Corporations are People?

[unapologetic]

translation: The U.S. gov't has never yet censored or restricted any political books or films or other political propaganda. Except in 2008 when the FEC restricted the political film Hillary: The Movie produced by Citizens United Inc. This censorship by the FEC was overruled by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, where it was decided that corporations are covered by the 1st Amendment protections of free speech. And today Progressives want this ruling reversed so the U.S. gov't led by Pres. Trump can resume censorship of political propaganda during election periods.

Thank you. That is very clear.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Stop being superficial.

I obviously meant "political" films. I repeated that word "political" over and over several times. So I omitted it that once. Don't you pay attention to the context? the substance? is it only a "gotcha" that you care about? Is that all you have to offer? Why can't you deal with the fact that this was about CENSORSHIP?

I.e., censorship of "political propaganda"

So, what earlier cases have there been of censorship of political propaganda (by the U.S. gov't) such as a political film or book? Name a case, if you're so mature and well-versed in this topic.

If you and NoHolyCows can't give an example, it proves my point.

Actually, your own example—Citizens United—is the case you’re demanding. It overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which upheld a ban on corporate political spending specifically to prevent distortion in elections. That law stood for 20 years and applied only to corporations, not individuals. So yes, there was censorship—of corporate political propaganda—and Citizens United reversed it. That’s not reaffirming a right that was always protected; it’s invalidating a precedent that had legally restricted it for decades. So your challenge proves my point, not yours.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Stop being superficial.

I obviously meant "political" films. I repeated that word "political" over and over several times. So I omitted it that once. Don't you pay attention to the context? the substance? is it only a "gotcha" that you care about? Is that all you have to offer? Why can't you deal with the fact that this was about CENSORSHIP?

I.e., censorship of "political propaganda"

So, what earlier cases have there been of censorship of political propaganda (by the U.S. gov't) such as a political film or book? Name a case, if you're so mature and well-versed in this topic.

If you and NoHolyCows can't give an example, it proves my point.

Actually, your own example—Citizens United—is the case you’re demanding. It overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which upheld a ban on corporate political spending specifically to prevent distortion in elections. That law stood for 20 years and applied only to corporations, not individuals. So yes, there was censorship—of corporate political propaganda—and Citizens United reversed it. That’s not reaffirming a right that was always protected; it’s invalidating a precedent that had legally restricted it for decades. So your challenge proves my point, not yours.

You're confirming that there was never before any political book or film or other political propaganda censored by the U.S. gov't. The only case you know of is the film Hillary: The Movie, banned from TV and Internet in 2008 by the FEC. You can't name one other case of censorship by the U.S. government of a political book or film. In all U.S. history.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Google Search question:
Was the film Hillary: The Movie restricted from being shown to the public in 2008 by the FEC?

Google answer:

Yes, the film "Hillary: The Movie" was restricted from being shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries by the FEC (Federal Election Commission). The FEC argued that the film's content was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, and therefore its distribution was subject to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (BCRA) ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications.

The film was scheduled to be offered as video-on-demand on cable TV right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008. However, its airing would have been classified as "electioneering communication", which was made illegal under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, by the Federal Election Commission.

Several films faced restrictions in the United States prior to the year 2000 due to political or moral objections. Some notable examples include:

• "Three Weeks" (1914): Banned in 1915 for its portrayal of a free woman and her love affair.
  
  
• "A Woman" (1915): Banned in 1915, also for its content.
  
  
• "The Birth of a Nation" (1915): This film, which depicts the Civil War and Reconstruction, faced widespread protests and bans due to its controversial racial content, and even riots in some areas.
  
  
• "Purity" (1916): Banned in 1916.

Google Search question: Did the U.S. gov't ban the film "Three Weeks"?

Google answer:

No, the book "Three Weeks" was not banned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government does not typically ban books on a national level, but rather, book bans often occur at the local level, like in schools or libraries, due to content concerns. While there have been instances of book challenges and removals, the U.S. government has historically been less involved in directly banning books nationally.

the film "Birth of a Nation"?

No, the U.S. government did not ban the film "Birth of a Nation." While the film faced significant controversy and bans in many cities and states, it was not a federal ban.

the film "A Woman"?

No, the book "A Woman" has not been banned by the U.S. government. While books can be challenged and removed from libraries or schools, the U.S. government does not have the power to ban books at a national level. Book bans are typically initiated by local communities or organizations, not by the federal government.

the film "Purity"?

No, the book "Purity" was not banned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government does not ban books in the way that some other countries do. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and the press, including the right to publish and distribute books. While books can be challenged or removed from libraries or schools, this is usually done by local boards of education or individual administrators, not by the federal government.

Whatever books or films were banned were not banned (or censored or restricted) by the federal government, but rather by some states or cities. Which is different.

So the film Hillary: The Movie is the first case in history of the U.S. gov't censoring or restricting or banning any political film or book.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

books or films

Were these films censored or banned or restricted or suppressed by the U.S. government?

No, the film "Three Weeks" (1968) was not banned by the U.S. government. The film was a Polish drama, and while it was shown in some U.S. film festivals and had limited theatrical runs, it did not receive a formal ban from the U.S. government.

The 1915 film "A Woman" was banned in Los Angeles by censors following a seizure by police, likely due to its plot. It's important to note that while "A Woman" faced censorship, it was not banned on a national level by the U.S. government. The film was a Charlie Chaplin production, and the ban likely stemmed from local authorities' concerns about its content.

Yes, the film "Purity" (1916) was banned by several local authorities and state censors in the United States, primarily due to its depiction of nudity, according to multiple sources. Specifically, it was banned in Kansas and by authorities in cities like Dallas, Washington, D.C., and Kansas City. While the film was initially banned, it was later unbanned in many jurisdictions, but not in Kansas.

Google answers here still are confusing the state vs. federal level, saying "U.S. government" when it means "in the U.S." But the answers make it clear that it was never the federal government, but only states or cities which did these bans or censorships.

Whether books or films, if anything ever got restricted by the federal government it was a rare case of something military or having top secret content in it -- not any political propaganda.

So the case of FEC removal of the film Hillary: The Movie (2008) is the only case, the first case in history, of the federal government putting restrictions of any kind on publishing a political film or book. Before then there is no political film or book which the U.S. government suppressed from being published or circulated to the public.

You cannot name an example. But you can name several examples of states or cities banning or suppressing a film or book. Most of them non-political. You can name the particular films or books which were banned. If there were any similar case of the federal government banning or suppressing a book or film, you'd be able to name the book or film. Since you cannot name a single title of any such book or film, that is proof that there was no such censorship by the U.S. government.

So the new censorship began in 2008, and this was overturned by the Supreme Court, which reiterated the longstanding principle of 1st Amendment rights and no censorship of political books or films by the U.S. government. And with the current War Cry "Corporations are not people" there is a crusade to reinstate censorship, by reversing the decision in the Citizens United case.


In his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You're confirming that there was never before any political book or film or other political propaganda censored by the U.S. gov't. The only case you know of is the film Hillary: The Movie, banned from TV and Internet in 2008 by the FEC. You can't name one other case of censorship by the U.S. government of a political book or film. In all U.S. history.

You asked for a case of U.S. government censorship of corporate political speech. I gave you Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce—a 1990 Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law banning corporate political expenditures. That is censorship by law. The fact that it didn’t ban a specific book or film doesn’t change that—it banned the act of speaking through money, which is what Citizens United reversed. So yes, political speech by corporations was censored by law for 20 years. That’s the precedent. You’re just moving the goalposts.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

books or films

Were these films censored or banned or restricted or suppressed by the U.S. government?

No, the film "Three Weeks" (1968) was not banned by the U.S. government. The film was a Polish drama, and while it was shown in some U.S. film festivals and had limited theatrical runs, it did not receive a formal ban from the U.S. government.

The 1915 film "A Woman" was banned in Los Angeles by censors following a seizure by police, likely due to its plot. It's important to note that while "A Woman" faced censorship, it was not banned on a national level by the U.S. government. The film was a Charlie Chaplin production, and the ban likely stemmed from local authorities' concerns about its content.

Yes, the film "Purity" (1916) was banned by several local authorities and state censors in the United States, primarily due to its depiction of nudity, according to multiple sources. Specifically, it was banned in Kansas and by authorities in cities like Dallas, Washington, D.C., and Kansas City. While the film was initially banned, it was later unbanned in many jurisdictions, but not in Kansas.

Google answers here still are confusing the state vs. federal level, saying "U.S. government" when it means "in the U.S." But the answers make it clear that it was never the federal government, but only states or cities which did these bans or censorships.

Whether books or films, if anything ever got restricted by the federal government it was a rare case of something military or having top secret content in it -- not any political propaganda.

So the case of FEC removal of the film Hillary: The Movie (2008) is the only case, the first case in history, of the federal government putting restrictions of any kind on publishing a political film or book. Before then there is no political film or book which the U.S. government suppressed from being published or circulated to the public.

You cannot name an example. But you can name several examples of states or cities banning or suppressing a film or book. Most of them non-political. You can name the particular films or books which were banned. If there were any similar case of the federal government banning or suppressing a book or film, you'd be able to name the book or film. Since you cannot name a single title of any such book or film, that is proof that there was no such censorship by the U.S. government.

So the new censorship began in 2008, and this was overturned by the Supreme Court, which reiterated the longstanding principle of 1st Amendment rights and no censorship of political books or films by the U.S. government. And with the current War Cry "Corporations are not people" there is a crusade to reinstate censorship, by reversing the decision in the Citizens United case.


In his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

You’re missing the forest for the trees. Citizens United wasn’t just about one film—it overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 20-year-old Supreme Court precedent that upheld federal restrictions on corporate political spending. That’s not “reaffirming” rights—it’s striking down settled law and expanding corporate power in elections. And yes, Hillary: The Movie was restricted under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, enforced by the federal government (FEC)—a law Citizens United declared unconstitutional. So your claim that there was no federal censorship is false, and your argument that nothing changed in 2010 collapses under its own weight. This wasn’t a routine affirmation—it was a landmark shift that opened the floodgates.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

n his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

To make that statement you obviously do not watch Thom Hartmann. I do so quite often and he has mentioned it quite often.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So we all agree now on the historical question, and what "Corporations are not people" means:

I.e., historically there was no federal government banning or censoring or suppressing of political books or films until 2008 when the FEC suppressed the Hillary film. While before then it had been only STATE LAW which suppressed books and films. We're all in agreement on this point. And Progressives today want a return to this censorship and favor the addition of FEDERAL laws and enforcement to suppress political films and books, according to whatever the FEC judges to be wholesome for public consumption. This should be just as successful in America as it was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, where it helped to protect the Establishment and those in power, to keep the nation united and preserve the strong leadership. Maybe you're right that America should follow their example. Have you been coaching Pres. Trump? He seems to think that way too.

 

[NoHolyCows]

So we all agree now on the historical question, and what "Corporations are not people" means:

I.e., historically there was no federal government banning or censoring or suppressing of political books or films until 2008 when the FEC suppressed the Hillary film. While before then it had been only STATE LAW which suppressed books and films. We're all in agreement on this point. And Progressives today want a return to this censorship and favor the addition of FEDERAL laws and enforcement to suppress political films and books, according to whatever the FEC judges to be wholesome for public consumption. This should be just as successful in America as it was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, where it helped to protect the Establishment and those in power, to keep the nation united and preserve the strong leadership. Maybe you're right that America should follow their example. Have you been coaching Pres. Trump? He seems to think that way too.

No—we don’t all agree, and your framing distorts history and current law.

Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering, not just “state law.” The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002)—a federal law—prohibited corporate-funded political ads close to elections. That’s what the FEC enforced when it blocked Hillary: The Movie. So this wasn’t the first federal censorship, but the first one challenged and struck down.

And no—supporting campaign finance laws isn’t “Soviet.” It’s about preventing billion-dollar megaphones from drowning out voters. If you want unlimited propaganda funded by Chevron or Meta 10 days before an election, say so honestly—but don’t pretend it’s about “freedom” when it’s about influence.

You’re not defending free speech. You’re defending unlimited corporate influence disguised as speech.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United
"Corporations are not people" = censorship/suppression of political speech is necessary in order to make elections "fair" (possible for Progressive candidates to have a chance to win).

Sunday at 6:43 AM -- #129

in his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

To make that statement you obviously do not watch Thom Hartmann. I do so quite often and he has mentioned it quite often.

Let's do a test of this. I listen to almost every radio show, 9:00 AM - noon M-F, so I'll record how many times he mentions this case by name, including the recorded blurbs, noting how many times he acknowledges that it was a decision to overrule the censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary. (I'll leave out of the score the times when I missed the program.) The ruling also upheld banning of bribery, but limiting "bribery" to cases of a quid pro quo agreement between the parties.

So how often does he tell honestly that it was about whether to suppress/censor/restrict this political film? or that it upholds illegality of quid pro quo bribery?


starting June 10

first day = June 10: score so far is 4-0.

I.e., he mentioned Citizens United 4 times, saying each time that it was a case deciding that corporations are permitted to bribe politicians. But ZERO times any mention that it was about censorship or suppression of the Hillary film; or any mention that it makes quid pro quo bribery illegal.

One program alone doesn't prove a pattern. I'll keep track each day, and from time to time give the latest score. It's dishonest to keep mentioning the case and not say that the actual ruling was about suppression of the film, also to say it sanctions bribery of politicians without including that it expressly prohibits quid pro quo bribery.

To his credit, Thom Hartmann is probably the most informative political talk show, and maybe the most open to opposing voices coming on the program to disagree with him -- though that's not saying much, as there's no political talk show which gives reasonable opportunity for an opposing voice -- they're all like religious cults (whether Right or Left) or exclusive pep-talks addressed to the faithful, disciples of the host, who is the guru worshiped by the listeners, as cult members worship their Sage-Teacher-pundit.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United
"Corporations are not people" = censorship/suppression of political speech is necessary in order to make elections "fair" (possible for Progressive candidates to have a chance to win).

Sunday at 6:43 AM -- #129

in his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

To make that statement you obviously do not watch Thom Hartmann. I do so quite often and he has mentioned it quite often.

Let's do a test of this. I listen to almost every radio show, 9:00 AM - noon M-F, so I'll record how many times he mentions this case by name, including the recorded blurbs, noting how many times he acknowledges that it was a decision to overrule the censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary. (I'll leave out of the score the times when I missed the program.) The ruling also upheld banning of bribery, but limiting "bribery" to cases of a quid pro quo agreement between the parties.

So how often does he tell honestly that it was about whether to suppress/censor/restrict this political film? or that it upholds illegality of quid pro quo bribery?


starting June 10

first day = June 10: score so far is 4-0.

I.e., he mentioned Citizens United 4 times, saying each time that it was a case deciding that corporations are permitted to bribe politicians. But ZERO times any mention that it was about censorship or suppression of the Hillary film; or any mention that it makes quid pro quo bribery illegal.

One program alone doesn't prove a pattern. I'll keep track each day, and from time to time give the latest score. It's dishonest to keep mentioning the case and not say that the actual ruling was about suppression of the film, also to say it sanctions bribery of politicians without including that it expressly prohibits quid pro quo bribery.

To his credit, Thom Hartmann is probably the most informative political talk show, and maybe the most open to opposing voices coming on the program to disagree with him -- though that's not saying much, as there's no political talk show which gives reasonable opportunity for an opposing voice -- they're all like religious cults (whether Right or Left) or exclusive pep-talks addressed to the faithful, disciples of the host, who is the guru worshiped by the listeners, as cult members worship their Sage-Teacher-pundit.

Oh, how sweet, naive, and innocent you are. You really think Hillary: The Movie was the important part of the Citizen United decision... to either side?

And by the way, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was blocked before Hillary: The Movie was.

ETA: Thom Hartmann wrote about Hillary: The Movie on page 170 of his book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights.

During the bruising primary election season of 2008, a right-wing
group put together a ninety-minute hit-job on Hillary Clinton and wanted to
run it on TV stations in strategic states. Th e Federal Election Commission (FEC)
ruled that advertisements for the “documentary” were actually “campaign ads”
and thus fell under the restrictions on campaign spending of the McCain-
Feingold Act and thus stopped them from airing. (Corporate contributions to
campaigns have been banned repeatedly and in various ways since 1907 when
Republican President Teddy Roosevelt pushed through the Tillman Act.)
Citizens United, the right-wing group, sued to the Supreme Court, with
right-wing hit man and former Reagan solicitor general Ted Olson—the man
who argued Bush’s side of Bush v. Gore—as their lead lawyer.
Th is new case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, presented
the best opportunity for the Roberts Court to use its fi ve-vote majority to
totally rewrite the face of politics in America, rolling us back to the pre-1907
Era of the Robber Barons. And if there was a man to do it, it was John Roberts.

Maybe you should read it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"profit-driven"?
you mean dirty greedy capitalist pigs?


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

The real issue is whether corporations — legal, profit-driven entities — should have the same political speech rights as individuals. That’s . . .

Yes, that's a question you're not answering. The burden of proof is on those who would deprive anyone of their political speech rights. You have to say WHY this group is not entitled to the same free speech rights as all others. You're giving no reason why they should NOT have the same political speech rights as individuals or other groups.

Why "profit-driven"? You use this term as though there's something nefarious about profit-making. You can't give any reason why someone driven by profit -- individual or group -- should be discriminated against in any way whatsoever, such as being more restricted in their rights. In fact, you're falsely assuming that some are "profit-driven" and others are not. Which is false.

Everyone is profit-driven! There's not a single individual or group ever in history who was not profit-driven. Why are you pretending that there is this select category of people or groups or individuals which are not profit-driven? Who are they? St. Francis if Assisi? Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? No, they too were profit-driven. Even Mother Teresa wanted more money for her organization so it could buy more stuff to do its work more efficiently, more profitably, with an improved bottom line, with less debt, more assets, fewer liabilities, more marginal return on the organization's investments in its program. All the facilities cost money, the treatment centers, orphanages, etc. The more revenue/profit there is to pay for it, the better and more extensive the facilities can be.

Quit speaking of profit as something dirty that disqualifies someone from enjoying the same rights as all the others.

And what about the difference between "for-profit" and "non-profit" corporations? Why should either of these kinds of corporations not have the same right to free political speech as individuals or NONcorporate groups? Why shouldn't everyone, meaning every group of any kind plus every individual, not have all the same basic free speech rights? with no distinction whatever? No one has given any reason.

(Sure, the rights don't need to be ALL the same, for every category of individuals or groups. BUT, if any particular group is to be treated differently (prisoners, e.g.), there has to be a specific reason given. It can't just be that they're in a hated scapegoat category. There has to be a PRACTICAL reason why some are treated differently. And the free speech rights are so important that any reduction in these rights requires extra special reasons to justify it.)

. . . whether corporations—legal, profit-driven entities—should have the same political speech rights as individuals. That’s a different question about power, not about silencing group expression.

Most corporations have no special power. If it's about POWER, then maybe the need is for some restriction on ANYONE, individual or group, who has extra power. Maybe some restrictions on them would be appropriate, because of their disproportionate power. But how does that mean they have fewer 1st Amendment rights? less right to free speech? Why would those rights be singled out as needing to be restricted in their case? No one is giving any reason for this.

If the point is to make something more equal, then you also have to restrict the free speech rights of millions of middle- to upper-income Americans who have more wealth and power than other Americans lower down in the social pyramid. So those who have a half-million $$$$ in assets should have their rights restricted compared to someone with assets of only $50,000 or $20,000. Restricting free speech rights, if it's to make everyone more equal to others, has to be applied evenly across the income spectrum, so that anyone having more power than another must have their free speech rights reduced proportionally. Even those whose total assets are only $100,000 should have fewer rights than someone with assets of only 10 or 20 thousand. To make it "fair" for all. Not just for those in the top 10% who have less power than those in the top 1% or .1%.

So nothing is explained by just saying it's about "power."

And it is about "silencing group expression" if anyone's free-speech rights are to be abridged. As the FEC did by suppressing the Hillary film in 2008. This act of censorship was just power vs. power -- nothing necessarily unequal about it. One powerful or wealthy faction in society vs. another.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was there federal censorship of political speech
prior to 2008? (no, only state censorship)


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering, not just . . .

No, it left federal restrictions unchanged which were not a form of censorship or restriction of political speech, such as banning or suppressing of political films (or books etc.). The federal law overturned was not from decades earlier, but 2002, i.e. the BCRA campaign reform law. There had not been a federal crackdown on political free speech, or even threatened crackdown, until 2008 when the FEC suppressed showing of the Hillary film. Your fantasy that there were dozens of other hypothetical films also suppressed (or deterred) does not make it so. Before the BCRA (2002) there was no federal law restricting political propaganda media ("electioneering communications") like literature or films.

You could also fantasize that hundreds of terror attacks and massacres were deterred, never happened, because of President Bush's strong resolve after 9-11, and his invasion of Iraq, etc. There wasn't another 9-11, was there? where 2000 got killed? So obviously our Strong President must have deterred any such attacks from happening -- right? No, the real cases are the ones which happened in the real world, not hypothetical cases which would have happened in a hypothetical world.

The only real federal censorship and suppression of political propaganda began in 2008 when the FEC suppressed that film we know existed and was promoted and scheduled for showing on TV and Internet and which the FEC blocked during the 2008 election season. There's no other similar case of a film or book or other propaganda being suppressed, or even deterred by the earlier campaign restriction laws. Just because you can name a controversial film or book which someone condemned doesn't mean it was actually curtailed by a federal agency or law. This one Hillary film is the first case of federal censorship of any political propaganda. You cannot name another example, going back 250 years to the founding of the U.S.A.

(Possibly there were cases of state and local censorship.)

. . . decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering, not just . . .“state law.” The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) — a federal law — prohibited corporate-funded . . .

Yes, there had been 8 years of that law, which is not "decades" unless you mean a whopping .8 decades. You could also say there were "centuries of federal censorship of corporate electioneering" prior to 2008, meaning .08 centuries. And yes, there were some earlier state laws, though not as radical as the 2002 reform act. There aren't any other censorship cases, like the Citizens United case (2008 was when the film was suppressed); that was a radical change toward censorship or suppression of free speech. We don't know of any propaganda which was censored because of any earlier campaign reform laws. So again, 2008 was the first year of the new censorship.

From 1776 to the present, or until 2008, no political book or film was banned or curtailed by the federal government = about 17 years ago, and the law used was a 2002 law -- 23 years ago. But that censorship law was struck down in 2010, so for 8 years there hypothetically may have been some books or films discouraged from being produced. But the fixed law of NO CENSORSHIP by the federal government served us for more than 200 years, with no case of the federal government ever banning any political propaganda (as long as it did not expressly campaign for or against a particular candidate). Maybe in wartime some British or other enemy propaganda got confiscated -- OK, maybe. But not normal political-issues speech or propaganda, such as the Hillary film.


FECA (1971) compared to BCRA (2002)

BCRA did prohibit films and other media, but FECA did not. Because BCRA strengthened the earlier law by adding the words "electioneering communications" which was a specific reference to films and other mass media -- that then made the rules tougher on anyone producing such media which had content relating to elections. This phrase "electioneering communications" was a strong move by the legislators to introduce censorship, to make it possible for the FEC to intercept such media as books and films or other propaganda promoted by a publisher, suppressing them during an election season. The earlier law FECA did not have in it this reference to the propaganda media which could be restricted.


Google Search question: Did the FECA law 1971 prohibit films similar to Hillary the movie?

Google answer:

The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) did not explicitly prohibit films like "Hillary: The Movie." However, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which amended the FECA, and the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC, ultimately addressed similar issues.

Elaboration:

• FECA (1971):
  The original FECA focused on campaign finance regulation, including limits on contributions and expenditures. It did not specifically mention films or other media.
  
  
• BCRA (2002):
  BCRA, which amended FECA, introduced provisions concerning "electioneering communications," which are broadly defined as any communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. This broadened the scope of campaign finance regulations to include some types of media.

I.e. probably books and films etc. So it was with the 2002 reform act that media like a film could now be banned. But not with the earlier election laws, e.g., FECA.

• Citizens United v. FEC:
  This case, which involved "Hillary: The Movie," challenged BCRA's restrictions on corporate spending in electioneering communications. The Supreme Court's decision ultimately narrowed the scope of BCRA's regulations, particularly regarding corporate and union political spending.
  
  
• "Hillary: The Movie":
  Citizens United, a non-profit organization, produced the film to criticize Hillary Clinton, who was running for president at the time. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) initially argued that the film and related ads were "electioneering communications" and therefore subject to disclosure and contribution limits.
  
  
• Supreme Court Ruling:
  The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the BCRA's ban on corporate spending in electioneering communications was unconstitutional, but the Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. This ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.

This latter paragraph seems to say that the company Citizens United was required to comply with "reporting and disclaimer requirements" regarding the Hillary film, but that the corporate spending on the film could not be limited, because that's the same as banning or censoring the film.

Some of the following concurs that there was federal law, mainly FECA, suppressing political campaigning by corporations during the earlier period, before 2002. However, it was not until the BCRA 2002 that media like books and films were targeted for suppression, or restriction during election periods. Such media is what was intended by the term "electioneering communications," appearing first in the 2002 reform law. So it was not until the 2002 law that these media per se were targeted for restriction in the election reform laws.

FECA and earlier laws restricted some corporate political spending, but not issue-oriented films or print media which avoided expressly promoting or opposing a current candidate. And "expressly" was interpreted so that the propaganda could mention a candidate favorably or unfavorably without expressly promoting a vote for or against the candidate or being affiliated with the candidate officially.

Google answer:

Prior to 2000, the primary federal law restricting political propaganda by corporations was the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) [1971]. This act, along with its amendments, prohibited corporations from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures or contributions to campaigns that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

This would not have restricted a film like the Hillary film of Citizens United, which did not "expressly" advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. Of course there were borderline cases, where a candidate's name is mentioned and it comes close to saying "vote against" so-and-so. But if the subject matter was mainly about the issues and not focused on a candidate's particular campaign, it was not restricted. I.e., not until 2008 -- FEC suppression of the Hillary film, based on the new 2002 election reform act. It was to circumvent this language -- "expressly advocated the election or defeat" -- of a candidate which the 2002 law aimed at.

In the following restrictions, it was not about restricting propaganda about issues (propaganda like the Hillary film), but about direct contributions to particular candidates, to their official campaigns:

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Tillman Act of 1907:
  This act initially banned corporate contributions to political campaigns.
  
  
• Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910) and subsequent amendments:
  These acts further regulated corporate and union spending in campaigns and mandated public disclosure of campaign donors.
  
  
• FECA:
  The primary law prohibiting corporate spending on electioneering, especially when it directly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate.

This 1971 law came closer to banning issue-focused propaganda, like the Hillary film. Maybe a similar Hillary film back in the '70s would have been restricted under the FECA law, but there was no such case, so it's hypothetical. But had there been such an FEC ruling followed by a Supreme Court case, the decision probably would have been the same as the Citizens United decision, to reverse the FEC. Because there was a major case, Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Court mostly ruled AGAINST FECA requirements, saying they violated 1st Amendment rights, the same as the Citizens United Court ruled.

And yet that Court of the 1970s was much less Right-wing biased than the 2010 Court, which means that the mainline thinking back then was also to reaffirm the 1st Amendment against encroachments by the gov't into free speech. So our best guess is that the Court of the 1970s had the same thinking as today's Court (on this one issue, not others), i.e., that the 1st Amendment free speech protection takes priority over election reform "fairness" rules trying to control advertising and promotions for or against candidates.

So it's not true that there were federal restrictions like that of the 2002 Reform Act, going back many decades. There were no actual cases, but what we can recognize is a continuing pattern of asserting 1st Amendment free speech rights over the campaign reform laws interfering with "electioneering" -- with corporate spending on issues-oriented propaganda. All that the Court really supported was the restrictions on donations to political candidate campaigns. There was no "corporations are not people" babble in the sense that corporations as non-persons were restricted from producing independent issue-oriented media (that didn't expressly promote or condemn a candidate).

• Smith-Mundt Act (later known as the "anti-propaganda law"):
  While this act primarily dealt with disseminating information about the United States to foreign audiences, it did have some restrictions on who could view government-produced programming, according to a Northwestern University study.

Important points to note:

• The FECA was a cornerstone of campaign finance regulation, with the goal of preventing corruption and limiting the influence of wealthy entities in elections.

But not by means of censorship or suppression of 1st Amendment free-speech rights.

