TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
supreme-court.jpg
A Supreme Court ruling that unleashed the flood of third-party political ads is coming back to bite at least one Congressman who championed "the full flowering" of political speech. (AP image)

When free speech attacks

BY Dave Ross  on October 24, 2012 @ 8:28 am (Updated: 8:45 am - 10/24/12 )

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of free speech, corporations are people - unleashing the flood of third party political ads that we're all currently enjoying. California Representative Dan Lungren took the floor of the House that day to congratulate the court.

"And the court has said we ought to attempt to allow the full flowering of political speech," Lundgren said.

But what he might not have appreciated back then was just how vigorously the flowers of progress would be blossoming in his own district.

"This is Rep. Dan Lundgren, he voted against embryonic stem cell research, is he a doctor?" says an attack ad targeting the Congressman.

Dan Lungren did vote against the type of research that uses stem cells from embryos. So in this bit of Supreme Court-enabled political speech, actors portraying a mother, a grandson, and a child wonder what would happen to them if they were to contract some horrible disease that could only be cured by the research he voted against.

"Help me , help me, maybe I'm your mother. Maybe I'm your little girl," say the voices in the ad.

Now, Congressman Lungren wasn't against all stem cell research, but strangely the ad doesn't mention that.

"How come he gets to decide who lives and who dies. Who is he?" asks a little girl in the ad.

Actually, he chairs the House committee with jurisdiction over campaign finance issues. And according to the New York Times, he and others who once applauded the Supreme Court decision are drafting laws that would force candidates and campaigns to take more responsibility for these ads.

Beautiful as they are, some flowers smell better than others.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (8)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Corporations will never really be people....
    October 24, 2012 8:08 am
    Corporations are entities. Big difference. Twenty six guys pool their money to start a business, and they use a corporation to do so. Smart move, it means that (assuming they can find anybody to loan money to a newly established corporation without personal guarantees) if the enterprise fails none of them can be held individually accountable to any creditors left holding the bag.

    In the US, "people" have a whole host of rights that are not limited to free speech; rights that no corporation can ever exercise. Where does a corporation worship, for example? Shall we extend every corporation the right to cast a vote during an election?

    Anybody not absolutely disgusted with the state of politics in America isn't paying attention. Anybody enthusiastically subscribing to and endorsing the litany of personal attacks and hatred from *either* political party is a foolish sheep.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Twisting the facts
    October 24, 2012 8:43 am
    and blinded by ideology:

    Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[29] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

    The Supreme Court and it was supported in the arugments before the courts that ruling in favor would prevent ANY INDVIDUAL OR COMPANY, OR CORPORATION from publishing ANY SENTENCE, STATEMENT, etc in a book, a newspaper, a blog, etc.

    In addition this ruling had NO IMPACT on current campaign contribution laws or the Tillman Act.

    This is simply another twisted skewed propagandist view -

    But the amazing, the single most amazing part - is that if the Supreme Court had not ruled in this manner - Gould, nor Dave Ross would be able to publish this story.

    Bonneville would be viewed as a corporation and would not be allowed by law to publish ANYTHING that might influence an election.

    Chuck Gould would not be able to post anything on a blog that might influence the election.

    I'd suggest you read the entire ruling and arguments, and the associated laws that are available in many states restricting campagin contributions.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    cdbtx
    October 24, 2012 8:51 am
    I guess that was my real question. You make some very valid points about where does the restrictions end. Are we creating a slippery slope by restricting free speech on anyone or anything ?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    I have to say Chuck
    October 24, 2012 8:45 am
    I agree with you on this subject. But does this include all large organizations (not just corporations) that try to influence a political party? If so then let’s get the NRA, AFL-CIO, WEA, SEIU or the NEA. Maybe we should limit their “right” to run misleading ads or even donate money to the party or person they are tiring to influence. And I Am absolutely disgusted with the state of politics in America. I'm sick and tired of the lying commercials! ----On Both sides!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ordinary, extraordinary, and consequences of speech
    October 24, 2012 9:20 am
    The serious issues here are whether or not there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary speech, and whether there should be consequences for telling known and deliberate lies.

    John Q Public has a right to speak. He can stand on a corner and speak. He can call into a talk show and speak. He can hand out 1000 flyers he printed at Kinko's. He can express an opinion in an on-line forum. That's ordinary speech. To the degree that John Q Public agrees to disclose his identity, he or she can be held accountable for any damages resulting from slanderous or untrue statements in that speech.

    Extraordinary speech goes far beyond merely expressing an opinion. Extraordinary speech requires millions of dollars, and manages to express ideas in ways that are not always recognized as traditional speech. When the plot of a TV sit-com is re-written at the last minute to reflect the political perspective of a major advertiser, that's extraordinary speech. When every billboard in a community is sold to the highest bidder and each displays the same message, that's extraordinary speech. When $millions can be dumped into a politician's campaign in exchange for promises of certain favors once elected, that's extraordinary speech.

    Even extraordinary speech wouldn't be all that objectionable if there were some standards for factual content and honest presentation. There are none, obviously. Every single day, dozens of groups are investigating claims made by Democrats and Republicans alike and calling "BS!". It's a good thing that *somebody* is smoking out the lies, but why should there be lies to start with?

    If corporations are going to enjoy the same rights as an individual to "speak", they should also be held accountable for any false or slanderous statements made while speaking.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Good, Chuck. Your 2nd post is actually to this story - free speech
    October 24, 2012 10:03 am
    Not that I recall anywhere in the First Amendment where speech is broken into 'traditional' and 'extraordinary' categories. ... And what REALLY is the difference?

    It can't be money alone. Otherwise Bill & Melinda Gates have different free speech than you and me. ........... And it can't be numbers of people, otherwise political parties (and Unions, and any club) have different free speech. ........... So, by your definition, its truthfulness vs lies.

    But, Chuck - and Dave - the Washington State Supreme Court ruled several years ago that lies in political ads IS, repeat IS, free speech. ... I think California is the same. And likely most of the country. ... And running for public office makes you, by definition, a public figure. So even slander gets a bit iffy. ........... It WOULD be nice if the slandered candidate had time to refute lies, but that's not the game. ... And with early voting, might be meaningless anyway.

    Bottom line. Free speech is free speech is free speech - and outrageous as it may be at times, if we can live with crosses in urine and insults to Islam, we can live with political lies.

    It's not like this is something new, anyway.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ron, most means of extraordinary speech didn't exist in the 18th century...
    October 24, 2012 11:08 am
    Even the framers of the Constitution identified both a freedom of speech as well as a freedom of the press. Using that as a reference, it's hard to cloak all communication as merely alternate forms of "speech".

    Let's demand some standards. If we can't demand them as a matter of law, in an ideal world the outraged public would decidedly *reject* campaign strategies and claims founded on outright lies. Alas, we don't live in an ideal world and most of the public rushes to embrace, rather than reject, scurrilous campaigns and false claims about opponents.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Perhaps not 'most forms', but the printing press became the CNN and FOX of the American Revolution.
    October 24, 2012 11:49 am
    'Common Sense' was allegorical, but was taken as truth in out fight against England. ... And even many of the 'Truths' that we found 'self evident' were called lies back in London. ... Pamphlets vs a coffee house conversation may then have seemed like mass media.

    But much as anyone might like a few standards, freedom of speech seems to be sacred in this country (except, of course, for churches and-last week-the Seattle Times). ... And even the old safeguards are gone.

    Used to be, break a scandal on your opponent and he or she would have time to at least respond. ... Now whatever happens on the last week before election 'day', a third of the country will have already voted.

    But that's a whole different discussion.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }