"There are two things that are important in politics," Mark Hanna, the
great Republican kingmaker of the late 19th century, once said. "The
first thing is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a free reign in campaign advertising. (But bloggers have to tell whether they received a review copy of a book).
The US Supreme Court threw out regulations that prohibited corporations from buying campaign commercials that explicitly advocate the election or defeat of candidates.
Democrats called the ruling a threat to democracy.
Republicans cheered it as a victory for free speech.
I call it the ultimate case for paid speech. And I'm a journalist who gets paid for speaking out. Right? Will multinational corporations take our local concerns into consideration...or their global scale interests? Who will buy their votes? Is there any transparency mandated in this corporate sponsorship of political advertising? Do they have to tell us who is influencing their messages? And who will benefit from their advocacy? Will the FTC monitor, and regulate their "speech"?
It has always disturbed me that corporations have ALL the rights of an INDIVIDUAL except voting. And dying a timely death. Now we're breaking the barrier that lets them buy votes, so I guess we're close to giving corporate directors the corporate vote.
What I can't understand is how these employees put corporate interests so far ahead of their spouse, children, parents, friends, neighbors and employees' spouses, children, parents, friends, neighbors and small business service providers. How do they lose their humanity when they sign those big checks?
There are a lot of questions we need to ask...but have you ever tried to ask a corporate director a question? Did you get through...and get an answer?
Oh yes, "The first thing that matters is money..."
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a free reign in campaign advertising. (But bloggers have to tell whether they received a review copy of a book).
The US Supreme Court threw out regulations that prohibited corporations from buying campaign commercials that explicitly advocate the election or defeat of candidates.
Democrats called the ruling a threat to democracy.
Republicans cheered it as a victory for free speech.
I call it the ultimate case for paid speech. And I'm a journalist who gets paid for speaking out. Right? Will multinational corporations take our local concerns into consideration...or their global scale interests? Who will buy their votes? Is there any transparency mandated in this corporate sponsorship of political advertising? Do they have to tell us who is influencing their messages? And who will benefit from their advocacy? Will the FTC monitor, and regulate their "speech"?
It has always disturbed me that corporations have ALL the rights of an INDIVIDUAL except voting. And dying a timely death. Now we're breaking the barrier that lets them buy votes, so I guess we're close to giving corporate directors the corporate vote.
What I can't understand is how these employees put corporate interests so far ahead of their spouse, children, parents, friends, neighbors and employees' spouses, children, parents, friends, neighbors and small business service providers. How do they lose their humanity when they sign those big checks?
There are a lot of questions we need to ask...but have you ever tried to ask a corporate director a question? Did you get through...and get an answer?
Oh yes, "The first thing that matters is money..."