- Joined
- Feb 25, 2018
- Messages
- 11,438
- Reaction score
- 4,605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
eman623:
You make very good points. I reason it boils down to the degree of partisanship in the organisation. For example the NYT might run a pro-Democratic editorial on Monday but could run a pro-Republican editorial on Wednesday and a pro-independent editorial on Thursday. Lions Gate could release a Michael Moore picture one year and a right leaning film like Starship Troopets the next. The NYT and Lions Gate do not have as their primary objective as the influencing of a political race. They are profit making enterprises which cater to the public's appetite. So long as the NYT follows the fairness doctrine and gives a balanced editorial position from writers on all sides of the political process, then that is not interference in the electoral process. Likewise, so long as Lions Gate does not release a wholely partisan picture in the middle of an election campaign, then I see nothing wrong with releasing such films as works of art. The problem is that America has drifted into an almost three-year long election cycle, so it may be time to limit thee electoral process to a fixed period of time.
Citizens United was created as a vehicle to channel money specifically to influence elections. It is not a profit making enterprise which tangentially and secondarily impacts the electoral process but is rather a purpose-built driver and influencer of the political process. Therefore, in my opinion, Citizen United and similar organisations should not be allowed to fulfill such a purpose, be they left, centrist or right leaning organisation. Their purpose is to influence the election process, period.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Thanks for the reasoned response. My comments:
1. 90% of the reporters and editors on the NYT are registered Democrats. There is a high degree of partisanship there. Citizens United could reorganize as a for-profit company, run straight news on their website, and hire a token liberal or two to write op-eds. Would that make them enough like the NY Times to be exempt from corporate advocacy restrictions?
2. Lions Gate did release a wholly partisan political picture during the middle of an election race. Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in the summer of 2004 and played in theaters right up to the 2004 election. And there's no evidence they are following the Fairness Doctrine. Did LG ever released an anti-Obama advocacy movie in the summer of 2012? Or at any other time, or about any other politicians on the left? I don't think so.
3. I'm now confused about the logic why corporate advocacy groups should be restricted. At first I thought it was because for-profit corporations would hijack the electoral process to sway public opinion and enrich themselves. But the NYT and Lions Gate are for-profit organizations while CU is a non-profit. If say Exxon had released an anti-Climate change movie intended to sway public opinion, would you allow that? If not, why not? Exxon is a for-profit business mostly involved in energy extraction and is not primarily an election influencer. By your own arguments it would seem like their advocacy should be allowed.