It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Before 1791, newspapers were seen as a threat to the kings and authorities because they were a medium that allowed anyone to express their opinion – and this was very worrisome, particularly when those opinions contradicted those of the government. Because of this, what newspapers published was greatly controlled and had to be approved by the government. This all changed however in 1791, when the First Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, which allowed for freedom of the press.
Our media is largely corporate. I used to be extreme in my anti-corporatism and I still believe charter revocation is the answer to corporate malfeasance, but where I used to think that corporations shouldn't even exist, I've come to understand that corporations can and do do good. It is not the corporation as an entity that I have a problem with, it is corporatism I have a problem with.
You know me well enough Kali, to know I am a staunch free market advocate. Corporations, by their very nature, are not a part of any free market.
Corporations are chartered by states, and rarely by Congress. Congress has defined corporations as a "person" in order to have regulatory power over them, as they should. Corporations being defined as a "person" is not the problem.
This problem is huge Kali. It is insidious, and the tentacles of this problem are legion and far reaching. Arguing for the prohibition of speech isn't going to fix this problem, and only falls right into the corporatist hands, which is why the highly corporatized media is so intent in stirring the pot on this issue and making people angry, because the corporatist want speech abridged. Not theirs, mind you, but they have billions of dollars to skirt any abridgements on speech, but you and I don't.
In 1791, all you had was the newspaper, of which the majority were local papers rather than national like we have today.
They are able to play psychological games on the people in this country...
The founding fathers would not approve where the minority have more power via Freedom of Speech than the majority of the people in this country.
The Founders would not approve of the weak kneed sniveling helplessness the majority claim today. For the Founders TPTB was the throne of England, and a revolution later, no longer was there a PTB, but was instead a form of governance where power was understood to be distributed evenly among the populace. Today we have countless beings surrendering to a "power elite" and astonishingly insisting that the only way to reign in the power elite is by reigning in their own rights, because the helpless refuse to even imagine a day where they could manipulate billions of dollars to pay for speech and publishing.
This where I will disagree with you. I believe the opposite, that Corporations wanted to be defined as persons because it is harder to regulate a person than a corporation.
Look at how messy things have become since Citizens United was amended.
Corporations were always a threat of course and had an unfair share of power before it was amended but it's like we went from a walk toward fascism to subsonic speed toward it, since.
Yes it is, it's terrifying but I don't think the media is stirring the pot on this at all. In fact I highly doubt it's mentioned on television, most sources are from the internet and activist sites at that and maybe rare news internet sites that report on activism.
Have you looked at that leaked document on the TPP by the way?
We have a military for defensive purposes, or at least, it is supposed to be for defensive purposes and most everyone agrees with this facet, because there are many entities external to our country that would like to take advantage of us.
From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace. The circumstances of a revolution quickened the public sensibility on every point connected with the security of popular rights, and in some instances raise the warmth of our zeal beyond the degree which consisted with the due temperature of the body politic. The attempts of two of the States to restrict the authority of the legislature in the article of military establishments, are of the number of these instances. The principles which had taught us to be jealous of the power of an hereditary monarch were by an injudicious excess extended to the representatives of the people in their popular assemblies. Even in some of the States, where this error was not adopted, we find unnecessary declarations that standing armies ought not to be kept up, in time of peace, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.
It is not said, that standing armies shall not BE kept up, but that they ought not to be kept up, in time of peace. This ambiguity of terms appears to have been the result of a conflict between jealousy and conviction; between the desire of excluding such establishments at all events, and the persuasion that an absolute exclusion would be unwise and unsafe.
The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 64–65).
Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1, 2
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK
BREYER, J., dissenting
36–37. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.
“substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.”
[Latin, What for what or Something for something.] The mutual consideration that passes between two parties to a contractual agreement, thereby rendering the agreement valid and binding.