wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 8:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


They weren't limited in spending on advertising. They were limited on
spending on *political* advertising.


So if you want to limit the amount corporations and unions can spend
on political advertising, also limit the politicians on how much they
can spend on political advertising. If you are going to limit free
speech on a topic, limit it for everyone.

I have no objection to putting limits on what a politician can spend on
campaigns. But calling it "free speech" is a twisted metaphor. There's no
limit to free speech. The limit is on the marketing expenditures they can
employ. I'm all for equal treatment in that regard.

I'm all for a free market here, too, Dan. Every person should have an
equal
right to contribute to political advertising. The people in those
corporations and unions have equal rights. But corporations and unions
aren't people. And many of those corporations are owned more by foreigners
than by Americans, fer chrissake.

--
Ed Huntress

And I thought you were for equal rights for people in the US
regardless of whether they were citizens or not citizens.

Basically, human rights are universal. They aren't exclusive to Americans.
Participation in the American political process is not a universal human
right.

So why do you complain about foreign corporations? You just have a
very parochial view.

If it wasn't true that advertising share of voice had an influence on
elections, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. But it does, and
you know it, which is why you think that limiting share of voice is a
restriction on speech.

So if foreign interests can share in this influence on American politics,
then you would turn over this influential force to foreign interests that
may be, and probably are, antagonistic to the interests of Americans. They
don't share in our responsibilities as citizens and they don't have to live
with the consequences of our political decisions; thus, they are not part of
our democratic process and should not have a role in our political decision
making.

Now, since you are a libertarian, you probably will engage in some sophistic
nonsense and absurd syllogistic deductionism to stand this obvious good
sense on its head. Have at it. I'm waiting for the libertarian who can
convince us that water really is wine, but I'll try to enjoy whatever you
have to offer. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress