Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

NGNM85 said:

Are you familiar with Manufacturing Consent?

Click to expand...

Yup. Read the book and seen the movie.

That was the first place I learned that persuasion was science and not just an "art".

I've also read a lot of the Propaganda Model stuff.

George Lakoff, head of Cognitive Linguistics at Berkely has some GREAT insights on the subject. He's responsible for the concept of "framing".

Its powerful juju. Much more so than most people think.

And our political discourse is THICK with it.

Are you familiar with netvocates? Check out "Advantage Consultants" too.

I searched all over for a name for PR professionals managing "messaging" on discussion boards etc., and finally gave up and started calling them "memeherders" before I discovered the Netvocates thing.

I've been trying to figure out how to positively identify them. There is quite a bit of speculation as to how they would operate from 2006 when the Netvocates thing originally broke.

I wonder how many there are here...:mrgreen:

What if...? said:

Never said once they shouldn't be.

Click to expand...

Okay then, do you believe the state should be able to limit the speech of the NAACP? If not, why not?

I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the corrosive effect money has on our political process. I personally feel money should be severely limited in our politics. How to do that is a tricky wicket.

Click to expand...

It's not relevant to whether this is a free speech issue. Free speech was not intended to protect only the speech you or I like or believe conducive to the political process.

Requiring disclosure of the GROUP paying for political campaigning/advertising shouldn't be an infringement.

There are already limits on speech. Fire in a theatre, slander, etc. In these cases, application of the anonymity parts of the CU decision would basically legalize both of the above, if the yelling of fire or slander was simply done anonymously.

Click to expand...

"Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" is taken from an opinion where Holmes rationalized the arrest of those who distributed literature in opposition of the draft. It's always odd to see lefties cheering such a decision. The precedent has been overturned, though, and so it really no longer has relevance.

Slander is a tort and does not involve the criminal law. If not limited we will get the same kind of crazy stuff that's going on in England, where you can be sued for saying a psychic is full of crap.

RStringfield said:

Okay then, do you believe the state should be able to limit the speech of the NAACP? If not, why not?



It's not relevant to whether this is a free speech issue. Free speech was not intended to protect only the speech you or I like or believe conducive to the political process.



"Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" is taken from an opinion where Holmes rationalized the arrest of those who distributed literature in opposition of the draft. It's always odd to see lefties cheering such a decision. The precedent has been overturned, though, and so it really no longer has relevance.

Slander is a tort and does not involve the criminal law. If not limited we will get the same kind of crazy stuff that's going on in England, where you can be sued for saying a psychic is full of crap.

Click to expand...

Nope, tbe NAACP can say whatever they want. I just don't think it would be cool for them to pretend to be "The True Aryan Nation" when they do. Which the CU decision now allows.

Again its not the speech its the anonymity coupled with unlimited funding that is my issue.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Democracy tends to end itself because it is the belief that all people have valid opinions in the operation of government.
Basically, an appeal to the majority.

Click to expand...

So you'd rather have an aristocracy/meritocracy (as defined by Plato)?

Harry Guerrilla said:

I don't think full disclosure will change much to tell ya the truth.
Mostly because few people look up who actually donates to which cause.

Only politic junkies, like us, care.

Click to expand...

You don't need to look up if the corps is obvious, like Exon.

RStringfield said:

I don't believe Citizen's dealt with disclosure requirements.

Disclosure creates the risk of political payback. I think there is some merit in requiring that the donation be completely anonymous. That way, whoever it benefits is less able to reward their benefactors since they would not know who they are.

Click to expand...

Political pay back is perfectly legitimate, just like not hiring someone you don't want to work with for whatever reason. That's the classic libertarian view is it not?

Either donors cannot be know by the recipient (which isn't plausible) or most, if not all, donors have to be publicly known (under the table deal be damnned).

I plan on writing a blog post about this after hearing some more arguments for or against.

xpiher said:

So you'd rather have an aristocracy/meritocracy (as defined by Plato)?

You don't need to look up if the corps is obvious, like Exon.

Click to expand...

You're making value judgments on whose voice should be heard.
Clearly that's not democratic.

Do you think non profits, unions and other lobbying organizations are motivated simply by good things but corporations are only interested in bad?

