" prior to primaries and general elections?

Should all the posts on RF that would qualify as "electioneering communications" under BCRA be deleted and disallowed prior to primaries and general elections?

 

[metis]

As i already noted, a large problem with the law struck down in Citizens United was how to define the difference between "media" corporations and all others. Is RF a "media" corporation? Why should New York Times be allowed to engage in "electioneering communications" prior to primaries and general elections? Are not the electioneering communications of "media" corporations just as influential as those of other corporations and unions?

Sorry, but there's a difference to me in regards to free speech and lobbying money, much like there's differences between grapes and bowling balls even though they're both round. Corporations, much like anyone else, are free to voice their opinions on who they'd like to see win, but that's not the same as making million dollar donations. And I feel the same way about PACs from unions btw. It's simply legalized bribery and it taints the process.

 

[Underhill]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that even "media" corporations should be disallowed to speak or sponsor "electioneering communications" prior to primaries and general elections?

Should all the posts on RF that would qualify as "electioneering communications" under BCRA be deleted and disallowed prior to primaries and general elections?

"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate in prime time, it must do the same for another candidate who requests it. The equal-time rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates."

If this had been applied to the cable networks, I suspect much of this mess could have been avoided.

 

[Nous]

Sorry, but there's a difference to me in regards to free speech and lobbying money, much like there's differences between grapes and bowling balls even though they're both round. Corporations, much like anyone else, are free to voice their opinions on who they'd like to see win, but that's not the same as making million dollar donations. And I feel the same way about PACs from unions btw. It's simply legalized bribery and it taints the process.

I don’t see how parroting Sanders’ cutesy phrases such as “legalized bribery” really gets anyone anywhere.

You didn’t answer the crucial question as to how to distinguish “media” corporations from non-media ones that should not be exempt from the law that prohibits electioneering communications. The words “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press” need to mean something. For the future hypothetical Court that you hope will resurrect the law struck down in Citizens United, what do you want the Freedom of the Press Clause to mean?

In any case, bribery and other forms of corruption are illegal, and are commonly prosecuted. The DOJ’s Public Integrity Section publishes a report every year on political corruption charges and convictions of all types at the federal, state and local levels. These corruption crimes are not just those that involve an act of quid pro quo but include vote fraud (other than campaign finance crimes), obstruction of justice, simple violation of post-employment lobbying restrictions, drug possession, perjury/false statements, tax evasion. The data cover not just elected officials but all public servants from cabinet members to enlisted soldiers. The most recent report: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2014/09/09/2013-Annual-Report.pdf

A 2014 New York Times article notes that convictions of federal officials for corruption declined significantly from 1989 to 2011 (the most recent figures at the time of the article), and remained steady for local officials. In some recent years there have been sharp increases in corruption convictions of state officials due to particular schemes involving multiple officials in Puerto Rico and Southern California. Note that there has been a huge increase in public servants since 1989. Thus a “steady” or even intermittently increased number of convictions still indicates a decreased rate.

“I’ve studied American political corruption throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and, if anything, corruption was much more common in much of those centuries than today,” said Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

What has skyrocketed, he argues, is the public perception that politicians are corrupt. And to an extent, the numbers back him up.

[. . .]

A 2007 compendium of misdeed, “The Almanac of Political Corruption, Scandals and Dirty Politics,” concluded that fewer than 1 percent of the nearly 12,000 people who had served in Congress had been expelled, indicted or tried for crimes.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/u...hat-political-corruption-is-rampant.html?_r=0

That “fewer than 1%” is about the same rate as the general population commits white-collar crimes.

It seems that invariably when complainers about Citizens United are pinned down, the complaints are not about acts that can actually be identified as corruption. The section of BCRA struck down did not outlaw bribery or corruption or lobbying; it only outlawed independent speech by particular speakers. The Court gives a few examples of the speech criminalized by §441b of the BCRA:

The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

These examples show that this law was not even close to being “narrowly tailored,” as laws subject to strict scrutiny must be. The law proscribed huge swaths of otherwise legal and admirable political speech for no rational reason whatsoever.

 

[Nous]

"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate in prime time, it must do the same for another candidate who requests it. The equal-time rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates."

If this had been applied to the cable networks, I suspect much of this mess could have been avoided.

What "mess" are you talking about? And how would have making the "equal time rule" apply to cable stations have prevented it?

Actually I thought that by and large cable TV stations have adhered to the "equal time rule" out of fear that they would be forced to provide air time to the other candidates.

Is seeing something about a candidate on a cable TV station somehow more detrimental to a person than, say, seeing or reading the same on the internet (which often comes into a house by cable)?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually I thought that by and large cable TV stations have adhered to the "equal time rule" out of fear that they would be forced to provide air time to the other candidates.

Cable gets to play by their own rules, especially the "premium" channels.

Is seeing something about a candidate on a cable TV station somehow more detrimental to a person than, say, seeing or reading the same on the internet (which often comes into a house by cable)?

Cable TV is very popular, and often the source of many "stories" that get echoed on the internet.

 

[Underhill]

What "mess" are you talking about? And how would have making the "equal time rule" apply to cable stations have prevented it?

I'm saying those kinds of rules are the reason broadcast media never fell to the level of Fox News or MSNBC.

Actually I thought that by and large cable TV stations have adhered to the "equal time rule" out of fear that they would be forced to provide air time to the other candidates.

CNN did when they started up in the 80's. But pretty much from day one, Fox News threw that out the window when they hit the scene in 96.

Is seeing something about a candidate on a cable TV station somehow more detrimental to a person than, say, seeing or reading the same on the internet (which often comes into a house by cable)?

Yes. Because even though the overwhelming evidence says they shouldn't lend much credence to cable news, stories that show up there tend to be taken seriously by most people.

 

[Underhill]

I don’t see how parroting Sanders’ cutesy phrases such as “legalized bribery” really gets anyone anywhere.

You didn’t answer the crucial question as to how to distinguish “media” corporations from non-media ones that should not be exempt from the law that prohibits electioneering communications. The words “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press” need to mean something. For the future hypothetical Court that you hope will resurrect the law struck down in Citizens United, what do you want the Freedom of the Press Clause to mean?

This is the problem with taking an old document and treating it as infallible.

I am all for the intent of freedom of the press. But there is a difference between protecting a newspaper or news outlet of any kind from doing an expose exposing government corruption and 3 or 4 companies controlling the message from networks watched by 90% of the country.

 

[metis]

I don’t see how parroting Sanders’ cutesy phrases such as “legalized bribery” really gets anyone anywhere.

You didn’t answer the crucial question as to how to distinguish “media” corporations from non-media ones that should not be exempt from the law that prohibits electioneering communications. The words “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press” need to mean something. For the future hypothetical Court that you hope will resurrect the law struck down in Citizens United, what do you want the Freedom of the Press Clause to mean?

In any case, bribery and other forms of corruption are illegal, and are commonly prosecuted. The DOJ’s Public Integrity Section publishes a report every year on political corruption charges and convictions of all types at the federal, state and local levels. These corruption crimes are not just those that involve an act of quid pro quo but include vote fraud (other than campaign finance crimes), obstruction of justice, simple violation of post-employment lobbying restrictions, drug possession, perjury/false statements, tax evasion. The data cover not just elected officials but all public servants from cabinet members to enlisted soldiers. The most recent report: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2014/09/09/2013-Annual-Report.pdf

A 2014 New York Times article notes that convictions of federal officials for corruption declined significantly from 1989 to 2011 (the most recent figures at the time of the article), and remained steady for local officials. In some recent years there have been sharp increases in corruption convictions of state officials due to particular schemes involving multiple officials in Puerto Rico and Southern California. Note that there has been a huge increase in public servants since 1989. Thus a “steady” or even intermittently increased number of convictions still indicates a decreased rate.

“I’ve studied American political corruption throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and, if anything, corruption was much more common in much of those centuries than today,” said Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

What has skyrocketed, he argues, is the public perception that politicians are corrupt. And to an extent, the numbers back him up.

[. . .]

A 2007 compendium of misdeed, “The Almanac of Political Corruption, Scandals and Dirty Politics,” concluded that fewer than 1 percent of the nearly 12,000 people who had served in Congress had been expelled, indicted or tried for crimes.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/u...hat-political-corruption-is-rampant.html?_r=0

That “fewer than 1%” is about the same rate as the general population commits white-collar crimes.

It seems that invariably when complainers about Citizens United are pinned down, the complaints are not about acts that can actually be identified as corruption. The section of BCRA struck down did not outlaw bribery or corruption or lobbying; it only outlawed independent speech by particular speakers. The Court gives a few examples of the speech criminalized by §441b of the BCRA:

The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

These examples show that this law was not even close to being “narrowly tailored,” as laws subject to strict scrutiny must be. The law proscribed huge swaths of otherwise legal and admirable political speech for no rational reason whatsoever.

I didn't parrot Sanders-- maybe he parroted me because I've been using this phrase periodically for at least three decades.

As far as the media thingy is concerned, I actually did answer your question, saying that I was not ever referring to "communications"-- just lobbying money. It seems you may have me confused with what someone else may have written.

 

[Nous]

Is seeing something about a candidate on a cable TV station somehow more detrimental to a person than, say, seeing or reading the same on the internet (which often comes into a house by cable)?

Cable TV is very popular, and often the source of many "stories" that get echoed on the internet.

So you know of no detriment to the country that has resulted from anyone hearing or seeing something on cable TV?

 

[Nous]

I'm saying those kinds of rules are the reason broadcast media never fell to the level of Fox News or MSNBC.

I've never watched either Fox News or MSNBC (I try to avoid all forms of TV newscasts). Which candidates are these programs giving more air time to in this election?

Because even though the overwhelming evidence says they shouldn't lend much credence to cable news, stories that show up there tend to be taken seriously by most people.

Cite that evidence.

 

[Nous]

I am all for the intent of freedom of the press.

Again, the (primary) problem the Court had with the section of the BCRA that exempted "media" corporations was how to define such entities. What's the definition?

But there is a difference between protecting a newspaper or news outlet of any kind from doing an expose exposing government corruption and 3 or 4 companies controlling the message from networks watched by 90% of the country.

Obviously the law struck down in Citizens United did not affect any of these issues.

 

[Nous]

As far as the media thingy is concerned, I actually did answer your question, saying that I was not ever referring to "communications"-- just lobbying money.

Obviously the law struck down in Citizens United did not concern "lobbying money".

 

[metis]

Obviously the law struck down in Citizens United did not concern "lobbying money".

But it did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

 

[Underhill]

I've never watched either Fox News or MSNBC (I try to avoid all forms of TV newscasts). Which candidates are these programs giving more air time to in this election?

Fox News = Republican cheer leaders.

MSNBC = Much less capable and much less watched watched Democratic cheer leaders.

Cite that evidence.

Oh come on. You need evidence that there is a lot of garbage on the web?

 

[Underhill]

Again, the (primary) problem the Court had with the section of the BCRA that exempted "media" corporations was how to define such entities. What's the definition?

Obviously the law struck down in Citizens United did not affect any of these issues.

That is my point. Exempting media corporations was necessary. And while there are fairness issues in media, it is not a funding issue but a host of other issues regarding news media favoring one side or the other.

 

[Nous]

But it did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

No, the section of the BCRA struck down by the Court did not regulate “lobbying money”--whatever you mean by that. I didn’t even see where the Wikipedia article suggested that it did.

Anyway, as noted in the first sentence of the Opinion, the Court struck down the provisions of 2 USC §441b that “prohibit[ed] corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an ‘electioneering communication’ or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.” http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Here is that statute: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/14/I/441b

The fact that Congress did not--and, according to precedent, could not--ban lobbying by corporations (and unions) was one of factors that weighed against the shareholder protection rationale that was argued for the constitutionality of the law, as noted by both the majority opinion and Stevens’ dissent: “Even if §441b’s expenditure ban were constitutional,wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials . . .” At 40.

 

[Nous]

Fox News = Republican cheer leaders.

MSNBC = Much less capable and much less watched watched Democratic cheer leaders.

My understanding is that Fox News has been overtly against Trump, even to the point that he boycotted the debate sponsored by Fox. Yet, Trump seems to be winning, likely to get the Republican nomination. This evidently contradicts your idea that Americans are too gullible of the biased and unfair treatment of the candidates by cable TV.

Oh come on. You need evidence that there is a lot of garbage on the web?

No, I wanted the evidence that would substantiate your claim that "most people tend to take seriously" the incredible "stories" that cable TV stations distribute.

 

[Underhill]

My understanding is that Fox News has been overtly against Trump, even to the point that he boycotted the debate sponsored by Fox. Yet, Trump seems to be winning, likely to get the Republican nomination. This evidently contradicts your idea that Americans are too gullible of the biased and unfair treatment of the candidates by cable TV.

It's not about how gullible they are. In this election, it may make no difference. In most elections it may not. But it can and probably does have an impact. Elections and supposed to be free and fair. Having corporations who have control of a large percentage of the mass media able to influence those votes is a dangerous precedent.

No, I wanted the evidence that would substantiate your claim that "most people tend to take seriously" the incredible "stories" that cable TV stations distribute.

Most people may be a stretch. But there are certainly plenty of people who eat that stuff up. Log on to Facebook if you need evidence.