iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

BenDoubleCrossed's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

Commented Aug 24, 2013 at 11:16:13 in Technology

“Anonymous political documents predate the settling of our country. The first was a document written in the 1570s under the fictitious name Junius Brutus. In English it's titled A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. According to historians, this document played a role in the destruction of the Stuarts, then the royal family of Great Britain. And this document also influenced America's patriots.

There are other pre-revolutionary examples, including the story of John Peter Zenger, whose case was a precedent for the 1st Amendment freedom of the press and the concept of fully informed juries.

Another example was John Dickson, a colonial patriot who anonymously protested the preponderance of taxes by Parliament in his Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. Add to this list, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which was published with the byline "An Englishman."

But the best examples occurred during the debate over the Constitution itself. Publius, the pseudonym of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, wrote the Federalist Papers. And let's give equal time to "Brutus," "Federal Farmer," "Centinel," and "Cato" -- all of them took the anti-federalist position. (Too bad they lost.)”
Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

Commented Aug 24, 2013 at 11:15:13 in Technology

“My father ran a construction company in Kentucky. He had to register Democrat or his company would have never gotten a winning bid on State or local government project. Dad voted Republican but could not donate to Republicans because his name would have appeared on disclosure reports.

Participating anonymously forces the opposition to tackle the content rather than the person presenting a viewpoint.”
Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

Commented Aug 24, 2013 at 11:12:22 in Technology

“A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper's income... The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few...that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote...in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).”
Reince Priebus, RNC Launch Full-Scale Attack On 'Liberal Media' Over Hillary Clinton Programs

Reince Priebus, RNC Launch Full-Scale Attack On 'Liberal Media' Over Hillary Clinton Programs

Commented Aug 16, 2013 at 14:40:53 in Politics

“If Republicans believe Citizens United was properly decided by the Supreme Court, and I do, It is hypocritical for the Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus to object to NBC and CNN documentaries on Hillary.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.”
DISCLOSE Act Blocked By Senate GOP Again

DISCLOSE Act Blocked By Senate GOP Again

Commented Jul 18, 2012 at 10:33:44 in Politics

“Why should the Communist Party enjoy more freedom than the rest of us:

The Socialist Workers Party National Campaign Committee and committees supporting candidates of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) remain exempt from some FEC disclosure requirements for political committees. See advisory opinion AO 2003-2: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/may03.pdf
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that, under certain circumstances, the Act’s disclosure requirements as applied to a minor party would be unconstitutional because the threat to their First Amendment rights resulting from disclosure would outweigh the interest in disclosure. According to the Court’s opinion, “minor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury to assure a fair consideration of their claim [for a reporting exemption] . . . The evidence offered need only show a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party’s contributors’ names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either the government or private parties.” 424 U.S. at 74.”
Don't Blame The Supreme Court For Citizens United -- Blame Congress, The FEC And The IRS

Don't Blame The Supreme Court For Citizens United -- Blame Congress, The FEC And The IRS

Commented Mar 24, 2012 at 10:14:51 in Politics

“The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights denies Congress and the FEC authority to write laws that abridge our freedoms of speech, press and assembly. But campaign laws abridge all three!

Coordination is sought after in sports, business, music, the military and all other walks of life. How can coordinating lawfully be made a crime in the context of assembling with like minded citizens to demand a redress of grievances from government?

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And why don't you corporate haters get angry over the “corporate media” press exemption?

The media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.

The press exemption should really be called a press restriction. It is a restriction on participation by 99.9999% of the population that gives .0001% of the population immunity from campaign laws.”
California DISCLOSE Act, Bill Putting More Sunlight Into Campaign Finance, Dies Under Opposition From Assembly Republicans

California DISCLOSE Act, Bill Putting More Sunlight Into Campaign Finance, Dies Under Opposition From Assembly Republicans

Commented Feb 1, 2012 at 17:28:11 in San Francisco

“Mainstream media are the ultimate Super Pacs.

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads?

The media’s cries crocodile tears. If they carried political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But media makes billions off campaign ads.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and groups!

The NRA bought a radio station. Should citizens have to buy a radio station to speak or a newspaper to print their views?”
Stephen Colbert Super PAC Disclosure Reveals No Unlimited Contributions, Few Corporations

Stephen Colbert Super PAC Disclosure Reveals No Unlimited Contributions, Few Corporations

Commented Jan 31, 2012 at 11:54:21 in Politics

“Where in the Constitution is the authority to make political coordination a crime and by what logic do campaign laws make it one?

Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

On Wikipedia lookup the words:

“Assembly”: “Freedom of assembly, the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.

“Association”: “Voluntary associations, groups of individuals who voluntarily enter into an agreement to accomplish a purpose.” 501(c) non-profit organization is given as an example.

“Coordination”: “Coordination is the act of coordinating, making different people or things work together for a goal or effect to fulfill desired goals in an organization. Coordination is a managerial function in which different activities of the business are properly adjusted and interlinked.”

In sports the lack of coordination leads to lost games. In orchestras the lack of coordination results in dissonance. Choreography without coordination lacks grace. Lack of coordination in business results in lost profits.

Oh well, I guess uncoordinated political campaigns are good training for political candidates that will work in our dysfunctional government.”

Scott Kenan on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:15:36

“HUH???

See where MY political blog takes the Republicans (straight to hell via VIABLE, PRACTICAL, and REAL evidence of the Bush/Cheney/Gingrich/Fox News GIGANTIC narco-trafficking ring!!! HA!!!

My North Carolina Family FOUNDED the first public/private University in America in 1789 (UNC Chapel Hill), on land donated by the Kenan family (with help of some allied families).

As first confirmed by top Jews in Atlanta in 1990, my mother is the TOP NAZI in the US and blackmailed my homosexual father into marrying her to hide swastikas behind the Kenan surname. When I was held hostage for a month in a crack house in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico 15 months ago, top Colombian and Mexican drug lords confirmed Mom is Dick Cheney's boss and reports only to the Pope.

See my blog for details (HuffPost is a Kenan-Family-Associated news source, BTW). Index to subjects is below link to my memoir of working for playwright Tennessee Williams:

http://scottkenan.blogspot.com

Thank you,
Scott”

68Namvet on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:10:09

“Perhaps you don't understand - so let me make it clear - The citizens of the United States have their Constitutionally protected rights - no other countries, nor citizens of other countries, nor corporations of other countries have those same protected rights within the United States.

To suggest that there be unlimited rights to "assembly", "association" and "coordination" between political campaigns and other countries or entities outside the United States is to suggest that we, the people, have no voice in our own political future. Unfortunately, this is precisely what Citizens United allows.

And the last line of Article 1 is telling: "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances­.” Many of us are actively petitioning the government for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this ruling for the democracy destroying garbage that it is!”

Bgrngod on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:09:50

“The constitution does not specifically protect it. Therefor, it can be regulated by law.

However, the courts made the absurd decision that money is speech, so therefor it should be protected. Which means.. if you don't have money, you don't get to have free speech.

Fascism.”

taddles on Jan 31, 2012 at 12:03:52

“How is coordinated unlimited funding of campaign not bribery? How do we get elected officials that are not beholden to the highest bidder? Where in the constitution does it say congress shall be bought and paid for by the highest bidder and shall do the bidding of corporations at the expense and to the detriment of the people?”
Stephen Colbert Super PAC Disclosure Reveals No Unlimited Contributions, Few Corporations

Stephen Colbert Super PAC Disclosure Reveals No Unlimited Contributions, Few Corporations

Commented Jan 31, 2012 at 11:49:34 in Politics

“Now if we can only get the news to quit taking sides?

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 flesh and blood citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only the commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and the press. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But the corporate media were exempted.

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads? "Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.

See:
Newspapers Have No First Amendment Exemption from Political Spending Reporting Requirements

Eugene Volokh

Because of this, it generally hasn’t been clear whether the media exemption was constitutionally mandated — whether a legislature could, if it wanted to, regulate newspapers’ expenditures related to political campaigns the same way it regulated other expenditures. But Olson v. City of Golden (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2011) held that such an exemption is not constitutionally mandated.”
Citizens United Fallout: Coalition Asks SEC To Order Corporate Disclosure Of Political Spending

Citizens United Fallout: Coalition Asks SEC To Order Corporate Disclosure Of Political Spending

Commented Jan 20, 2012 at 11:05:52 in Business

“Mainstream media are the ultimate Super Pacs.

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads?

The media’s cries crocodile tears. If they carried political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But media makes billions off campaign ads.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and groups!”
Citizens United Fallout: Coalition Asks SEC To Order Corporate Disclosure Of Political Spending

Citizens United Fallout: Coalition Asks SEC To Order Corporate Disclosure Of Political Spending

Commented Jan 20, 2012 at 11:04:46 in Business

“The excerpts below are from page 25 The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian Fifth Edition paperback.

It is normal for all large businesses to make serious efforts to influence the news, to avoid embarrassing publicity, and to maximize sympathetic public opinion and government policies. Now they own most of the news media that they wish to influence.

Under law, the director of a company is obliged to act in the interests of his or her own company. It has always been an unanswered dilemma when an officer of Corporation A, who also sits as a director on the board of Corporation B, has to choose between acting in the best interests of Corporation A or of Corporation B.

Interlocked boards of directors have enormously complicated potential conflicts of interest in the major national and multinational corporations that now control most of the country’s media.

A 1979 study by Peter Dreier and Steven Weinberg found interlocked directorates in major newspaper chains. Gannett shared directors with Merrill Lynch stock brokers), Standard Oil of Ohio, 20th-Century Fox, Kerr-McGee (oil, gas, nuclear power, aerospace), McDonnell Douglas Aircraft, McGraw-Hill, Eastern Airlines, Phillips Petroleum, Kellogg Company, and New York Telephone Company.

The most influential paper in America, the New York Times, interlocked with Merck, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Bristol Myers, Charter Oil, Johns Manville, American Express, Bethlehem Steel, IBM, Scott Paper, Sun Oil, and First Boston Corporation.”
Democrats To Launch Online Petition For Amendment To Citizens United Ruling

Democrats To Launch Online Petition For Amendment To Citizens United Ruling

Commented Jan 20, 2012 at 10:54:19 in Politics

“The above is a very weak article.

The premise is Karl Rove money is bad and George Soros money is good!

The media corporations are the biggest super pacs and they are exempt from campaign laws.

If you want to restore the voice of the people and reduce the influence of corporations, begin by demanding citizens and citizens groups be extended the same exemptions enjoyed by the corporate media.”

David Carson on Jan 24, 2012 at 15:43:03

“related to this--union/AARP money=good, corporation/NRA money=bad”
David Shuster Calls Out Campaign Finance As 'Cancer That Threatens Our Democracy' (VIDEO)

David Shuster Calls Out Campaign Finance As 'Cancer That Threatens Our Democracy' (VIDEO)

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 18:25:40 in Media

“Mainstream media are the ultimate super pacs.

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads?

The media’s crocodile tears about the evils of money in politics are hypocritical. If media carried political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But corporate media are the recipient of billions of dollars in campaign ads.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and groups!”
David Shuster Calls Out Campaign Finance As 'Cancer That Threatens Our Democracy' (VIDEO)

David Shuster Calls Out Campaign Finance As 'Cancer That Threatens Our Democracy' (VIDEO)

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 18:24:16 in Media

“You want to know who is behind election communications:

The excerpts below are from page 25 The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian Fifth Edition paperback.

It is normal for all large businesses to make serious efforts to influence the news, to avoid embarrassing publicity, and to maximize sympathetic public opinion and government policies. Now they own most of the news media that they wish to influence. - Excerpt from The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian

Ben H. Bagdikian a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and the Dean Emeritus of U.S.C. Berkley’s School of Journalism has written several books describing the modern media as a ” Media Monopoly”!

Under law, the director of a company is obliged to act in the interests of his or her own company. It has always been an unanswered dilemma when an officer of Corporation A, who also sits as a director on the board of Corporation B, has to choose between acting in the best interests of Corporation A or of Corporation B.

Interlocked boards of directors have enormously complicated potential conflicts of interest in the major national and multinational corporations that now control most of the country’s media.

A 1979 study by Peter Dreier and Steven Weinberg found interlocked directorates in major newspaper chains. Gannett shared directors with Merrill Lynch stock brokers), Standard Oil of Ohio, 20th-Century Fox, Kerr-McGee (oil, gas, nuclear power, aerospace), McDonnell Douglas Aircraft, McGraw-Hill, Eastern Airlines, Phillips Petroleum, Kellogg Company, and New York Telephone Company.”
David Shuster Calls Out Campaign Finance As 'Cancer That Threatens Our Democracy' (VIDEO)

David Shuster Calls Out Campaign Finance As 'Cancer That Threatens Our Democracy' (VIDEO)

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 18:20:47 in Media

“I find it hypocritical that Common Cause, a 501 (c)(4) corporation exempt from publicizing its donors, is pushing for accountability and an end to corporate participation in elections. And I find it priceless that Common Cause claims money is not speech while asking for donations on their website.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Common_Cause

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4860191
Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 12:53:48 in Politics

“I find it hypocritical that Common Cause, a 501 (c)(4) corporation exempt from publicizing its donors, is pushing for accountability and an end to corporate participation in elections. And I find it priceless that Common Cause claims money is not speech while asking for donations on their website.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Common_Cause

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4860191

West by Outwest on Jan 18, 2012 at 17:30:40

“Money is not speech and Common Cause pointing that out is hypocritical? Maybe they have an unsustainable business model then by your logic Ben?”
Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 12:51:04 in Politics

“In Iowa Rick Perry spent more than any candidate and only received 10% of the vote. Meanwhile Rick Santorum spent the least and came in second. So much for your evil money argument!

Americans spend more on potato chips each year than national politics.”

l78lancer on Jan 18, 2012 at 21:01:13

“But what Santorum and Perry spent is irrelevant when it comes to the super PAC spending discussion...or it's supposed to be anyway.”

MaineCoon on Jan 18, 2012 at 13:33:55

“Rick Perry self-destructed -- over and over again.

Do you know the difference between a candidate's campaign spending, and a super PAC's? Do you understand that one of the problems of this Citizens United business is that unlimited amounts can be spent on campaigns that don't go on the books in the candidate's own name? And that further, with a PAC it is virtually impossible to tell who really is behind the contribution? It is simply money talking, not people.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the radical wrong here is that money can buy a monopoly of our airwaves of speech. That's "evil money" regardless of the outcome of the vote.”
Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 11:07:00 in Politics

“Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

The following serious abuse was not reported because the 4th estate was the abuser.

Some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court loosing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.

The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers. Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.

A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.

President Nixon reversed his position and used his political skills to convince congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.

The newly minted campaign laws should have chastised the 4th estate as well as Nixon? Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted them and created the ‘State Approved Press.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970
Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Hate Citizens United? Common Cause Has A Way To Say So In 2012

Commented Jan 18, 2012 at 11:00:48 in Politics

“Mainstream media are the ultimate super pacs.

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms applied only to flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedoms. Congress amended FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads?

The media’s crocodile tears about the evils of money in politics are hypocritical. If media carried political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But corporate media are the recipient of billions of dollars in campaign ads.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and groups!”
Citizens United Backlash Picks Up Official Support From Occupy Wall Street, New York Chapter

Citizens United Backlash Picks Up Official Support From Occupy Wall Street, New York Chapter

Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 17:11:54 in Politics

http://amendment10.tripod.com/outrageous.htm

Members of Congress have been aware of this ‘oversight’ for years and chose not to discuss it while deliberating the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act:

"Regarding the issue of foreign ownership of media, I am currently researching this issue.
I appreciate your concerns that while the FEC regulates contributions and expenditures of American citizens, newspapers owned by foreign individuals or corporations are not subject to such regulation. The problem is in limiting the freedom of speech of these newspapers. Any type of regulation of editorial comment would be unconstitutional." From Congresswoman Ann Northup's letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated June 11, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann1.htm

Thank you for your calls regarding foreign-owned media. I appreciate having the opportunity to address your concerns.

As Juliane Carter of my staff discussed with you, the Congressional Research Service is currently gathering research on this topic for me. I look forward to seeing what information they provide on the number of broadcast and print journalism organizations that are owned or operated by international companies. Excerpt from Congresswoman Ann Northup's July 10, 1997 letter to her constituent Richard Lewis. http://amendment10.tripod.com/ann3.gif
Citizens United Backlash Picks Up Official Support From Occupy Wall Street, New York Chapter

Citizens United Backlash Picks Up Official Support From Occupy Wall Street, New York Chapter

Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 17:06:16 in Politics

“If money is not speech explain why the press exemption states news articles and broadcasts are not to be considered expenditures or contributions?

Also, please post the address of the Kinkos that prints your political handbills for free?”

hopingheart on Jan 6, 2012 at 23:34:16

“I didn't say that there should be no funding for candidates. I'm saying that the billions at the disposal of the .1% should not be allowed to outshout the free speech of regular citizens. If you're talking about media having a huge voice, look no further than FAUX News and Limbaugh to see excess -- funded by BIG MONEY btw.”
Citizens United Backlash Picks Up Official Support From Occupy Wall Street, New York Chapter

Citizens United Backlash Picks Up Official Support From Occupy Wall Street, New York Chapter

Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 17:04:02 in Politics

“Corporate media are exempt from American campaign laws. Will your Amendment deny the commercial press political speech and press?

What is the difference between an editorial endorsement by a broadcast or Newspaper Corporation and a political ad? What is the value of a slanted news article?

If commercial media retain their exemption, how will equal protection of the law for other than media corporations and citizens and citizens groups be re-established?

Will the 1st Amendment right of citizens to assemble and demand redress of grievances be honored? Will citizens be permitted to form non-profit corporations to aggregate their money to promoted their candidates and issues against wealthier interests?

The National Rifle Association purchased a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. Should citizens and citizens groups have to buy a radio station to enjoy freedom of speech or a newspaper to enjoy freedom of the press?”

LiberalScoop on Jan 6, 2012 at 17:42:31

“How about the fact that before Citizens United, these commercials were paid for by regular, limited donations? Most of the money given doesn't actually go to ad time so your example is a little suspect, at least. Your views are easy to understand, though. As long as you know you have the advantage, why would you not fight to keep it? You'll find that most people do not agree with this ruling. It had nothing to do with the will of the people. This is nothing more than political wrangling between corporate lobbyists and the Supreme Court. If corporations are people and money is a form of free speech, then according to Citizens United, the more money you have, the greater your right to free speech. If this decision were Constitutional, doesn't it stand to good reason that 100 years ago, someone would have brought this before the Supreme Court? Every other aspect of the Constitution speaks against such advantage of one over another.
Also, if the NRA or the Daughters of the American Revolution purchased a radio station, they have the right to broadcast anything they like. Citizens United is not a radio station.”
huffingtonpost entry

Super PAC Disclosure Requirements Hot Topic Of Conversation Among GOP Candidates

Commented Jan 6, 2012 at 16:29:39 in Politics

“Commercial media are exempt from American campaign laws. Does the management of the HuffingtonPost believe individuals and groups enjoy the same exemption?”
Mitt Romney's Flip Flops, Finances Criticized By DNC Ahead Of Iowa Caucuses

Mitt Romney's Flip Flops, Finances Criticized By DNC Ahead Of Iowa Caucuses

Commented Dec 28, 2011 at 11:17:15 in Politics

“Tell me again what the difference is between an editorial or slanted news stories and political ads?

Recently, the Huffington Post has carried articles about the need to get the corporate voice out of politics. I guess that is every corporate voice except the Huffington Posts?

The other Republican candidates could not pay for a better hatchet job against Mitt Romney than this article. You win. I will not vote for Mitt!

But placing ads with media corporations is where most money in politics is spent. It is so refreshing for another media talking head to point out the need to eliminate money from politics.”
Move To Amend LA: City Council To Vote On Amending US Constitution To Say Corporations Are Not People (VIDEO)

Move To Amend LA: City Council To Vote On Amending US Constitution To Say Corporations Are Not People (VIDEO)

Commented Dec 6, 2011 at 15:14:06 in Los Angeles

“Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial press, because the 1st Amendment prohibits abridging their freedom of speech and the press.

2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

The NRA bought a radio station to restore the rights of their membership to participate in American politics. But the 1st Amendment does not require people to purchase a radio station in order to enjoy freedom of speech.

To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, non-profit corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”

Since the only thing campaigns produce is information for public distribution and the cost of distribution is the origin of much of the need for money in politics, why not require the commercial media to publish and broadcast candidate and issue ads for free in return for their exemption from campaign laws?”
next
1 - 25