Could last week's Supreme Court decision have more dire effects that eXXXon breaking the bank to fight climate change legislation, or Big Pharma swatting down national health care?
Like Big Bad China muscling in on U.S. elections?
Showing posts with label campaign advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign advertising. Show all posts
January 25, 2010
January 22, 2010
Citizens United and climate change
If Congressional Democrats don't realize how much toughter the SCOTUS decision made it to pass health care in the future, unless they have political cojones, what about climate change? Don't you think eXXXonMobil is just waiting to restart its deniers' campaign, with more money than ever allowed before being directed straight to campaign ads?
January 21, 2010
Health care now a LOT harder to pass
Why? The Supreme Court decision, in Citizens United, allowing basically unfettered corporate contributions to political advertising.
If Congressional Democrats think they've been politically attacked in the past by folks like Big Pharma, they ain't seen nothing.
This is the latest in the incredibly bad fallout from corporations being found to be "persons" before the law.
The Washington Post has a good roundup of reactions.
If Congressional Democrats think they've been politically attacked in the past by folks like Big Pharma, they ain't seen nothing.
This is the latest in the incredibly bad fallout from corporations being found to be "persons" before the law.
The Washington Post has a good roundup of reactions.
August 30, 2009
Free speech vs. free democracy
The two issues clash head on at the Supreme Court, in a reargument of the political status of an anti-Hillary Clinton movie.
While this is not an easy case to look at, first of all, it’s CERTAINLY not one that fits within the “originalist” understanding of the Constitution promoted by Justice Scalia and some other members of SCOTUS. And, given both that and the fact the Court seems itching to make a broad ruling, …
I simply have to disagree with both the ACLU and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, with their briefs supporting Citizens United. I feel even more so that way with our current Democratic president having helped wreck remaining shreds of public campaign financing by opting out of the system.
And, we now see the results in his fiscal policy, and the advisors thereof.
And, contra RCFP, this isn’t a ruling on “news,” it’s a ruling on advertising, which has NEVER had the same level of speech protections.
On the originalist side, the Founding Fathers simply did not envision:
1. A nation of more than 300 million people
2. Corporations being declared “persons” before the law by a previous Supreme Court
3. The exploitation of that ruling
4. Or many other related things.
Yes, a broad ruling the other direction pushes us in the direction of government censorship. I hope for a narrow but good ruling.
-END-
While this is not an easy case to look at, first of all, it’s CERTAINLY not one that fits within the “originalist” understanding of the Constitution promoted by Justice Scalia and some other members of SCOTUS. And, given both that and the fact the Court seems itching to make a broad ruling, …
I simply have to disagree with both the ACLU and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, with their briefs supporting Citizens United. I feel even more so that way with our current Democratic president having helped wreck remaining shreds of public campaign financing by opting out of the system.
And, we now see the results in his fiscal policy, and the advisors thereof.
And, contra RCFP, this isn’t a ruling on “news,” it’s a ruling on advertising, which has NEVER had the same level of speech protections.
On the originalist side, the Founding Fathers simply did not envision:
1. A nation of more than 300 million people
2. Corporations being declared “persons” before the law by a previous Supreme Court
3. The exploitation of that ruling
4. Or many other related things.
Yes, a broad ruling the other direction pushes us in the direction of government censorship. I hope for a narrow but good ruling.
-END-
July 28, 2008
Olympics ads — good or bad idea for Obama?
Barack Obama’s idea of running campaign ads during the Olympics has potential, but has more potential to spin its wheels, I think.
First, ads in the Olympics are pricey.
Second, you gotta be good to get name recognition off Olympics ads.
Third, how much research are you doing on target audience and demographics? Are you targeting individual sports, such as basketball?
First, ads in the Olympics are pricey.
Second, you gotta be good to get name recognition off Olympics ads.
Third, how much research are you doing on target audience and demographics? Are you targeting individual sports, such as basketball?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)