• The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), while not directly targeting corporations, required individuals and entities acting on behalf of foreign governments to register and disclose their activities.
  
  
• The "fairness doctrine," which had corollary rules related to personal attacks and political editorials, was in place until 2000, but it didn't explicitly ban corporate political propaganda.
  
  
• The concept of "propaganda" itself has evolved, and there's ongoing debate about its definition and the extent to which it should be regulated.

Who were the justices in the Buckley v. Valeo case? who were they appointed by?
Google Search answer:

The Supreme Court justices who heard the Buckley v. Valeo case were appointed by the following presidents:

• Chief Justice Warren E. Burger: Appointed by President Richard Nixon.
• Associate Justice William O. Douglas: Appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
• Associate Justice Potter Stewart: Appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
• Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr.: Appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
• Associate Justice Byron R. White: Appointed by President John F. Kennedy.
• Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall: Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
• Associate Justice Harry Blackmun: Appointed by President Richard Nixon.
• Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.: Appointed by President Richard Nixon.
• Associate Justice John Paul Stevens: Appointed by President Gerald Ford.

Their decision was just as strong as the 2010 Court's decision in favor of 1st Amendment free speech vs. gov't regulation and campaign reform rules. Though it was a Republican majority, they were less controlled by right-wing wealthy corporate interests than the later 2010 Court.

. . . prohibited corporate-funded political ads close to elections. That’s what the FEC enforced when it blocked Hillary: The Movie. So . . .

Right, it was not "decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering" which Citizens United overturned -- it was the Feingold-McCain campaign reform act 2002, which went farther than FECA. FECA was not as extreme. It only said that corporations could not pay into a campaign expressly to elect or defeat a candidate. This is not what the Hillary film did. It did not advocate expressly for or against a current candidate -- it never said "vote against Hillary" etc. It was a hatchet job on her, saying how awful she was, but not referring to her candidacy in the 2008 primaries. You could argue this was biased nitpicking on the word "expressly," but the Court required a strong case to be made that the propaganda was primarily directed for or against a candidate rather than just being a general political rant against someone of high power or influence. --- expressly endorsing a candidate vs. advocating for an issue

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/p...ssues-new-electioneering-communications-rules --

Express v. Issue Advocacy​

“Express advocacy” is a communication that urges the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. The term derives from a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld portions of a law imposing limits on campaign contributions. In Buckley, the Court allowed federal regulation of ads that “in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.” In contrast, regulation of “issue advocacy” was generally forbidden by the Buckley court. “Issue advocacy” is the discussion of campaign-[issues that stops short of express advocacy.

A footnote in Buckley provides examples of words that indicate express advocacy such as the following:

• “vote for”
• “elect”
• “support”
• “cast your ballot for”
• “Smith for Congress”
• “vote against”
• “defeat”
• “reject”

While criticized as being meaningless, these examples became known as the “magic words” test and served as the basis for determining whether an ad represented express or issue advocacy until passage of BCRA. The electioneering communications provisions contained in BCRA were drafted in response to criticism of the magic words test and were intended to provide certainty.

So in decades prior to Citizens United the law was interpreted so as to give latitude to issues-oriented political propaganda, so that even mentioning the candidate's name and condemning him/her was still not "expressly" advocating for or against that candidate. In other words, the bias was pro-1st Amendment rights rather than pro-censorship or prohibiting an ad as unfair electioneering by a corporation. The pattern was not that of film-banning or suppressing propaganda or corporate electioneering, but of protecting political speech, even for corporations or the wealthy who wanted to promote a political cause. They had to avoid the above "magic words" kind of language. But still they could condemn a candidate, even say s/he was a bum, unfit to have power, etc., such as the Hillary film. They only had to stop short of saying "vote against . . ."

So it's not true that "Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering" as those earlier laws were applied by the Court. The Court did not allow any censorship or suppression of films or books or other media, under those laws. It applied a tough standard in favor or protecting free political speech. But then in 2002 Congress enacted the BCRA law to try to move the law more toward censorship and banning political propaganda. So this censorship is something new, beginning in 2002, and was overruled by the Court in 2010, in a ruling which reaffirmed the original commitment for free speech as intended by the Framers in the Bill of Rights.

this wasn’t the first federal censorship, but the first one challenged and struck down.

No, there were earlier cases too which struck down federal censorship. FECA was struck down in the Buckley v. Valeo case. What the facts show is not what you're claiming, i.e., that "Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering" -- NO, if you look at the actual cases, the pattern was that there were some spending limit laws passed and which some interpreted as authorizing censorship, beyond just limiting campaign spending -- Laws similar to BCRA, , but they were struck down as unconstitutional (i.e., the censorship part was struck down) just as the BCRA was struck down in 2010. So it's incorrect to say that BCRA was the first federal censorship that was struck down. (It's not clear if there was some related media, political propaganda literature to be suppressed, similar to the Hillary film in 2008.)

So Citizens United once again upheld free speech, just as Buckley v. Valeo did in 1976. Freedom of political speech and no censorship! was the federal law and national sentiment throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Whereas at the local and state level the sentiment was more unpredictable, with censorship rearing its ugly head here and there. Maybe the Supreme Court was slower in striking down state censorship in the election reform laws.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous post: Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 (his problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)

THE SCORE
June 10 - 12
10: 4-0
11: 1-0
12: 0-0
SCORE SO FAR: 5-0
5 times -- he mentioned the case "Citizens United"
(saying the case was about granting corporations freedom to bribe politicians).
0 times -- he acknowledged that the case was about whether to suppress the Hillary film.

(June 13 will be excluded from this test/survey (I will miss some of the program that day). So the test will resume June 16.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous post: Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 (his problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)

THE SCORE
June 10 - 12
10: 4-0
11: 1-0
12: 0-0
SCORE SO FAR: 5-0
5 times -- he mentioned the case "Citizens United"
(saying the case was about granting corporations freedom to bribe politicians).
0 times -- he acknowledged that the case was about whether to suppress the Hillary film.

(June 13 will be excluded from this test/survey (I will miss some of the program that day). So the test will resume June 16.)

Oh, good lord. Ample proof that you don't actually read the posts people write in response to you. That's very rude and indicative of the type of poster you really are.

Post in thread 'Corporations are People?'

Jun 10, 2025

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United
"Corporations are not people" = censorship/suppression of political speech is necessary in order to make elections "fair" (possible for Progressive candidates to have a chance to win).

Sunday at 6:43 AM -- #129

in his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new...

• ZiprHead

• 

 

[NoHolyCows]

"profit-driven"?
you mean dirty greedy capitalist pigs?


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

The real issue is whether corporations — legal, profit-driven entities — should have the same political speech rights as individuals. That’s . . .

Yes, that's a question you're not answering. The burden of proof is on those who would deprive anyone of their political speech rights. You have to say WHY this group is not entitled to the same free speech rights as all others. You're giving no reason why they should NOT have the same political speech rights as individuals or other groups.

Why "profit-driven"? You use this term as though there's something nefarious about profit-making. You can't give any reason why someone driven by profit -- individual or group -- should be discriminated against in any way whatsoever, such as being more restricted in their rights. In fact, you're falsely assuming that some are "profit-driven" and others are not. Which is false.