Many of you guys say that it's these corporate entities are spreading deceptive information.
When the truth is that there are many organizations all motivated by the want to marginalize their competition and to boost their favored groups.
It isn't corporations vs. "the people."

It's "the people" vs. "the people."

Harry Guerrilla said:

You're making value judgments on whose voice should be heard.
Clearly that's not democratic.

Click to expand...

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I never said that some people should be able to buy ads and others should not. In fact, all I stated was that full disclosure laws are warranted to prevent, or at least track and then prevent in the future, most vote buying. I haven't even stated what my actual qualms with the current system are.

To be clear, citizen united wasn't just a boon to corps, it was a boon to anyone with a lot of money, clout, or any large group Unions, Corps, Church Group, Universities, PACs, etc

xpiher said:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I never said that some people should be able to buy ads and others should not. In fact, all I stated was that full disclosure laws are warranted to prevent, or at least track and then prevent in the future, most vote buying. I haven't even stated what my actual qualms with the current system are.

To be clear, citizen united wasn't just a boon to corps, it was a boon to anyone with a lot of money, clout, or any large group Unions, Corps, Church Group, Universities, PACs, etc

Click to expand...

Cool then we understand each other.
My bad for making the presumption.

Harry Guerrilla said:

You're making value judgments on whose voice should be heard.
Clearly that's not democratic.

Do you think non profits, unions and other lobbying organizations are motivated simply by good things but corporations are only interested in bad?

Many of you guys say that it's these corporate entities are spreading deceptive information.
When the truth is that there are many organizations all motivated by the want to marginalize their competition and to boost their favored groups.
It isn't corporations vs. "the people."

It's "the people" vs. "the people."

Click to expand...

Well, I think its some people vs. most people. And some of those some people are "corporate" persons.

I've just chosen to go with trying to inform as many as possible how they are being decieved. That way its harder to do. If enough people become aware of these methods their use should be reduced by being rendered useless.

What if...? said:

Well, I think its some people vs. most people. And some of those some people are "corporate" persons.

I've just chosen to go with trying to inform as many as possible how they are being decieved. That way its harder to do. If enough people become aware of these methods their use should be reduced by being rendered useless.

Click to expand...

Anyone with a retirement account is part of those "corporate" persons.

Deception is easy to see, if you understand that it doesn't end with the popularly "evil" people.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Anyone with a retirement account is part of those "corporate" persons.

Deception is easy to see, if you understand that it doesn't end with the popularly "evil" people.

Click to expand...

If you invest in company, do you get to tell them not to use your money to lobby congress or how to lobby congress? Not unless you have enough shares to have a vote. This is why people like Jesse Jackson have investment groups that collect enough money to invest in companies to have voting shares.

Yes, because I'm not aware of any reason that it isn't compatible with democracy.

Unless this is soon corrected, this ruling and its impact will only increase the war on the working class in America and only exacerbate the push toward a government of the corporations, by the corporations (and their toadies), and for the corporations.

What if...? said:

Trying to get people to think about that fact, in light of Citizens United specifically is why I joined this board.

I personally believe that modern persuasion science, coupled with CU, is one of the greatest threats facing the working class in this country.

Both sides in this country point to people on the other side who believe ridiculous things.

If anyone would like to know HOW they were led to believe these things, I invite you to explore the site in my sig. There is much there to see, linked to the original, peer reviewed research. All in an entertaining format. And virtually devoid of partisanship. (The author is a research psychology grad student from the UK)

Once exposed to HOW bs can be installed in your head it becomes much more difficult to do so. Further, you tend to SEE it more when its in play.

I'm betting that if enough people realize the extent to which they are being slipped the equivalent of mental "rufees" they won't take too kindly to it.:2wave:

Click to expand...

You would be better off thinking for yourself and quit listening to what they are selling you.

xpiher said:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I never said that some people should be able to buy ads and others should not. In fact, all I stated was that full disclosure laws are warranted to prevent, or at least track and then prevent in the future, most vote buying. I haven't even stated what my actual qualms with the current system are.

To be clear, citizen united wasn't just a boon to corps, it was a boon to anyone with a lot of money, clout, or any large group Unions, Corps, Church Group, Universities, PACs, etc

Click to expand...

Large groups are simply small groups banding together over a common cause.

the question is actually: "Do Americans Lose their First Amendment Rights when they join together corporately or in a union"?

What if...? said:

It does, iirc that's what it was originally about. The SCOTUS just "threw in" the elimination of limits on donations. Or the other way around. They gave them things they didn't even ask for, at any rate.

Click to expand...

It does not. Citizen's was originally about the limit McCain Feingold put on "electioneering communications" in the window (i think it was 60 days) immediately before the election. That was clearly unconstitutional.

Citizen's did not rule on disclosure requirements. Anonymous donations are allowed by federal law to the 501(c)(4) organizations and that law can be changed.

And it wasn't about rewards for backers, it was about retaliation on the donors for the donation. A hotel owner in SF who had a large gay clientelle made a large contribution to the anti gay marriage campaign in CA and the gay community found out and boycotted the hotel.

Which I think is perfectly fair. If you're donating large amounts to campaigns I vehemently oppose, I should be able to know this so I can deny you my business. Seems pretty free market to me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, political payback. Whether disclosure is good or bad is debatable but your argument for it is without a doubt, bad. Do you think the gay clients should be able to follow the hotel owner into the voting booth or be able to see his vote? Do you not know what sort of abuses use to happen in our election system when that was allowed? What happens when the hotel owner fires his bellhop because he donated to a group supporting gay marriage?

Should the state have been able to force disclosure of the authors of The Federalist papers or the Cato letters?

xpiher said:

Political pay back is perfectly legitimate, just like not hiring someone you don't want to work with for whatever reason. That's the classic libertarian view is it not?

Click to expand...

No. I have never heard any libertarian argue that the state should go out of its way to encourage this sort of behavior.

Either donors cannot be know by the recipient (which isn't plausible) or most, if not all, donors have to be publicly known (under the table deal be damnned).

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the idea of requiring anonymity? Why isn't it plausible? Donations do not have to be made in cash or by handing someone a check. It may not have been that plausible 50 years, but when I donate to a cause I usually do it online. The only reason they know who I am is because the government makes them gather that information.

1Perry said:

You would be better off thinking for yourself and quit listening to what they are selling you.

Click to expand...

Well that's an odd response.

Are you assuming that I'm only talking about conservative/republican use of deceptive persuasion techniques?

Au contraire, mon frere. The dems are doing it too. They're WAY behind the right and not very good at it, but they're doing it too.

Thinking for oneself instead of thinking what one's been programmed to is what I'm trying to help everybody do.

You shpuld try it.

What if...? said:

Well that's an odd response.

Are you assuming that I'm only talking about conservative/republican use of deceptive persuasion techniques?

Au contraire, mon frere. The dems are doing it too. They're WAY behind the right and not very good at it, but they're doing it too.

Thinking for oneself instead of thinking what one's been programmed to is what I'm trying to help everybody do.

You shpuld try it.

Click to expand...

I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.

What if...? said:

Well that's an odd response.

Are you assuming that I'm only talking about conservative/republican use of deceptive persuasion techniques?

Au contraire, mon frere. The dems are doing it too. They're WAY behind the right and not very good at it, but they're doing it too.

Thinking for oneself instead of thinking what one's been programmed to is what I'm trying to help everybody do.

You shpuld try it.

Click to expand...

That's going to cause you trouble. Assuming that others are "programmed" or are "not thinking for themselves" will alienate them. I looked over your link and it mostly seems to be common sense stuff about how to manipulate people, e.g., avoid alienating them. Nothing revolutionary.

RStringfield said:

That's going to cause you trouble. Assuming that others are "programmed" or are "not thinking for themselves" will alienate them. I looked over your link and it mostly seems to be common sense stuff about how to manipulate people, e.g., avoid alienating them. Nothing revolutionary.

Click to expand...

That's what I read. I'm not so sure that many are convinced of your arguement though by simply starting it and ending it with a cuss word or by being the loudest in the room.

1Perry said:

I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.

Click to expand...

I agree, mostly, and would add that being obsessed with how others might be trying to manipulate you will turn you into a cynical prick, which really is not much better than being a manipulative prick. You have to let your guard down or nobody ever gets in and you become isolated and alone.

I do think it is good to be aware of how you are vulnerable to manipulation, especially, when dealing with politicians, car salesman and other unscrupolous scumbags. The information on the site is all fairly well known, common sense stuff. I am a skeptic and read things written by skeptics on how to spot hokum. So, maybe, it is just that exposure that makes it seem rather mundane to me.

1Perry said:

I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.

Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of people are either too busy or too lazy to actually examine the information that's presented to them by whatever source they get their information from. How many people do you know who, when presented with information by the media or another source, research that claim in its entirety in order to evaluate the truth value of that claim? I would guess not many, particularly if they have a full time job, children and other responsibilities.

I wouldn't say people are "programmed" necessarily, but I would certainly argue based on my personal experience that the majority haven't thoroughly examined the information presented to them by the government, media, their religious organizations or other sources. In other words, they can think for themselves, but they do so with an extraordinarily limited amount of information.

theplaydrive said:

The vast majority of people are either too busy or too lazy to actually examine the information that's presented to them by whatever source they get their information from.

Click to expand...

This is a statement based upon my opinion. In those cases most of those types do not care about whatever is being pushed anyway so it doesn't matter. There are a ton of claims and statements made that I have no desire to research.

How many people do you know who, when presented with information by the media or another source, research that claim in its entirety in order to evaluate the truth value of that claim? I would guess not many, particularly if they have a full time job, children and other responsibilities.

Click to expand...

If it's relevant to them, I'd guess many. Especially with the internet now available to them. Few of them smply take an ad at face value. It doesn't take long at all to get other opinions on the internet. If they have no need to buy a car, those statements go in one ear and out the other. Before the internet this was largely done by word of mouth from people they trusted. A neighbor would tell you that they had a good or bad experience.

I wouldn't say people are "programmed" necessarily, but I would certainly argue based on my personal experience that the majority haven't thoroughly examined the information presented to them by the government, media, their religious organizations or other sources. In other words, they can think for themselves, but they do so with an extraordinarily limited amount of information.

Click to expand...

IMO that means they don't care, not as you note, they have been programmed to believe that way. As an example. I have a cell phone provider. It suits my purpose. There may be ones with better and cheaper plans but eh, mine is good enough for me to not want to bother.

RStringfield said:

It does not. Citizen's was originally about the limit McCain Feingold put on "electioneering communications" in the window (i think it was 60 days) immediately before the election. That was clearly unconstitutional.

Citizen's did not rule on disclosure requirements. Anonymous donations are allowed by federal law to the 501(c)(4) organizations and that law can be changed.



Yeah, political payback. Whether disclosure is good or bad is debatable but your argument for it is without a doubt, bad. Do you think the gay clients should be able to follow the hotel owner into the voting booth or be able to see his vote? Do you not know what sort of abuses use to happen in our election system when that was allowed? What happens when the hotel owner fires his bellhop because he donated to a group supporting gay marriage?

Should the state have been able to force disclosure of the authors of The Federalist papers or the Cato letters?

Click to expand...

Ok, I had to go back and read up.

Corrections to my above posts as follows:

CU wanted an end to rules against electioneering near elections. The Supreme Court threw in ending spending limits on corporate/union/non-profit campaign activities.

So I take it that a lobbyist being able to threaten a legislator with campaign expenditures against them for failure to vote the way the lobbyist wants is ok?

I was also incorrect aboit disclosure requirements. They still have to disclose, but only at year end or whatever, so nobody gets to know until after the election.

Further, there is no mechanism in place to prevent corp. donors from using corp assets for political purposes that their individual shareholders might disagree with without their knowledge. Which would seem to be a violation of free speech itself. Anti union forces use this argument as it applies to unions all the time.

I stated.quite clearly that addressing the corrupting influence of money without infringing on the first amendment was a sticky wicket. Your hyperbole doesn't address this issue, its just strawmen. There's a difference between campaign contribution activity and "following someone into the voting booth" and firing someone for making a contribution is much different from denying a contributor my custom. An employer is constrained from certain firing behaviors. Boycotts are pefectly free market. I can choose not to buy what you are selling for whatever reason I choose.

The Federalist papers example does not address the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with money in politics.