Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Media-Always Distractable

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 10:06 AM
Original message
Media-Always Distractable
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/10/15/always-distractable/

Always Distractable

by mistermix


I agree with John that the Democrats should keep hitting the foreign donors angle to discredit this new round of corporate advertising. Maybe the DC media could take a moment from tsk-tsking and read the fucking Citizens’ United decision. Here’s the relevant passage:

Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation. Some amici point to recent events in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation. <...> The examples cited by amici are cause for concern. Citizens United, however, has offered no evidence that its members may face similar threats or reprisals. To the contrary, Citizens United has been disclosing its donors for years and has identified no instance of harassment or retaliation.

<...> A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. <...> With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “ ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” <...> The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.


Whether or not you agree with the rest of the decision, the Court clearly envisioned transparency as part of the deal. It hasn’t happened, and the electorate is having even a harder time than usual making informed decisions and giving proper weight to different speakers and messages.

This is what’s at stake, not some piddling little argument about whether the Sierra Club has some foreign donors, just like the Chamber of Commerce. Our stupid and infinitely distractable DC media would have us believe otherwise, and in doing so, they’re letting Congress off the hook for failing to quickly enact new transparency laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC