Export thread

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/21/crossroads/entry6124197.shtml

Basically (as I understand it)
the Supreme court upheld the 1st Amendment regarding freedom of speech regarding private industry posting ads on TV
What I worry about is that.....

Private industry have a LOT more money and facility to broadcast and "drown" out any other candidate that can't afford TV/Radio ads. Now if a TV company (like NBC) wants to broadcast a ton of political ads at NBC expense there is no limit now. This can be a bad thing. A company DO have a limit on how much money they can give to a political figure, but what about if the company instead give political ads instead (which can be in the millions) instead? can you imagine how much power an advertising company has? or private industry with access to it?

This is a mistake and one of the biggest problems with politics today. The Moveon.orgs and the swift boat guys just tell lies and spread dissension.

Dave said:

This is a mistake and one of the biggest problems with politics today. The Moveon.orgs and the swift boat guys just tell lies and spread dissension.

Click to expand...

Those were always legal through PACs. The only good sign is with this, at least they'll be public about it? I dunno.

Dave said:

This is a mistake and one of the biggest problems with politics today. The Moveon.orgs and the swift boat guys just tell lies and spread dissension.

Click to expand...

No no, Dave, private industry. Haliburton. GE. Dow. Banking industry. Etc. These people will have free reign to create ads for candidates (who will pretend to have no involvement).

If anything encourages the destruction of the democratic process, it is this. You thought politicians were crooked before? It will be nothing compared to what this will cause.

Yuk. The system needs to represent business but not at the expense of representing the people.

Money is now free speech.

ugggh...

I can understand this decision from a first amendment standpoint, but this can't be good...

Krisken;331904][QUOTE=Dave said:

This is a mistake and one of the biggest problems with politics today. The Moveon.orgs and the swift boat guys just tell lies and spread dissension.

Click to expand...

No no, Dave, private industry. Haliburton. GE. Dow. Banking industry. Etc. These people will have free reign to create ads for candidates (who will pretend to have no involvement).

If anything encourages the destruction of the democratic process, it is this. You thought politicians were crooked before? It will be nothing compared to what this will cause.[/QUOTE]

exactly!! This is going to be bad. Politician can now be "bribe" by these private institution.... since they have "limitless" fund for ads... imagine if if GE doesn't like certain thing going in the government, they can "sponsors ads" for the next election which can cost millions for X senators... BAM. A new way to lobby and government can't restrict them cause it is private institution doing it. GE can just say, we support X senators this is our own decision blah blah blah....

This can't be good.

edit: I can see if a company is against.... say abortion or same sex marriage, they can spend money and run ads and support X political figure saying that this person is against too.. vote for him/her.

Soliloquy said:

ugggh...

I can understand this decision from a first amendment standpoint, but this can't be good...

Click to expand...

Since when are ads free speech?!

@Li3n;331948][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

ugggh...

I can understand this decision from a first amendment standpoint, but this can't be good...

Click to expand...

Since when are ads free speech?![/QUOTE]

Today Noon Eastern Time

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

I can't believe that the Court is treating a Corporation as though it was a citizen in terms of speech.

On the bright side, this will most likely end the Astroturfing that has cropped up in recent years.

sixpackshaker said:

I can't believe that the Court is treating a Corporation as though it was a citizen in terms of speech.

On the bright side, this will most likely end the Astroturfing that has cropped up in recent years.

Click to expand...

well. As a corporation entity it is consider a person, this is why you can sue a corporation. A corporation can take out a bank loan regardless who is running it as if it is a person so it is easy to see why the constitution can cover corporation. (if you treat it like a person then it has same right as a person I guess)

I predict future issues when individual employees with different political views start complaining that their parent company is misrepresenting them by releasing those ads, marked with their corporate logo.

Or worse, shareholders with different views.

TeKeo said:

I predict future issues when individual employees with different political views start complaining that their parent company is misrepresenting them by releasing those ads, marked with their corporate logo.

Or worse, shareholders with different views.

Click to expand...

I see it more of people who support prop 8 businesses can legally pour millions into advertising for their "favorite" senator/house reps to do their bidding. Can you imagine how much money those political reps can save on campaign ads?

Now it is time to start putting patches with ads all over politicians' suits, like a NASCAR driver. That way there would not have been the dust up over Palin's wardrobe last year.

sixpackshaker said:

Now it is time to start putting patches with ads all over politicians' suits, like a NASCAR driver. That way there would not have been the dust up over Palin's wardrobe last year.

Click to expand...

LOL Nascar Politician

So who wants to start a political ad company?

This will be a Godsend of Cash for the major networks. But horrible for the ratings.

They have to say who they are right? So if GE makes an ad for Charlie Schumer or whatever they have to say it's GE right? While I don't care for the ruling that's a good thing.

This will likely just open the floodgates for "position ads"

Just trash one candidate or popular political position, and maybe post what company paid for it. But not the candidate it wants you to vote for.

Espy said:

They have to say who they are right? So if GE makes an ad for Charlie Schumer or whatever they have to say it's GE right? While I don't care for the ruling that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Yea. If GE "gives" TV time to Roger Rabbit for Senator, then GE has to have a small label somewhere that this ad is payed for by GE for Roger Rabbit, BUT there is no limit. I guess there was a limit before to provide "equal" footing? so without limit if GE wants to contribute millions of dollars for all republican ads, they can. The problem would be that many company can only give so much campaign contribution (Federal law limits) but now they have loop hole in terms of unlimited ad.

Imagine superbowl ad slots are like million dollar for 30 seconds, now a senator or house of rep with the right pull can have a 30 second blip during prime ad times.

TeKeo said:

I predict future issues when individual employees with different political views start complaining that their parent company is misrepresenting them by releasing those ads, marked with their corporate logo.

Or worse, shareholders with different views.

Click to expand...

It will be just like how it is with Union members and their Unions now.

Covar;332102][QUOTE=TeKeo said:

I predict future issues when individual employees with different political views start complaining that their parent company is misrepresenting them by releasing those ads, marked with their corporate logo.

Or worse, shareholders with different views.

Click to expand...

It will be just like how it is with Union members and their Unions now.[/QUOTE]

You know that's what I wondered. Around here if you are a republican you get to spend the election season getting SLAUGHTERED by unions who are all but common law married to the democrats whether their members like it or not.

I am required to be in a union and I'm not a huge fan of them. In some ways I am but in others definitely not. Been down that conversational path before.

And Espy, I sent you a PM...

Covar;332102][QUOTE=TeKeo said:

I predict future issues when individual employees with different political views start complaining that their parent company is misrepresenting them by releasing those ads, marked with their corporate logo.

Or worse, shareholders with different views.

Click to expand...

It will be just like how it is with Union members and their Unions now.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's it exactly. I'm not 100% down on unions, but that's one of the worst aspects of them.

Which is really funny, because this ruling also prevents the Feingold/McCain bill from halting the influence of Unions on politics.

So congrats, they just made unions more powerful, too.

Speaking as someone who works in broadcasting and is intimately familiar with how political advertising is bought and scheduled on a broadcast medium, let me say this is going to make our lives living hell. The thing about political ads is you have to accept ALL political advertising that wants to buy... or NONE. Also, political ads MUST be guaranteed the LOWEST RATE you have sold, meaning you don't HAVE to be GE to buy 17 bajillion ads, because you're literally getting the best discount EVAR.

What this means is you can look forward to wall-to-wall issues advocacy advertising in the future.

I can see this as a 1st amendment issue, but believe it or not advertising inventory IS limited, and to force unlimited access to it without allowing the laws of supply and demand to enter into it... oi. >_<

GasBandit said:

I can see this as a 1st amendment issue, but believe it or not advertising inventory IS limited, and to force unlimited access to it without allowing the laws of supply and demand to enter into it... oi. >_<

Click to expand...

GB, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

<--- worked as an account manager at an ad agency for a bit

Yup. When Gas and I agree on something, it's a scary thing indeed.

GasBandit said:

Speaking as someone who works in broadcasting and is intimately familiar with how political advertising is bought and scheduled on a broadcast medium, let me say this is going to make our lives living hell. The thing about political ads is you have to accept ALL political advertising that wants to buy... or NONE. Also, political ads MUST be guaranteed the LOWEST RATE you have sold, meaning you don't HAVE to be GE to buy 17 bajillion ads, because you're literally getting the best discount EVAR.

What this means is you can look forward to wall-to-wall issues advocacy advertising in the future.

I can see this as a 1st amendment issue, but believe it or not advertising inventory IS limited, and to force unlimited access to it without allowing the laws of supply and demand to enter into it... oi. >_<

Click to expand...

Hmmm... perhaps there'll be a way to make a distinction between political ads that come from the actual campaigns, and political ads that come from corporations.

So I think it's safe to say Halforums is against this.


SOMEONE INFORM THE COURTS!

We'll arrange a Spiced Rum party and stumble on Washington!

It will the the 20 nerd march of 2010!

TeKeo;332152][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

I can see this as a 1st amendment issue, but believe it or not advertising inventory IS limited, and to force unlimited access to it without allowing the laws of supply and demand to enter into it... oi. >_<

Click to expand...

GB, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

<--- worked as an account manager at an ad agency for a bit[/QUOTE]


Is..is...the world over now? I agree with him too. I'm scared Scoob.

Whine, whine, whine.

You guys are all just upset because the court is upholding the millenia old golden rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules.

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords and their 24/7 political ad campaigns.

Soliloquy said:

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

Click to expand...

Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...

@Li3n;332309][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

Click to expand...

Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]

I can play music at middle of the night with no problem. Are you implying that political ads cause other people harm?

@Li3n;332309][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

Click to expand...

Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]

That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.

http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

This guy is more than a little shrill with the terrorism angle, but actually makes an excellent point: corporations make/receive money from international, as well as national, groups. Many international companies incorporate at least a local branch in the US. These groups are now able to buy political ads at will and be satisfied labeling the ads as paid for by Innocuous American Corp. PACs had to file individual names of donors, but Corps don't.

This is actually really, really bad. I know that the same money was crossing the ocean already, but at least it was more difficult to buy a voice before.

This is really a no-win issue though... as things stood, union bosses could run political ads whenever they wanted, so it's not like the system was fine before yesterday. But to throw open the floodgates while still requiring broadcasters to go "all or nothing and at the lowest rate they've ever brokered" isn't helping anything. It neither makes things "fair" by any sense of the word, nor does it actually protect any freedoms, least of all those of the broadcaster. They could also remove the enforced low rates and forced sale laws, which would make my employers really happy because then they could charge normal rates for political advertising and have the option to decline or cut political ads in oversold situations.... or they could just pass a law that says "no broadcast political ads, evar, full stop."

Wouldn't it be interesting if the only TV/radio time candidates got was their appearances on debates.

GasBandit said:

They could also remove the enforced low rates and forced sale laws, which would make my employers really happy because then they could charge normal rates for political advertising and have the option to decline or cut political ads in oversold situations....

Click to expand...

Wait, broadcasters can't use pre-emptable IOs with political advertisers at all? That's worse than I thought. What little political advertising I was involved in was online only, which has somewhat different rules....

GasBandit said:

"all or nothing and at the lowest rate they've ever brokered"

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what does "lowest rate they've ever brokered" mean? Does that mean if a candidate can prove ABC sold an ad for two dollars back in 1948 they can get an ad for two dollars now? Crazy!

On the other, I'm looking forward to visiting the Nokia Congressional Complex in DC in a few years to view the Time Warner-Disney Constitution.

TeKeo;332524][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

They could also remove the enforced low rates and forced sale laws, which would make my employers really happy because then they could charge normal rates for political advertising and have the option to decline or cut political ads in oversold situations....

Click to expand...

Wait, broadcasters can't use pre-emptable IOs with political advertisers at all? That's worse than I thought. What little political advertising I was involved in was online only, which has somewhat different rules....[/QUOTE]

Well, I can't speak authoritatively for TV, but the rule is in radio you have to "declare" each year whether or not you will air political advertisements.. once you've declared, you MUST run ANY political advertising brought to you, and if you get oversold you have to bump other (higher paying) clients off to make room for the politicals.

Alex B.;332528][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

\"all or nothing and at the lowest rate they've ever brokered\"

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what does "lowest rate they've ever brokered" mean? Does that mean if a candidate can prove ABC sold an ad for two dollars back in 1948 they can get an ad for two dollars now? Crazy!

On the other, I'm looking forward to visiting the Nokia Congressional Complex in DC in a few years to view the Time Warner-Disney Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Almost, but not quite. The window for lowest rate only goes back a couple months. However, that often becomes an Ouroboros when things like special and local elections happen outside of normal times. Even when that isn't the case, it's bad enough because political advertising often starts WAY ahead of the political season. We've been running political advertising here for weeks already, because we've got a 5-way republican primary coming up. So our window stretched back into last year's judicial elections... which had a window that stretched back to this one time we gave somebody a deal for 5 bucks a spot...

I know this because I am the one who had to show the commercial traffic director and our general manager how to run the reports that pull this data. Ironically, this means our highest rated station is having to run political advertising for 5 bucks a spot, whereas our second-lowest rated station can charge 15 bucks (a more normal spot rate on our top station is closer to 40 bucks).

Oh, and if anybody on the air at one of your stations decides to run for office, if you keep him on the air, you have to give any of his opponents FREE time on the air equal to that of your employee... or I guess, you could just take him off the air. Even if he doesn't talk politics while on the air.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

For more information, see this guide.

GasBandit said:

Wouldn't it be interesting if the only TV/radio time candidates got was their appearances on debates.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes it would.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceos

Business sent a letter to congress to STOP asking for money interesting read.

Isn't it possible that these third party political ads won't be treated the same as political ads paid for by a candidate's campaign?

Gruebeard said:

Isn't it possible that these third party political ads won't be treated the same as political ads paid for by a candidate's campaign?

Click to expand...

Yeah, basically they can say anything and only the companies are held culpable since they don't really have ties to a campaign. Scary stuff.

I meant regarding Gas's concern about radio and TV having to run them and what they have to charge.

I should've quoted something to make that more clear.

I see. My mistake.

GasBandit;332421][QUOTE=@Li3n;332309][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

Click to expand...

Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]

That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.[/QUOTE]


I wasn't making an analogy, i was pointing out that there are situations when a medium through which people can say things can be policed...

@Li3n;332724][QUOTE=GasBandit;332421][QUOTE=@Li3n;332309][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

Click to expand...

Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]

That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.[/QUOTE]


I wasn't making an analogy, i was pointing out that there are situations when a medium through which people can say things can be policed...[/QUOTE]

My point was, there's a difference between putting stuff on TV and committing a noise violation... putting something on TV doesn't force anyone to watch it, they always have the option to tune out. Just as your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins, the first amendment doesn't allow you to infringe on the rights of others. The TV, however, has hundreds of channels, and even an OFF button.

In this case, though, the big businesses will be able to purchase all or nearly all of the spaces available as they have deeper pockets. The more grass roots groups or smaller interests are going to get screwed. And that's the problem with this decision. Now the businesses can openly buy the elections and there's nothing we can do about it.

As to your assertion that people can just "turn stuff off" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from!

Thanks, Bush. Your continuing legacy is to further undermine democracy and push as much wealth into the pockets of your rich buddies. Well done, fucker.

Dave said:

As to your assertion that people can just \"turn stuff off\" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from.

Click to expand...

The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.

Gallup polls show that the people agree with the Supreme Court decision ... people apparently believe campaign money is "free speech." Oi, I'm not looking forward to this.

GasBandit;333332][QUOTE=Dave said:

As to your assertion that people can just "turn stuff off" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from.

Click to expand...

The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.[/QUOTE]

The law was put into affect almost a hundred years ago because back then they gave a shit about the freedoms and needs of the people. Freedom of speech is NOT about a business being able to say anything they want. Businesses are not allowed this freedom because the power they bring is not at the same level of an individual. An individual making a statement is protected because they are stating something THEY believe in. A business has shareholders that may or may not share the views expressed. Thus, when a business using publicly traded funds to push a specific agenda politically it has the potential to disenfranchise a set of views that is blocked from being expressed.

This is why the ruling is incorrect and dangerous. It sets aside century-old protections on the populace and hands elections to big business.

I wonder what party feels they will profit the most from this? Hmmm. I wonder?

Dave, you seem to be implying that the framers of the constitution put protections in place against big businesses. While there were sizable businesses at the time, they were nothing like what we have today. I think part of the reason this ruling went through was because of the disconnect between then and now.

The framers of the constitution were not around 100 or so years ago when the law was put into place. But big businesses were.

Yeah, it was the "centuries old protections" part that I tripped up on, I guess.

Dave;333336][QUOTE=GasBandit;333332][QUOTE=Dave said:

As to your assertion that people can just "turn stuff off" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from.

Click to expand...

The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.[/QUOTE]

The law was put into affect almost a hundred years ago because back then they gave a shit about the freedoms and needs of the people. Freedom of speech is NOT about a business being able to say anything they want. Businesses are not allowed this freedom because the power they bring is not at the same level of an individual. An individual making a statement is protected because they are stating something THEY believe in. A business has shareholders that may or may not share the views expressed. Thus, when a business using publicly traded funds to push a specific agenda politically it has the potential to disenfranchise a set of views that is blocked from being expressed.

This is why the ruling is incorrect and dangerous. It sets aside century-old protections on the populace and hands elections to big business.[/QUOTE] Am I correct then, in assuming that you also believe that Unions should also not be able to do this?

Yes. Unions should also be forbidden from this.

Dave said:

Yes. Unions should also be forbidden from this.

Click to expand...

See, I could get behind that. As you said, they're not an individual, they're a theoretical construct.

Of course, I don't think you'd be happy if it was just limited to private individual funds, either... after all, which party has the people in it who are rich enough to be able to afford issue advocacy advertising out of their own pocket? Still, it'd be a step in the right direction.

GasBandit;333378][QUOTE=Dave said:

Yes. Unions should also be forbidden from this.

Click to expand...

See, I could get behind that. As you said, they're not an individual, they're a theoretical construct.

Of course, I don't think you'd be happy if it was just limited to private individual funds, either... after all, which party has the people in it who are rich enough to be able to afford issue advocacy advertising out of their own pocket? Still, it'd be a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]

If Warren Buffet wants to back someone and spend his own money more power to him. I disagree with PACs spreading lies and these "advocacy" groups who out and out do not tell the truth should be brought up on charges of defamation, etc. This ruling by the courts is a monstrosity and an epidemic of businesses using our government to line their pockets while stepping on the taxpayers to do so.

Dave;333336][QUOTE=GasBandit;333332][QUOTE=Dave said:

As to your assertion that people can just "turn stuff off" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from.

Click to expand...

The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.[/QUOTE]

The law was put into affect almost a hundred years ago because back then they gave a shit about the freedoms and needs of the people. Freedom of speech is NOT about a business being able to say anything they want. Businesses are not allowed this freedom because the power they bring is not at the same level of an individual. An individual making a statement is protected because they are stating something THEY believe in. A business has shareholders that may or may not share the views expressed. Thus, when a business using publicly traded funds to push a specific agenda politically it has the potential to disenfranchise a set of views that is blocked from being expressed.

This is why the ruling is incorrect and dangerous. It sets aside century-old protections on the populace and hands elections to big business.

I wonder what party feels they will profit the most from this? Hmmm. I wonder?[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Dave. The problem will arise when the small potato or upcoming politician against a "veteran" politician in office. Who do you think is going to get more "free airtime*" on TV when it comes to campaign? it would be the person with more "connections" with the private business with deep pockets.

*free airtime = I mean the business will pay for it and just slap the quick quib on "This ad is provided by Intel sponsoring Congressman Woodchuck (made up name)" now since the Supreme court said there is no limit, then lets say future congressman sandy will really need to get some corporate sponsor to get some "face time" on TV.

Ads DO work, why else it is a multi-billion dollar industry? Why does ads during peak hour cost so much (I only remember that prime time and super bowl time slots are EXPENSIVE since they are in high demand)

GasBandit;333316][QUOTE=@Li3n;332724][QUOTE=GasBandit;332421][QUOTE=@Li3n;332309][QUOTE=Soliloquy said:

If it's a medium through which people can say things, I'd say it counts as speech, and therefore the 1st amendment applies.

Click to expand...

Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]

That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.[/QUOTE]


I wasn't making an analogy, i was pointing out that there are situations when a medium through which people can say things can be policed...[/QUOTE]

My point was, there's a difference between putting stuff on TV and committing a noise violation... putting something on TV doesn't force anyone to watch it, they always have the option to tune out. Just as your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins, the first amendment doesn't allow you to infringe on the rights of others. The TV, however, has hundreds of channels, and even an OFF button.[/QUOTE]

And that's why it's not an analogy... because they're different things, so the motivation for banning them would be different too.

Dave, you've pretty much hit exactly how I feel right on the head.

Chibibar said:

Ads DO work, why else it is a multi-billion dollar industry? Why does ads during peak hour cost so much (I only remember that prime time and super bowl time slots are EXPENSIVE since they are in high demand)

Click to expand...

Super Bowl ads are actually kind of contentious. They sell well because they have such a huge built-in audience, but they're also incredibly difficult to measure the return on because most people don't stop watching the Super Bowl to go buy a domain on GoDaddy, open a e-trading account, or make a beer run (unless its an emergency one). So a company can spend $3 million (guesstimated average from last year) on an ad, and actually not know what they get for their money.

The only way you could measure, say, the value of Budweiser's purchase would be for them to not buy an ad one year and see how they do. But no individual ad exec would dare suggest such a thing, because advertising clients aren't exactly friendly to the idea of testing when the spend is in the millions.

This is why, if those limits GB mentioned didn't apply, it may not be as bad as expected, because political ads would become prohibitively expensive, are impossible to measure accurately, and probably do less to help the business directly than a straight product ad.

Not that it wouldn't suck, but if there was ever a time for those good old market self-corrections to jump in a save the rest of us ('cause the Supreme Court sure didn't)...

To those that think corporations should not be afforded any benefits that individuals get, why should they then be taxed?

Taxation without representation...?

stienman said:

To those that think corporations should not be afforded any benefits that individuals get, why should they then be taxed?

Taxation without representation...?

Click to expand...

A business already gets a voice through the people who work there and the people who do business with it, though it is seldom united in what it believes is best. It doesn't need an additional voice on top of that, because then it has undue power in getting it's message into the public eye (as well as drowning out opposing viewpoints). Because the interests of the people who work for the company ARE being addressed, it is being represented, hence why it can be taxed.

See, I knew this ruling would eventually come about due to prior precedent on what and how a corporation is viewed as by the Legal System. Sadly, as long as we view them as discreet individuals under the lens of the law, all the rights of an individual can and will eventually apply to a corporation, within the scope of reason.

The obvious answer is to make it so that they're no longer considered an individual...but that brings up a whole slew of other problems, namely that if it's no longer viewed as a singular legal entity, it cannot be properly 'sued', since suits of law are intended to be used on the basis that the object is an individual or an organization that is so large that it logically saves time to treat said thing like an individual in order to have someone to actually blame (this is mainly civil).

You know what? I'm rooting for the complete collapse of civilization.

Then not only will this not matter, but I won't have to pay back my student loans.

I can think of zero downsides.

WolfOfOdin said:

all the rights of an individual can and will eventually apply to a corporation

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I've been courting all the lingerie companies. I wanna marry Victoria's Secret but I'll settle for La Senza.

Sadly, as long as we view them as discreet individuals under the lens of the law, all the rights of an individual can and will eventually apply to a corporation, within the scope of reason.

Click to expand...

That BS, there's differences between the 2 types of individuals in most systems... no reason why this couldn't be one of them.

Soliloquy said:

You know what? I'm rooting for the complete collapse of civilization.

Then not only will this not matter, but I won't have to pay back my student loans.

I can think of zero downsides.

Click to expand...

I raise you a Mel Gibson...

Now you're going to make me look up corporate, civil and criminal law.

Here's a small rundown of how the definition of individual is applied to a corporation as well as the restrictions and penalties that come with it;

keeping it in mind this was put in place as a time saver for courts. CorpA makes a product that is found to be lethal or harmful to x number of citizens, X will bring suit against A for damages in a civil proceeding, or criminal if the crime or actions perpetrated by A have been deemed egregious enough to offend or in some way harm the body-politic. X is grouped under a Class Action suit, wherein multiple individuals are construed under the eye of the Law as one discreet individual and the damages rewarded are to be split amongst them all equally, with Y amount being paid to the attorney(s) who represented the case. In this manner, A is held to be as an individual and fined as a whole, since bringing suit against each and every person that may have been reposinible for the flaws in their product will be too time consuming and problematic for the court the sort out.

This is a typical liability afforded to a corporation which is viewed, legally as a Separate Legal Entity, Legal Person or Artificial Personage in which the Corporation itself is viewed as an individual apart from its owners/operators/CEO's, CFO's, COO's and board of directors. Granted with this status are the rights and privileges that Citizen A would normally receive, as well as the liabilities that Citizen A would normally receive in a court of law.

Keeping with this, as per Santa Clara V. Southern Pacific Railroad, it has been taken to precedent that all rights inherent in the constitution which are held to an individual are thus to be afforded to a Legal Person/ Separate Legal Entity. So, until Santa Clara V SPR is viewed as invalid, or a new definition of personage is afforded to a SLE that implicitly denies heretofore previously inalienable constitutional rights unto an SLE, it will remain under the auspices of the aforementioned constitutional rights.

Well i did say most systems...

Still, i'd like to see a corporation bear arms...

I wouldn't.

You wouldn't like to see a person that has no physical existence carry a weapon?! Next thing you'll tell me is that you would like to see an invisible pink unicorn.

Fuck yeah!

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

Also, some corporations have plenty of bear arms. I mean, there's these executives who like illegal hunting and they keep the animal's parts...

(har har u.u)

Well there is Xe (the mercenary band formerly known as Black Water), and H. Ross Perot kept about a squad of mercenaries on his payroll... International Fruit Company had an army.

Or just do what a lot of corporations used to do, hire the Pinkertons.

Dave said:

Thanks, Bush. Your continuing legacy is to further undermine democracy and push as much wealth into the pockets of your rich buddies. Well done, fucker.

Click to expand...

Sorry, had to.

sixpackshaker said:

Well there is Xe (the mercenary band formerly known as Black Water), and H. Ross Perot kept about a squad of mercenaries on his payroll... International Fruit Company had an army.

Or just do what a lot of corporations used to do, hire the Pinkertons.

Click to expand...

The individual right to bear arms (and that of militias) already means they can't stop corporations from having armed personnel, with no need for the existence of a juridical person...

The right to bear arms in regards to corporations is a...tricky issue.

As is, a corporation can legally maintain a standing army or militia/police-like task force, but they usually hire off-duty police officers as a way of guarding property/securing safety of employees.

However, with the Roberts court extending the previous constitutional rights granted by SLE status and SC V SPR, this may change, but probably won't. The reason being that as nice as it would be for every company to have a full compliment of armed guards, it is incredibly expensive and time consuming to not only equip personnel with weaponry and gear, but also prohibitively expensive in the amount of training they'd need in order to do it well. Look at how much money the US spends on an average soldier, and you'll get a slight inkling of why we won't be seeing WAL-MART's Pacification Squad anytime soon.

Also, a nugget of wisdom from Chief Roberts

"If the first amendment applies to Corporations, surely the second amendment also applies. Since Corporations have no history of abusing their power, we expect that they will employ their private armies with restraint and discretion,"

WolfOfOdin said:

As is, a corporation cannot legally maintain a standing army or militia/police-like task force, but they can hire off-duty police officers as a way of guarding property/securing safety of employees.

Click to expand...

What about companies like Blackwater?

Shakey;334773][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin said:

As is, a corporation cannot legally maintain a standing army or militia/police-like task force, but they can hire off-duty police officers as a way of guarding property/securing safety of employees.

Click to expand...

What about companies like Blackwater?[/QUOTE]

They are treated as outside contractors, like a private plumber or electrician. Their specialty skill is just knowing how to kill people exceptionally well.

AshburnerX;334788][QUOTE=Shakey;334773][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin said:

As is, a corporation cannot legally maintain a standing army or militia/police-like task force, but they can hire off-duty police officers as a way of guarding property/securing safety of employees.

Click to expand...

What about companies like Blackwater?[/QUOTE]

They are treated as outside contractors, like a private plumber or electrician. Their specialty skill is just knowing how to kill people exceptionally well.[/QUOTE]

Or, at least, sorta-well. Maybe. I guess.

Hey, is that guy over there still twitching?

AshburnerX;334788][QUOTE=Shakey;334773][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin said:

As is, a corporation cannot legally maintain a standing army or militia/police-like task force, but they can hire off-duty police officers as a way of guarding property/securing safety of employees.

Click to expand...

What about companies like Blackwater?[/QUOTE]

They are treated as outside contractors, like a private plumber or electrician. Their specialty skill is just knowing how to kill people exceptionally well.[/QUOTE]

But they own their own military type equipment.

The fact that this case came to court is reason enough for me to approve the ruling.

Shakey;334798][QUOTE=AshburnerX;334788][QUOTE=Shakey;334773][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin said:

As is, a corporation cannot legally maintain a standing army or militia/police-like task force, but they can hire off-duty police officers as a way of guarding property/securing safety of employees.

Click to expand...

What about companies like Blackwater?[/QUOTE]

They are treated as outside contractors, like a private plumber or electrician. Their specialty skill is just knowing how to kill people exceptionally well.[/QUOTE]

But they own their own military type equipment.[/QUOTE]

I am as much against Blackwater type deals as I am for thinking it might probably be the coolest job on the planet. Contracted by the government to bounty hunt. Man.

Blackwater's specifically designed and operated as a paramilitary outfit, all of their personnel are (supposedly) combat veterans or specialists who know how to handle gear and weaponry as well as any solider or police officer, so the massive training cost is cut down by that fact alone. Keeping with this, as they are a 'security' firm or protection agency, the funding provided to them by both A) The government for protecting high risk targets abroad and B) the insanely lucrative fees they draw from private companies are usually enough to make procuring gear cost effective.

I love how history is starting to sound like Shadowrun's backstory

Murray Hill wants your support

Yes, the company is running for congress. Yes, it is to protest the Supreme Court decision.

what does Murray Hill do?

Gruebeard said:

what does Murray Hill do?

Click to expand...

Run for congress.

Nice:

. “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.”

Click to expand...

I should start a company that runs for Congress. My business would be selling votes.

I'll make one and have it apply for USA citizenship...

WolfOfOdin said:

"Since Corporations have no history of abusing their power"

Click to expand...

Wut.