For those here who have read my prior posts on the recent SCOTUS decision, I am not a big fan of having corporations and unions spend bucks to promote candidates.  That said, my brother recently came up with some arguments that do have considerable merit and here they are:

The 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees the freedoms of speech and the PRESS.  Since the SCOTUS decision only addresses advertising and materials, it would seem to uphold the freedom of corporations to exercise their freedom of the Press... to publish documents which promote whatever point of view they want to promote.

Newspapers and other news outlets almost always are and have been CORPORATIONS.  Why should it be any more allowable for a "news corporation" to put out its opinions regarding candidates and issues, than a "non news" corporation?  There are plenty of news organizations out there that are decidedly pro-Republican or Pro-Democrat, so it is not like the Press is required to be politically neutral.

If a Union wishes to publish a pro-candidate flyer, how can the government stop this without infringing on their right to a free press? How would the government distinguish which corporations are "allowed" to operate a press and which ones are not?  The concept could be frought with corruption, the kind that suppresses dissent.

If the SCOTUS came out with a ruling that said that Richard Scaife was no longer allowed to publish the Pittsburgh Tribune Review because it is a corporation promoting the cause of (generally speaking) Republicans, people on both sides of the aisle would immediately be outraged and there would be blood in the streets; likewise if it stated that CNN had to shut down because it leaned too far towards the Democrat side of things.

So.. while many people (including myself) have looked askance at corporations and unions being afforded the right to "political speech", when looking at this issue through the lens of Freedom of the Press, it is hard to come up with a cogent reason to suppress this right.  The Press by its nature is corporate.

What say you?

The recent decision actually doesn't make that much of a difference.  All it does is make corporate control over the system more blatant.

The system has been run by lobbyism for years.  I am no more disenfranchised by this decision than I was before it.

I say it sucks.
>:(

The hour is too late and I'm too lazy to prepare a legal rebuttal.  However, what I know to be fundamentally unfair is the the insanely huge stores of money corporations can spend on advertising. 

Unless you're Bill Gates or Paul Allen, you, as an individual can't spend a billion dollars.  Heck most multi-billionaires can't, not without a big hassle with their lawyers and accountants.  Exxon/Mobil can spend a billion dollars *snap* just like that!

As for news media, the majority of their revenue comes from advertising bought by other corporations, such as Exxon/Mobil.  Before they lay out the editorial content at the New York Times, they lay out the ad space.

This might not address the letter of the law, but it does speak to the spirit of the law. 

Nor does the argument take into account the influence that foreign corporations like say Toyota or some Chinese corp will now have.

Nor does the argument take into account the influence that foreign corporations like say Toyota or some Chinese corp will now have.


Far as I know, the freedom of the press does not discriminate between domestic and foreign publications, or citizens .vs. non citizens.

Far as I know, the freedom of the press does not discriminate between domestic and foreign publications, or citizens .vs. non citizens.


True, but most countries, including ours, have limited, if not barred foreigners from participating in their electoral processes.  Which is as it should be, and given your frequently stated ideas about campaign finance reform, you must agree with.  After all, if California liberals shouldn't be able to contribute to Bernie Sanders' campaign for Senate, why shouldb Chinese corporations possibly owned by the Chinese gov't be able to do so?