Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ...
by makomk on Friday April 01, 2016 @07:07PM
(#11409211)
The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and paid a TV station to air that movie not long before the election. Congress had restricted spending on political advertising and it was this restriction that CU overturned. You're arguing that the cornerstone of democracy is the ability of the wealthiest to spend unlimited amounts on propaganda to convince citizens that they should vote for the candidates that benefit the wealthy the most.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ...
by CWuestefeld on Thursday April 07, 2016 @09:59AM
(#11447280)
I'm arguing that the incumbents have a built-in, guaranteed communications channel. Any obstacle to speech by the people (whether they're rich or poor) leaves no response to those in power. In effect, then, the rules enforce an oligarchy.
In fact, your argument that the CU decision only benefits the wealthy is precisely the opposite of the reality. In fact, the wealthy don't need to cooperate in corporate bodies to finance public speech: folks like Donald Trump can get up on a pulpit with their own personal wealth. It's only us regular people who have the need to cooperate (i.e., to incorporate into a body to handle the demands of our effort).
Thus, CU is a benefit to the regular guy, without having much effect on the opportunities available to the rich who can go it alone.