The SCOTUS overturned the McCain Feingold law prohibiting SOME corporations and people from advertising for/against politicians right before an election. Corporations that were exempt, such as liberal news organizations, are upset. Oh, Boo-hoo-hoo. I guess they liked the advantage. Some say they helped their boyfriend get elected president.
Jump ahead to the point:Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United is being lauded by conservatives and loathed by liberals (including the Obama Administration). I thought Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, broadly rejecting limits on the speech of corporations (or unions), unusually good, and Justice Stevens' dissent unpersuasive for the reasons set forth in Justice Scalia's concurrence. But that's not today's topic.
So, before Thursday, broadcasters and newspapers (like the Times and Post) had somewhat of a monopoly on election advocacy in the month or two prior to elections: uniquely among for profit corporations, they could (and obviously, did) endorse or oppose Federal candidates. This made those companies' voices relatively more visible and, possibly, more lucrative. Thus, the press had an economic interest in the former law. Yet, the two leading papers failed to disclose that fact when editorializing. (An Adam Lipak Times story on Friday hinted at the issue.) So much for journalism's code of ethics -- which is enforced solely to shield news staff, not ensure neutrality.
Gee, I thought The NY Times would always be in favor of free speech, HAHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha!!!!!
That's a good one!
And while we are on a roll, here is an editorial from the St. Petersburg Times called High court overreaches wherein it is stated:
However, it is not noted that the St. Petersburg Times itself is a "corporation" that can spend money to support or oppose federal candidates. It has a staff and probably big barrels of ink ready to to so. They conclude (This is hilarious)An activist U.S. Supreme Court overreached Thursday with its 5-4 opinion that lifted a decades-old ban on corporations directly spending money to support or oppose federal candidates.
The media also will have an even larger role to play by highlighting connections between election ads, corporate funds and the candidates who benefit. Corporations may not be too keen on having consumers know they are promoting a candidate — and candidates will have to explain to voters why they are being supported by corporate interests. Ultimately, though, it will be up to voters to educate themselves beyond the irresponsible attack ads that will be more prevalent than ever.
In other words, the media will have to work even harder to shout down those they disagree with, such as right wing Republican conservatives.
The liberals are howling. Us too, but with laughter!
That's my opinion and I'm Oldhardhead
http://tw0.us/68h
