Hacker News Reader

Comment by InclinedPlane | Hacker News Reader

It's disturbing to me how easily some people's absurd hatred of corporations in the abstract can override even the most dearly held liberties in the western world (such as freedom of speech). The recently overturned campaign finance law was a horrendous attack on free speech. Something as simple as posting about a local candidate on your personal blog could have been considered a campaign contribution in kind, falling under the regulation and restrictions of said law. And that's hardly the most egregious aspect.

As the saying goes, those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve (and receive) neither. In the same manner those who sacrifice liberty toward reducing corruption in government deserve (and receive) neither.

View on HN

"Something as simple as posting about a local candidate on your personal blog could have been considered a campaign contribution in kind, falling under the regulation and restrictions of said law."

[citation needed]. People have always been able to speak out in favor of their preferred candidates - that's what free speech is about. AFAIUI, the recent SCOTUS decision concerned:

1. What happens when there was an exchange of money for political speech on behalf of a third party, eg. paying someone for advertisements.

2. What happens when the "person" paying that money is not a person, but a corporation.

There's a big difference between somebody speaking out on their own and somebody paying for advertisement. There's a further difference between somebody paying for advertisement and something paying for advertisement.

I'll elaborate if you wish, but I'd assume this should be fairly clear to most people...

Can you please introduce me to one of these inhuman "things" that might fund a political advertisement without human decision or involvement?

"A human" is different from "A group of humans".

Ahhh.

So your fundamental objection is to political organization.

Is the "group of humans" a democratic organization, a dictatorship or an oligarchy? Most companies are dictatorships with an oligarch of shareholders. It is really helping democracy to allow a multi-national with majority overseas shareholders to influence USA elections?

Most political organizations can be similarly characterized as dictatorships with oligarchies; depending on what level you look, pretty much all of them can.

Consider your last question, though: What do you mean by influence?

Multi-nationals based in the US and elsewhere already had plenty of influence in various forms before this decision. Now...they can pay for commercials. They can now make blatant, public statements of support in front of American customers, roughly 40% of whom will take some degree of umbrage or offense to this no matter who they support.

How does this hurt democracy?

Yes, there are many forms of influence already, lobbyists and the such. My intent was to say - there is now one more way that large multi-national entities can directly shape opinion by marketing spend. This makes the contribution of the individual without money less and the consolidation of power (influence) in the hands of those with money greater. By the people for the people moves towards "by the corporation, for the corporation".

That doesn't actually answer the question, it just casts contempt toward voters.

If a corporation made a documentary about a candidate they would not be able to release it during the campaign season.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/25/could-hillary-movie-case...

People like to think those sorts of restrictions affect only the big players, when it's more the reverse - the largest companies have the most resources to devote to carefully jumping through legal hoops.

Or finding ways around the legal hoops.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com