A Rant
I'm on here so rarely, I'm not sure I have any friends left to read this, but I need to get this off my chest. If the First Amendment doesn't interest you, apologies.
People who disagree with the Citizens United case can fuck off. There, I said it. Before you start spouting liberal talking points about how corporations will run America now that they can spend unlimited funds on campaigns, read the damn opinion. That, and consider this: they already do. Shocker, I know. But Keith Olbermann (who called this case worse than Plessy, which frankly makes me concerned about Keith's impression of race relations) is employed by MSNBC, a cable channel owned entirely by NBC Universal which was, at least until November, owned by General Electric. If you've seen 30 Rock, you know all this. As of November, a different corporation (Comcast) owns 51%, but it really doesn't change the analysis. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent *annually* to let Keith Olbermann speak on the airwaves. By a corporation. In fact, between MSNBC, CNBC, Meet the Press, etc., I'm willing to bet that GE was spending billions annually to talk about politics in an extraordinarily slanted way. No, I don't have statistics on this, so challenge me. I'm also waiting for arguments that MSNBC isn't slanted obscenely liberal, and that the sky is green.
It's important to stop here for a moment and recall what the facts were of Citizens United. It was about a movie. A movie, people. Not a donation to a campaign, not a commercial, a fucking movie. A movie critical of Hillary Clinton, before the Democratic Primaries. It did not discuss Obama, support him (except in as much as it attacked Hillary), nor was it endorsed by him. Let's say it together now: "it was a movie." The FEC argued that this was an electioneering communication and could not be shown on television so close to the primaries. I would be hard pressed to find one single, solitary Fox News commentator during the period before the primaries that wasn't at least as critical of Hillary Clinton as that movie was. And most of those commentators get at least 2 hours to spew (Fox News just rotates them out, frankly). And lest we forget, Fox News is owned by News Corporation. It has corporation in the name.
So somebody, anybody, tell me what is the fucking difference? John Stewart, who presents real commentary and critique of political figures packaged as fake news, gets paid by Comedy Central. Comedy Central is owned by MTV networks. MTV is owned by Viacom! Viacom is spending money on a show that has unabashedly endorsed certain candidates and attacked others within HOURS of the campaign. In a live election coverage many years ago, John Stewart, as he was reporting the utter defeat of the gay marriage ballot initiatives across the country, broke down in tears, asking what was wrong with this country that they could vote in such a way. Oh, and for those who don't know: ballot initiatives campaigns are treated equally with candidate campaigns for the purposes of finance laws in nearly every state in this country. There's no getting around this folks; Viacom paid John Stewart to sit on the air for hours and lament the death of gay marriage. General Electric and Comcast pay Olbermann for his special comments, and Rachel Maddow for her raging liberalism. News Corp pays Sean Hannity for his over-the-top campaigning, and Glen Beck for his over-the-top existence. And CNN (owned by Turner Broadcasting *Incorporated*, which is a subsidiary of Time Warner *Incorporated*) back in the good ole' days was accused of being the "Clinton News Network."
Methinks that the new dangers inherent in Pfizer sponsoring a 30-second ad bashing the Obama presidency, available as a result of this case, are far less than those which we attended to in a 2008 corporation-sponsored fuckfest bashing Sarah Palin on the air, 24/7.
And for those particularly attuned to the distinction between contributions and expenditures - a distinction in Buckley which, while I personally believe unwarranted, seems to be here to stay - let us not get mired down in this discussion here. Face it: while many of my examples above would be classified as "expenditures" simply because the candidate in question didn't have direct control over the message, they aren't the only examples to be had. John McCain had an hour interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News on October 19, 2008, less than a month before the presidential election. I don't have figures for how much Fox spent on the advertising time, the set-up, Chris Wallace's time, etc., but I'll bet you a buck it was more than $0. And I'll go even so far as to say John McCain had control over what was coming out of his mouth (doubtful at most times during the campaign, but you'll grant me this much at least).
Perhaps the media frenzy over this decision is because media corporations are afraid of losing their monopoly on the unlimited-funded election speech. But you know me, I see sinister motives in everything. Either way, Citizens United isn't opening up the marketplace of speech to corporations - it's simply widening the already-cracked door. We can debate the merits of keeping everyone out or letting everyone in (and I think you can guess where I stand on this). But in this field, limiting the guest list to a handful of corporations seemingly chosen from random seems counterintuitive and a touch hypocritical.
People who disagree with the Citizens United case can fuck off. There, I said it. Before you start spouting liberal talking points about how corporations will run America now that they can spend unlimited funds on campaigns, read the damn opinion. That, and consider this: they already do. Shocker, I know. But Keith Olbermann (who called this case worse than Plessy, which frankly makes me concerned about Keith's impression of race relations) is employed by MSNBC, a cable channel owned entirely by NBC Universal which was, at least until November, owned by General Electric. If you've seen 30 Rock, you know all this. As of November, a different corporation (Comcast) owns 51%, but it really doesn't change the analysis. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent *annually* to let Keith Olbermann speak on the airwaves. By a corporation. In fact, between MSNBC, CNBC, Meet the Press, etc., I'm willing to bet that GE was spending billions annually to talk about politics in an extraordinarily slanted way. No, I don't have statistics on this, so challenge me. I'm also waiting for arguments that MSNBC isn't slanted obscenely liberal, and that the sky is green.
It's important to stop here for a moment and recall what the facts were of Citizens United. It was about a movie. A movie, people. Not a donation to a campaign, not a commercial, a fucking movie. A movie critical of Hillary Clinton, before the Democratic Primaries. It did not discuss Obama, support him (except in as much as it attacked Hillary), nor was it endorsed by him. Let's say it together now: "it was a movie." The FEC argued that this was an electioneering communication and could not be shown on television so close to the primaries. I would be hard pressed to find one single, solitary Fox News commentator during the period before the primaries that wasn't at least as critical of Hillary Clinton as that movie was. And most of those commentators get at least 2 hours to spew (Fox News just rotates them out, frankly). And lest we forget, Fox News is owned by News Corporation. It has corporation in the name.
So somebody, anybody, tell me what is the fucking difference? John Stewart, who presents real commentary and critique of political figures packaged as fake news, gets paid by Comedy Central. Comedy Central is owned by MTV networks. MTV is owned by Viacom! Viacom is spending money on a show that has unabashedly endorsed certain candidates and attacked others within HOURS of the campaign. In a live election coverage many years ago, John Stewart, as he was reporting the utter defeat of the gay marriage ballot initiatives across the country, broke down in tears, asking what was wrong with this country that they could vote in such a way. Oh, and for those who don't know: ballot initiatives campaigns are treated equally with candidate campaigns for the purposes of finance laws in nearly every state in this country. There's no getting around this folks; Viacom paid John Stewart to sit on the air for hours and lament the death of gay marriage. General Electric and Comcast pay Olbermann for his special comments, and Rachel Maddow for her raging liberalism. News Corp pays Sean Hannity for his over-the-top campaigning, and Glen Beck for his over-the-top existence. And CNN (owned by Turner Broadcasting *Incorporated*, which is a subsidiary of Time Warner *Incorporated*) back in the good ole' days was accused of being the "Clinton News Network."
Methinks that the new dangers inherent in Pfizer sponsoring a 30-second ad bashing the Obama presidency, available as a result of this case, are far less than those which we attended to in a 2008 corporation-sponsored fuckfest bashing Sarah Palin on the air, 24/7.
And for those particularly attuned to the distinction between contributions and expenditures - a distinction in Buckley which, while I personally believe unwarranted, seems to be here to stay - let us not get mired down in this discussion here. Face it: while many of my examples above would be classified as "expenditures" simply because the candidate in question didn't have direct control over the message, they aren't the only examples to be had. John McCain had an hour interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News on October 19, 2008, less than a month before the presidential election. I don't have figures for how much Fox spent on the advertising time, the set-up, Chris Wallace's time, etc., but I'll bet you a buck it was more than $0. And I'll go even so far as to say John McCain had control over what was coming out of his mouth (doubtful at most times during the campaign, but you'll grant me this much at least).
Perhaps the media frenzy over this decision is because media corporations are afraid of losing their monopoly on the unlimited-funded election speech. But you know me, I see sinister motives in everything. Either way, Citizens United isn't opening up the marketplace of speech to corporations - it's simply widening the already-cracked door. We can debate the merits of keeping everyone out or letting everyone in (and I think you can guess where I stand on this). But in this field, limiting the guest list to a handful of corporations seemingly chosen from random seems counterintuitive and a touch hypocritical.