6 Comments

  1. Tamara R. Pearlman
    October 13, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

    Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to allow huge sums of monies being contributed to campaigns or is it the duty of the Supreme Court to promote justice in all situations. The Supreme Court is swinging too far to the right and backing the GOP; which shows legal bias. That should be against the law. The downfall is man’s interpretation of the law to meet his needs.

    Reply

  2. gnudarwin
    October 13, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

    I like to note that anonymous speech is a bellwether of free expression itself. We have all made much of the fact that Citizens United was terrible because it equated corporate largess with free speech. Our opponents might point out that as such, anonymous political contributions seem to be implied. Personally, I have considered making anonymous political contributions from time to time.

    What needs to be pointed out is that anonymous speech has no credibility compared to public speech where identities are known. The speaker is putting his name on the line, and if his words are found to be false, we know where to find him.

    Citizens United makes it possible for the wealthy to fund lies anonymously, and people need to be cognizant of this fact. At this time, we can not trace their words back to their funding sources, so that they are protected from the consequences of spreading falsehoods. Some will argue that such expressions should receive constitutional protections. Aside from that argument, we can certainly say that such expressions are likely not credible at all, and they should carry little weight.

    Finally, there is really no protection for anonymous speech which is false, deceptive, or negligent. And we need to know the identities of those who fund such speech. One rarely knows the identity of the man who cries fire in a crowded movie theater. If there was no fire, we need to find out who it was.

    Regards,
    proclus
    http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

    Reply

  3. Jody
    October 14, 2010 @ 5:50 am

    I had heard Justice Stevens recently say something like “With regards to freedom of speech, it needs to be understood that money is not speech.”

    Reply

  4. gnudarwin
    October 14, 2010 @ 10:54 am

    I would like to clarify that I do not believe that money is speech, and far from it. Moreover, I would also like to amplify my point and say that it may be possible to reveal the names of anonymous doners if their organizations have broken the law. This would be a likely priority in some cases.

    Regards,
    proclus
    http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

    Reply

  5. Chuck Kottke
    November 18, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

    Well the answer is simple. Buy Karl Rove more donuts. That’s right – donuts. Or whatever his favorite food is – he’s obviously got an insatiable apatite for food, or power, or money, but I’m guessing food comes first, and judging from his jowls, he’s been hitting the snack bar pretty hard lately.
    So give to Karl, give to his needs, keep him well stocked with all the glazed chocolate donuts he needs and deserves. Do it for your country, do it for those wealthy who need to have their voices heard anonymously in campaign ads, lest they be singled out for their generosity; do it for the grease & tallow industry. Keep the glaze in their eyes, and the arteries will soon follow. After all, it’s just free speech that he’s protecting, and he deserves all the goodies we can offer him.
    Oh those frosted donuts are singing freely – mmm mmm! Come get more Karl, I’ll buy you as many as you like and then some!

    Reply

  6. The public shaming of Anthony Kennedy
    January 8, 2011 @ 1:09 am

    […] Boat” sewer money six years ago, feel so liberated by Citizens United that they are now collecting and spending tens of millions of dollars without bothering to register as a political committee, […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *