Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court has limited political speech to the wealthy few’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 4 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Those of us who grew up in the 50's experienced an optimistic time, typified by optimism for civic involvement. It was assumed that everyday people could have an influence for good in the political process. But our system is evolving in another direction. The economic system has dictated the top heavy distributions of wealth and income. Those at the top have used their influence bring about changes which re-enforce the concentration process. Recent decisions by the court are but a product of this.

We now know that everyday people have little influence on public policy. This breeds despair. We see it in Utah with its low voter participation. Why vote? Where is this process taking us? Now THAT is a question the Deseret News ought to attempt an answer for.

Owen
Heber City, UT

The best reasoning and writing in this paper in years. Thanks for printing this opposing view.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Partisan politics is hopeless. You look at some areas and say "certainly the PEOPLE, both R and D will completely agree on this".

And the "this" today is big dollars to politicians.

I watched Fox news yesterday and the days theme was that all this big money in politics is a good thing. That it makes the whole system better and fairer.

Come on folks. Use your head. You know better.

The money corrupts. It corrupts R and D alike. Corporate, union, Soros or Koch. Doesn't matter.

But you know it corrupts and I know it corrupts. Yesterdays Fox narrative is (or should be) an insult to your intelligence.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Only wealthy Democrats should be able to donate money to their buddies! All others donations limits free speech to a wealthy few? Do I have that correct?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Agreed.
Thank You Prof. Barker.

This SupremeCourt ruling is not about FreeSpeech at all.
But about political access, money, legalized Bribery, and Elections under the guise of FreeSpeech.
Hence: McCutcheon V. FEC [i.e., Federal Election Commission]

FreeSpeech would be:
Can I wear a Naziuniform, and title abook “Arguing with Idiots”,
or
Freely answering if a dress makes someone look fat.

Try calling your Congressman.
Unless you make the “A” list, you’ll never speak them.
The “A” list is prioritized by $money.
"Free" Speech?, hardly.

This is about selling one’s soul to the Devil.
Why do you think a politician SAYS one thing during an election,
And then DO the opposite?
$$$

Our Government officials should not be subject, obligated or beholden to “paybacks”, “Kickbacks”, obligations or “favors” – but to the PEOPLE.

This is financial bondage and CONTROL of our Government.

Meanwhile,
I’m still baffled why the DeseretNews supports this.
So, follow the money...

Prof.Barker gains nothing from this ruling, and explains why as a common citizen.
The Deseret News a business.
Advertising is the life blood of the media, and this is ALL about $ advertising.

Go figure…

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

You cannot be a good American and support this Judicial Activism by the Supreme Court. Democrats and Republicans together should be doing everything possible to eliminate (not encourage) bribery in our democracy.

Allowing big money to buy legislation is exactly the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted.

You cannot be a good American if you support bribery.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

As usual, Marxist makes some keen insights into where we've been and where we're at.

I remember those days, when people felt like they could make a difference, and we really did control our own destiny, as a nation. American Exceptionalism was alive and well - we were the first to put a man on the moon, Neil Armstrong was a hero, the Peace Corps was a way we shared our esteemed values with the rest of the world, who looked up to us.

Now, the Supremes have essentially declared American Exceptionalism dead, allowing the oligarchs to exert even greater influence than they already do. This either paves the way for a populist revolution, a rebellion of the people against the 1%, or it will make US politicians much like those in Russia, subject to the oligarchs who put them in power.

We view Putin as a power hungry nationalist, and to curb his behavior we go after his oligarch constituency. The same will be true for the US - if you want to exert influence on American presidents, go after George Soros and the Koch Brothers.

There's not much of a middle way anymore.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

MM "Only wealthy Democrats should be able to donate money to their buddies! All others donations limits free speech to a wealthy few? Do I have that correct?"

Do you really not read what the liberals are saying here? You comments are absolutely baffling sometimes/ahhh most of the time.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Not a partisan issue.
Of course Fox is excited, every media outlet should be, because it mean unlimited spending on their product.

If absolute power corrupts and unlimited money corrupts, surely combining the two will produce Justice?

FT
salt lake city, UT

While disturbing, I don't find the recent ruling as devastating as the writer or the numerous desenters of it. Money influences but it does not predicate an outcome. Yes, the candidates who spend the most usually win but not always. America continues to progress at the same time our middle class is shrinking and wealth is being concentrated at the top. Populism is becoming more than a trend and I think many with wealth will continue to find it difficult to attain office. Certainly, the perception of Mitt Romney being out of touch with Americans hurt him deeply in his campaign. While a candidate may have money he won't be guarenteed a seat in office unless he represents the views of the growing majority of underfunded Americans.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mitt Romney spent 56 million of his own money on his 2012 campaign. What did it buy him? A ticket to nowheresville. Sheldon Adelson spent 93 million seeking to influence the 2012 Presidential campaign. What did it buy him?
It seems to me that those on the left would celebrate this ruling as they are apparently so good at raising money but as usual anything that expands individual freedom they are opposed to.
But if you're in favor of limiting monetary political contributions then what else should we limit? Volunteer hours for campaigns? I have a job and 4 kids so I don't have time to go knock on doors soliciting votes for my candidates. Is that fair to me?
What about newspapers? Should we limit the number of candidates they can endorse? They have a louder voice than little ol' me. It's not fair.
Finally- how is it fair in an allegedly free country for those in government (power) to make rules limiting the political speech of those outside of government (power)?

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

People make the comparison that "money equals speech" and we are all in favor of free speech, right?

I think a better analogy is that money equals the size of your megaphone, and people with giant megaphones, like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers, can effectively drown out the opinions and views of others.

Do we really want a society ruled by a few fabulously wealthy oligarchs?

E Sam
Provo, UT

Outstanding op-ed piece. Thanks, DN, for publishing it.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Who should determine how citizens spend their own money? If we let government decide, then what does the 1st Amendment mean? Are we to throw out free speech just because we don't like to hear what some people say? Should Utah ban the importation of "Eastern" newspapers and news magazines because they are owned and operated by "liberals"? Who draws the line? What freedoms are we willing to give up so that we can censor those who have different ideas than we have?

Freedom to speak freely is fundamental to ensuring all freedoms. If government can tell us what we can say about political candidates, why would they stop there? Why wouldn't they tell us that we can't talk about the right to keep and bear arms? Why wouldn't they tell us that we can't criticize ObamaCare? How long before they put Benghazi off limits?

Either we have the right speak or we don't. It's an all or nothing thing. Our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights - including the right to speak our mind without government censorship.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re Maverick:
"You cannot be a good American and support this Judicial Activism by the Supreme Court"...

My how the tables turn... when the court doesn't agree with you...

===

As for all the "You can't be a good American if"... rhetoric...

I seem to remember people on the Right saying similar stuff... and getting ridiculed by the same person.

===

Mountainman had a point....

Where was all this angst when Oprah, rich Democrats, and rich Hollywood elites, and even big corporations, were pouring money into Democrat campaigns?

====

Some protest this benefits Rs more than Ds. It doesn't. If you check... big businesses (like GE, Boeing, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, BP, etc)... contribute equally to both parties. They know they need to be covered no matter which party wins.

====

I agree it's sad you can buy elections... but anybody who didn't know that even before now needs to grow up.

===

And what about news networks that are obviously for one party (Democrats for all the news networks I watch)?

Why no angst about that? I think THEY influence the outcome of elections as much as corporate contributions.

TV news about the candidates helps form most people's opinions!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Limit the number of newspapers? Limit the number of volunteers or the hours they work? What are you guys talking about?

It's pretty simple: limit or even better eliminate all bribery (money and favors) from our politics.

It's that simple. Stop trying to use scare tactics to rationalize bribery.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Either we have the right speak or we don't. It's an all or nothing thing.

=========

Stuck in your All-or-Nothing, Balck & White Pleasantville again?

You do not have the right to yell FIRE in a corwded theater.
You do not have the right to BULLY or swear.
You do not have the right to post pornography on billboards.
You do not have the right to say or do whatever you dare well feel like Mike.

This is America -- NOT Somalia.
Money is NOT Free Speech.
Unless -- You live in Somalia.

This ruling says --
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Yes,
The pigs [Gadiantons] are in the Farmer House,
and
Wake Up -- It's 1984.

BTW -- God bless George Orwell and Joseph Smith for correctly prophesying our times.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

2bits, "Where was all this angst when Oprah, rich Democrats, and rich Hollywood elites, and even big corporations, were pouring money into Democrat campaigns"

Like I said before look close and pretty much every lib here has said corporate, union, and large donor money in politics is not good. End of story.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Real Maverick,
I didn't say "limit the media". I'm not into using the government to limit people's voice (not the media, not even evil capitalists or businesses). My philosophy is to acknowledge them (and their influence). Be aware of it, but don't use the government to limit any of them.

There's no way to completely stop bribery. And from your posts... you don't want to completely stop it... you just want to stop those you think aren't helping your interests. Or you would complain about both sides (not just one). Because both parties use money.

Both parties accept campaign contributions. Both encourage campaign contributions. Both sides have PACs. Both sides use the same tactics.

It's a false pretense that only Republicans accept campaign donations (even from corporations).

IF you called out both sides... I may think you were more sincere.

===

BTW... what scare tactics are you talking about??

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Questions to all the Conservatives who see this as a GOOD thing for America.

Since the Democrats already collect more, spend more, and win more in Elections --

Why is allowing MORE for either side seen as a GOOD thing?

Because when it gets right down to it,
it's all about Karma.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Your "Victory" will end up becoming your own "Doom".

FYI --
I have been against this from day one.
Money is NOT Free Speech,
and Legalized Bribery is Gadianton in the 1st degree.

and
I LIKE seeing conservatives loose elections.
But, I just like to see them loose on the issues, "Fairly and Squarely",
not being bought out or using bribery -- that's all.

Stand or fall on their merits,
Not their money.

Babylon,
Mammon.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments