Yet again another defender of the recent Supremes decision. Two questions Julian asks, why does Congress want restrictions on political ad purchases by corporations? And second, why would established media be exempt.
Taking the second first. Established media, I guess, refers to media that generally reports news and opinion about politics. They are not really exempt, the specific exemptions by the FEC are really moot. As I pointed out, the NY Times is not allowed violate the restrictions on political ad purchases, they are equally restricted, as any other corporation, in their purchase of Washington Post ad space under FEC rules. They are allowed to conduct their normal business of reporting political news and giving opinion on their own media, that is their function. Their function is preserved under Due Process contract law, they do not need a rights case to be protected. A Due Process ruling would state that no particular type of business can be unduly restricted in their use of the Corporate Charter.
The first question, why political ads? Because in a limited time span with limited resources, the FEC wants to prevent the political ad space from being filled up by a few dominant organizations. Note that no restrictions for corporations using their own media for their normal activities, simply a restriction on clogging up the commercial media channels.
Why corporations only? Because corporations do have limited liability behind what they say in purchased ad space. In contrast, individuals, who have retained their right of free speech have kept their ultimate liability about who they are.
If Citizens United had a complaint that the Corporate Charter discriminates against makers of political documentaries, then they should have resolve it in contract law, I say over and over again.
No comments:
Post a Comment