Citizens United (again?)

Mon Sep 27 10:06:23 PDT 2010

Actually, things repeated again and again on TV and not (and inadequately  answered). do seem to have remarkable ability to sway the public mind, even when competing but vastly overwhelmed other media exist. See, e.g. Italy, Milosevic, & Harry and Louise, and the  one sided ad campaign against the tobacco bill.  As I recall there are studies that tend to show that.  The free speech idea is effective speech from multiple perspectives.  Note that even the corporate source of the speech can be concealed by 501(c) 4 –I think—organizations.  I don’t think arrogant, etc. help much.  Why assume bad faith and authoritarian tendencies?    

Michael Curtis

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Raymond Kessler
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:47 PM
To: 'Steven Jamar'
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Citizens United (again?)

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100927/fd7c5501/attachment.htm>