Citizens United (again?)

[Malla Pollack]

The public's problem is not  necessarily inability to perform critical
thinking.  Most of the public simply has no time to delve through numerous
sources to try and discover which speaker is lying.  The law and econ people
have repeatedly pointed out that informing oneself before voting is
economically irrational for most people.  (I am not personally taking that
position.)  If bombarded by "advertising" (political or for auto insurance)
people tend to be swayed by what they hear -- even if they know that the
speaker is not fully trustworthy.  Look at the FCC studies on the Fox news
effect.
Malla

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Raymond Kessler <rkessler at sulross.edu>wrote:

>  Personally, I think it is naïve to believe that “both care about getting
> ideas out to the public fairly and broadly.” The arguments about means and
> fairness are just pulled out to try to hide the fundamental motive which is
> self-interest.  Corporations and dollars don’t vote.  The assumption seems
> to be that the public has no mind, and will be swayed by whomever spends the
> most.  It strikes me as a little arrogant and authoritarian to assume that
> the public is not smart enough and that political elites need to tweak the
> first Amendment to “help” an incompetent public make “good” decisions.  Why
> is it so hard for people to apply a critical analysis (who benefits?) to
> their own ideas?
>
>
>
> Dr. Ray Kessler
>
> Prof. of Criminal Justice
>
>
>
> P.S.  Please feel free to check out my blog at
>
> http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steven Jamar [mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 11:31 AM
> *To:* Raymond Kessler
> *Cc:* <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Citizens United (again?)
>
>
>
> Maybe both care about getting ideas out to the public fairly and broadly
> and about individual freedoms including speech. But they disagree about
> means and about what is fair and what other countervailing interests or
> rights are at stake--like elections by people, not corporations or dollars.
>
>
>
> But election year rhethoric is not the way to judge motives of masses!
>
> Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 12:19 PM, "Raymond Kessler" <rkessler at sulross.edu>
> wrote:
>
>  If it isn’t already obvious, it should be by now why The Dems and Left
> are against the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment decision in Citizens
> United, (and voted for the bill which was partly struck down by the Supreme
> Court). They are for the First Amendment only when they benefit.
>
>
>
> "I want you to understand right now all over this country special interests
> are planning and running millions of dollars of attack ads against
> Democratic candidates," Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser in New York on
> Wednesday. "Because of last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens
> United, they are now allowed to spend as much as they want, unlimited
> amounts of money, and they don't have to reveal who is paying for these
> ads." Source: LINK<http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/09-27-2010/20100927005017_20.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top>
>
> Conversely, it should be obvious why Repubs and the Right are happy with
> it.  Neither side really cares about First Amendment values.
>
> IMHO anyone who thinks most American’s politicians have any sincere concern
> about broad-based First Amendment principles beyond self-interest are
> terribly naïve.  Part of the problem in this country is that too many
> politicians, academics  and citizens have no broad-based commitment to the
> Bill of Rights.  They pick and chose what they like and try to interfere
> with those who want to exercise rights they don’t like or use those rights
> for objectives they don’t like.  Think critically: Who Benefits either way?
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Ray Kessler
>
> Prof. of Criminal Justice
>
>
>
> P.S.  Please feel free to check out my blog at
>
> http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100927/b18f3c2b/attachment.htm>