Everyone is profit-driven! There's not a single individual or group ever in history who was not profit-driven. Why are you pretending that there is this select category of people or groups or individuals which are not profit-driven? Who are they? St. Francis if Assisi? Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? No, they too were profit-driven. Even Mother Teresa wanted more money for her organization so it could buy more stuff to do its work more efficiently, more profitably, with an improved bottom line, with less debt, more assets, fewer liabilities, more marginal return on the organization's investments in its program. All the facilities cost money, the treatment centers, orphanages, etc. The more revenue/profit there is to pay for it, the better and more extensive the facilities can be.

Quit speaking of profit as something dirty that disqualifies someone from enjoying the same rights as all the others.

And what about the difference between "for-profit" and "non-profit" corporations? Why should either of these kinds of corporations not have the same right to free political speech as individuals or NONcorporate groups? Why shouldn't everyone, meaning every group of any kind plus every individual, not have all the same basic free speech rights? with no distinction whatever? No one has given any reason.

(Sure, the rights don't need to be ALL the same, for every category of individuals or groups. BUT, if any particular group is to be treated differently (prisoners, e.g.), there has to be a specific reason given. It can't just be that they're in a hated scapegoat category. There has to be a PRACTICAL reason why some are treated differently. And the free speech rights are so important that any reduction in these rights requires extra special reasons to justify it.)

. . . whether corporations—legal, profit-driven entities—should have the same political speech rights as individuals. That’s a different question about power, not about silencing group expression.

Most corporations have no special power. If it's about POWER, then maybe the need is for some restriction on ANYONE, individual or group, who has extra power. Maybe some restrictions on them would be appropriate, because of their disproportionate power. But how does that mean they have fewer 1st Amendment rights? less right to free speech? Why would those rights be singled out as needing to be restricted in their case? No one is giving any reason for this.

If the point is to make something more equal, then you also have to restrict the free speech rights of millions of middle- to upper-income Americans who have more wealth and power than other Americans lower down in the social pyramid. So those who have a half-million $$$$ in assets should have their rights restricted compared to someone with assets of only $50,000 or $20,000. Restricting free speech rights, if it's to make everyone more equal to others, has to be applied evenly across the income spectrum, so that anyone having more power than another must have their free speech rights reduced proportionally. Even those whose total assets are only $100,000 should have fewer rights than someone with assets of only 10 or 20 thousand. To make it "fair" for all. Not just for those in the top 10% who have less power than those in the top 1% or .1%.

So nothing is explained by just saying it's about "power."

And it is about "silencing group expression" if anyone's free-speech rights are to be abridged. As the FEC did by suppressing the Hillary film in 2008. This act of censorship was just power vs. power -- nothing necessarily unequal about it. One powerful or wealthy faction in society vs. another.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

You’re dodging the actual issue: Citizens United wasn’t about whether corporations can speak—it was about how much money they can dump into elections with no accountability, drowning out individual voices. The FEC didn’t suppress ideas—it applied a decades-old law restricting electioneering expenditures by corporations right before elections. The Supreme Court threw that out, not to protect “speech,” but to legalize unlimited corporate money in politics under the disguise of speech.

You ask why profit-driven entities should be treated differently—here’s the answer: because corporate resources are not the same as individual voices. When a few ultra-wealthy corporations can outspend millions of citizens combined, the First Amendment becomes a shield for the powerful, not a leveler of the playing field.

And no—Mother Teresa wasn’t running attack ads funded by Exxon. False equivalence doesn’t make your argument stronger. Power does matter in a democracy, especially when it’s amplified through cash. That’s why campaign finance laws existed—to preserve democratic balance, not censor opinions.

Calling money speech doesn’t magically erase the difference between a voter with $20 and a corporation with $20 million. That’s not liberty—it’s legalized distortion.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

Was there federal censorship of political speech
prior to 2008? (no, only state censorship)


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering, not just . . .

No, it left federal restrictions unchanged which were not a form of censorship or restriction of political speech, such as banning or suppressing of political films (or books etc.). The federal law overturned was not from decades earlier, but 2002, i.e. the BCRA campaign reform law. There had not been a federal crackdown on political free speech, or even threatened crackdown, until 2008 when the FEC suppressed showing of the Hillary film. Your fantasy that there were dozens of other hypothetical films also suppressed (or deterred) does not make it so. Before the BCRA (2002) there was no federal law restricting political propaganda media ("electioneering communications") like literature or films.

You could also fantasize that hundreds of terror attacks and massacres were deterred, never happened, because of President Bush's strong resolve after 9-11, and his invasion of Iraq, etc. There wasn't another 9-11, was there? where 2000 got killed? So obviously our Strong President must have deterred any such attacks from happening -- right? No, the real cases are the ones which happened in the real world, not hypothetical cases which would have happened in a hypothetical world.

The only real federal censorship and suppression of political propaganda began in 2008 when the FEC suppressed that film we know existed and was promoted and scheduled for showing on TV and Internet and which the FEC blocked during the 2008 election season. There's no other similar case of a film or book or other propaganda being suppressed, or even deterred by the earlier campaign restriction laws. Just because you can name a controversial film or book which someone condemned doesn't mean it was actually curtailed by a federal agency or law. This one Hillary film is the first case of federal censorship of any political propaganda. You cannot name another example, going back 250 years to the founding of the U.S.A.

(Possibly there were cases of state and local censorship.)

. . . decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering, not just . . .“state law.” The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) — a federal law — prohibited corporate-funded . . .

Yes, there had been 8 years of that law, which is not "decades" unless you mean a whopping .8 decades. You could also say there were "centuries of federal censorship of corporate electioneering" prior to 2008, meaning .08 centuries. And yes, there were some earlier state laws, though not as radical as the 2002 reform act. There aren't any other censorship cases, like the Citizens United case (2008 was when the film was suppressed); that was a radical change toward censorship or suppression of free speech. We don't know of any propaganda which was censored because of any earlier campaign reform laws. So again, 2008 was the first year of the new censorship.

From 1776 to the present, or until 2008, no political book or film was banned or curtailed by the federal government = about 17 years ago, and the law used was a 2002 law -- 23 years ago. But that censorship law was struck down in 2010, so for 8 years there hypothetically may have been some books or films discouraged from being produced. But the fixed law of NO CENSORSHIP by the federal government served us for more than 200 years, with no case of the federal government ever banning any political propaganda (as long as it did not expressly campaign for or against a particular candidate). Maybe in wartime some British or other enemy propaganda got confiscated -- OK, maybe. But not normal political-issues speech or propaganda, such as the Hillary film.


FECA (1971) compared to BCRA (2002)

BCRA did prohibit films and other media, but FECA did not. Because BCRA strengthened the earlier law by adding the words "electioneering communications" which was a specific reference to films and other mass media -- that then made the rules tougher on anyone producing such media which had content relating to elections. This phrase "electioneering communications" was a strong move by the legislators to introduce censorship, to make it possible for the FEC to intercept such media as books and films or other propaganda promoted by a publisher, suppressing them during an election season. The earlier law FECA did not have in it this reference to the propaganda media which could be restricted.


Google Search question: Did the FECA law 1971 prohibit films similar to Hillary the movie?

Google answer:

The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) did not explicitly prohibit films like "Hillary: The Movie." However, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which amended the FECA, and the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC, ultimately addressed similar issues.

Elaboration:

• FECA (1971):
  The original FECA focused on campaign finance regulation, including limits on contributions and expenditures. It did not specifically mention films or other media.
  
  
• BCRA (2002):
  BCRA, which amended FECA, introduced provisions concerning "electioneering communications," which are broadly defined as any communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. This broadened the scope of campaign finance regulations to include some types of media.

I.e. probably books and films etc. So it was with the 2002 reform act that media like a film could now be banned. But not with the earlier election laws, e.g., FECA.

• Citizens United v. FEC:
  This case, which involved "Hillary: The Movie," challenged BCRA's restrictions on corporate spending in electioneering communications. The Supreme Court's decision ultimately narrowed the scope of BCRA's regulations, particularly regarding corporate and union political spending.
  
  
• "Hillary: The Movie":
  Citizens United, a non-profit organization, produced the film to criticize Hillary Clinton, who was running for president at the time. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) initially argued that the film and related ads were "electioneering communications" and therefore subject to disclosure and contribution limits.
  
  
• Supreme Court Ruling:
  The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the BCRA's ban on corporate spending in electioneering communications was unconstitutional, but the Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. This ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.

This latter paragraph seems to say that the company Citizens United was required to comply with "reporting and disclaimer requirements" regarding the Hillary film, but that the corporate spending on the film could not be limited, because that's the same as banning or censoring the film.

Some of the following concurs that there was federal law, mainly FECA, suppressing political campaigning by corporations during the earlier period, before 2002. However, it was not until the BCRA 2002 that media like books and films were targeted for suppression, or restriction during election periods. Such media is what was intended by the term "electioneering communications," appearing first in the 2002 reform law. So it was not until the 2002 law that these media per se were targeted for restriction in the election reform laws.

FECA and earlier laws restricted some corporate political spending, but not issue-oriented films or print media which avoided expressly promoting or opposing a current candidate. And "expressly" was interpreted so that the propaganda could mention a candidate favorably or unfavorably without expressly promoting a vote for or against the candidate or being affiliated with the candidate officially.

Google answer:

Prior to 2000, the primary federal law restricting political propaganda by corporations was the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) [1971]. This act, along with its amendments, prohibited corporations from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures or contributions to campaigns that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

This would not have restricted a film like the Hillary film of Citizens United, which did not "expressly" advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. Of course there were borderline cases, where a candidate's name is mentioned and it comes close to saying "vote against" so-and-so. But if the subject matter was mainly about the issues and not focused on a candidate's particular campaign, it was not restricted. I.e., not until 2008 -- FEC suppression of the Hillary film, based on the new 2002 election reform act. It was to circumvent this language -- "expressly advocated the election or defeat" -- of a candidate which the 2002 law aimed at.

In the following restrictions, it was not about restricting propaganda about issues (propaganda like the Hillary film), but about direct contributions to particular candidates, to their official campaigns:

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Tillman Act of 1907:
  This act initially banned corporate contributions to political campaigns.
  
  
• Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910) and subsequent amendments:
  These acts further regulated corporate and union spending in campaigns and mandated public disclosure of campaign donors.
  
  
• FECA:
  The primary law prohibiting corporate spending on electioneering, especially when it directly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate.

This 1971 law came closer to banning issue-focused propaganda, like the Hillary film. Maybe a similar Hillary film back in the '70s would have been restricted under the FECA law, but there was no such case, so it's hypothetical. But had there been such an FEC ruling followed by a Supreme Court case, the decision probably would have been the same as the Citizens United decision, to reverse the FEC. Because there was a major case, Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Court mostly ruled AGAINST FECA requirements, saying they violated 1st Amendment rights, the same as the Citizens United Court ruled.

And yet that Court of the 1970s was much less Right-wing biased than the 2010 Court, which means that the mainline thinking back then was also to reaffirm the 1st Amendment against encroachments by the gov't into free speech. So our best guess is that the Court of the 1970s had the same thinking as today's Court (on this one issue, not others), i.e., that the 1st Amendment free speech protection takes priority over election reform "fairness" rules trying to control advertising and promotions for or against candidates.

So it's not true that there were federal restrictions like that of the 2002 Reform Act, going back many decades. There were no actual cases, but what we can recognize is a continuing pattern of asserting 1st Amendment free speech rights over the campaign reform laws interfering with "electioneering" -- with corporate spending on issues-oriented propaganda. All that the Court really supported was the restrictions on donations to political candidate campaigns. There was no "corporations are not people" babble in the sense that corporations as non-persons were restricted from producing independent issue-oriented media (that didn't expressly promote or condemn a candidate).

• Smith-Mundt Act (later known as the "anti-propaganda law"):
  While this act primarily dealt with disseminating information about the United States to foreign audiences, it did have some restrictions on who could view government-produced programming, according to a Northwestern University study.

Important points to note:

• The FECA was a cornerstone of campaign finance regulation, with the goal of preventing corruption and limiting the influence of wealthy entities in elections.

But not by means of censorship or suppression of 1st Amendment free-speech rights.

• The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), while not directly targeting corporations, required individuals and entities acting on behalf of foreign governments to register and disclose their activities.
  
  
• The "fairness doctrine," which had corollary rules related to personal attacks and political editorials, was in place until 2000, but it didn't explicitly ban corporate political propaganda.
  
  
• The concept of "propaganda" itself has evolved, and there's ongoing debate about its definition and the extent to which it should be regulated.

Who were the justices in the Buckley v. Valeo case? who were they appointed by?
Google Search answer:

The Supreme Court justices who heard the Buckley v. Valeo case were appointed by the following presidents:

• Chief Justice Warren E. Burger: Appointed by President Richard Nixon.
• Associate Justice William O. Douglas: Appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
• Associate Justice Potter Stewart: Appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
• Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr.: Appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
• Associate Justice Byron R. White: Appointed by President John F. Kennedy.
• Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall: Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
• Associate Justice Harry Blackmun: Appointed by President Richard Nixon.
• Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.: Appointed by President Richard Nixon.
• Associate Justice John Paul Stevens: Appointed by President Gerald Ford.

Their decision was just as strong as the 2010 Court's decision in favor of 1st Amendment free speech vs. gov't regulation and campaign reform rules. Though it was a Republican majority, they were less controlled by right-wing wealthy corporate interests than the later 2010 Court.

. . . prohibited corporate-funded political ads close to elections. That’s what the FEC enforced when it blocked Hillary: The Movie. So . . .

Right, it was not "decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering" which Citizens United overturned -- it was the Feingold-McCain campaign reform act 2002, which went farther than FECA. FECA was not as extreme. It only said that corporations could not pay into a campaign expressly to elect or defeat a candidate. This is not what the Hillary film did. It did not advocate expressly for or against a current candidate -- it never said "vote against Hillary" etc. It was a hatchet job on her, saying how awful she was, but not referring to her candidacy in the 2008 primaries. You could argue this was biased nitpicking on the word "expressly," but the Court required a strong case to be made that the propaganda was primarily directed for or against a candidate rather than just being a general political rant against someone of high power or influence. --- expressly endorsing a candidate vs. advocating for an issue

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/p...ssues-new-electioneering-communications-rules --

Express v. Issue Advocacy​

“Express advocacy” is a communication that urges the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. The term derives from a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld portions of a law imposing limits on campaign contributions. In Buckley, the Court allowed federal regulation of ads that “in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.” In contrast, regulation of “issue advocacy” was generally forbidden by the Buckley court. “Issue advocacy” is the discussion of campaign-[issues that stops short of express advocacy.

A footnote in Buckley provides examples of words that indicate express advocacy such as the following:

• “vote for”
• “elect”
• “support”
• “cast your ballot for”
• “Smith for Congress”
• “vote against”
• “defeat”
• “reject”

While criticized as being meaningless, these examples became known as the “magic words” test and served as the basis for determining whether an ad represented express or issue advocacy until passage of BCRA. The electioneering communications provisions contained in BCRA were drafted in response to criticism of the magic words test and were intended to provide certainty.

So in decades prior to Citizens United the law was interpreted so as to give latitude to issues-oriented political propaganda, so that even mentioning the candidate's name and condemning him/her was still not "expressly" advocating for or against that candidate. In other words, the bias was pro-1st Amendment rights rather than pro-censorship or prohibiting an ad as unfair electioneering by a corporation. The pattern was not that of film-banning or suppressing propaganda or corporate electioneering, but of protecting political speech, even for corporations or the wealthy who wanted to promote a political cause. They had to avoid the above "magic words" kind of language. But still they could condemn a candidate, even say s/he was a bum, unfit to have power, etc., such as the Hillary film. They only had to stop short of saying "vote against . . ."

So it's not true that "Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering" as those earlier laws were applied by the Court. The Court did not allow any censorship or suppression of films or books or other media, under those laws. It applied a tough standard in favor or protecting free political speech. But then in 2002 Congress enacted the BCRA law to try to move the law more toward censorship and banning political propaganda. So this censorship is something new, beginning in 2002, and was overruled by the Court in 2010, in a ruling which reaffirmed the original commitment for free speech as intended by the Framers in the Bill of Rights.

this wasn’t the first federal censorship, but the first one challenged and struck down.

No, there were earlier cases too which struck down federal censorship. FECA was struck down in the Buckley v. Valeo case. What the facts show is not what you're claiming, i.e., that "Citizens United overturned decades of federal restrictions on corporate electioneering" -- NO, if you look at the actual cases, the pattern was that there were some spending limit laws passed and which some interpreted as authorizing censorship, beyond just limiting campaign spending -- Laws similar to BCRA, , but they were struck down as unconstitutional (i.e., the censorship part was struck down) just as the BCRA was struck down in 2010. So it's incorrect to say that BCRA was the first federal censorship that was struck down. (It's not clear if there was some related media, political propaganda literature to be suppressed, similar to the Hillary film in 2008.)

So Citizens United once again upheld free speech, just as Buckley v. Valeo did in 1976. Freedom of political speech and no censorship! was the federal law and national sentiment throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Whereas at the local and state level the sentiment was more unpredictable, with censorship rearing its ugly head here and there. Maybe the Supreme Court was slower in striking down state censorship in the election reform laws.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

You’re shifting goalposts—Citizens United overturned federal restrictions on corporate-funded electioneering, not just state laws. Before the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the federal government didn’t restrict political films like Hillary: The Movie. BCRA introduced that new restriction, and the 2008 FEC ban was the first federal censorship of a political film. Citizens United overturned it, not to give new rights to corporations, but to remove censorship that never existed before at the federal level.

Previously, political books and films were only ever restricted by states or localities—not by the federal government. The idea that the feds were suppressing political ideas before is flat wrong. This wasn’t centuries of federal censorship—it was eight years of a new federal restriction (2002–2010) that got struck down.

So yes—Hillary: The Movie was the first-ever federal political speech suppression, and Citizens United reversed that. Case closed.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Citizens United was about suppression/censorship of a political film.
The Court ruled in favor of free speech rights and against FEC censorship.


test/survey

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous posts: Sunday at 6:43 AM #129 & Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 -- (Hartmann's problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)

The premise is that it's dishonest to mention this case -- in arguing that "corporations are not people" and claiming this case gave corporations freedom to bribe politicians -- but to not acknowledge that this case was about whether the FEC may suppress political propaganda such as the Hillary film, which the FEC suppressed in 2008 during the election period.

(The program airs live M-F. Occasionally a date is omitted when I will miss some or all of the program.)

LATEST SCORE
June 10 - 16
10: 4-0
11: 1-0
12: 0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0
17: to be omitted from the survey
score 8-0 so far
18: the survey will resume.

8-0 means: He mentioned the case Citizens United 8 times, saying it was about allowing corporations to bribe politicians, or about putting an oligarchy in power, or giving to the rich unlimited freedom to "buy politicians"; but he said nothing, zero times, about the FEC suppression of the Hillary film as unfair electioneering by a corporation.

When he's honest and mentions that the case was about suppressing the Hillary film, then it adds 1 to the right side of the score: so 8-0 (for this 7-day period) = he was not honest once, out of 8 mentions of the CU case. If he had mentioned it once during these 4 programs, the score would be 8-1 = 8 mentions of the case and once saying the truth that it was a case to decide whether the FEC may ban or suppress the showing of a political film (or other political propaganda).


In the score for 6/16 there were 2 ambiguous references:

1) He mentioned the case but did not identify the case by name. He said 5 justices on the Court ruled that corporations may bribe politicians, but he did not name the "Citizens United" case. This is essentially one additional mention of the case, because there's no question that it's this case he was describing, a case he mentions many times. But still he did not identify the case by name, so there were only 7 mentions of Citizens United where he specifically identified the case by name, plus one where he mentioned it without naming it.

2) He mentioned the case and acknowledged that the ruling was to grant corporations free speech rights, but said nothing about the FEC's suppression of the film being overruled. This is partially honest -- not the usual total dishonesty of saying nothing at all about the FEC suppressing the film, so to account for it this mention is omitted from the score. So instead of 4-0 or 4-1, the score for the 16th is 3-0, and the total score is 8-0 rather than 9-0 or 9-1. So this one ambiguous mention is omitted from the survey/test. "Honesty" has to include acknowledgement that a political film was banned by the FEC, and the Court struck this down and upheld traditional free speech rights.

No matter how lofty you think your crusade is, censorship or suppression of free speech should not be a means to that end.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Citizens United was about suppression/censorship of a political film.
The Court ruled in favor of free speech rights and against FEC censorship.


test/survey

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous posts: Sunday at 6:43 AM #129 & Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 -- (Hartmann's problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)

The premise is that it's dishonest to mention this case -- in arguing that "corporations are not people" and claiming this case gave corporations freedom to bribe politicians -- but to not acknowledge that this case was about whether the FEC may suppress political propaganda such as the Hillary film, which the FEC suppressed in 2008 during the election period.

(The program airs live M-F. Occasionally a date is omitted when I will miss some or all of the program.)

LATEST SCORE
June 10 - 16
10: 4-0
11: 1-0
12: 0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0
17: to be omitted from the survey
score 8-0 so far
18: the survey will resume.

8-0 means: He mentioned the case Citizens United 8 times, saying it was about allowing corporations to bribe politicians, or about putting an oligarchy in power, or giving to the rich unlimited freedom to "buy politicians"; but he said nothing, zero times, about the FEC suppression of the Hillary film as unfair electioneering by a corporation.

When he's honest and mentions that the case was about suppressing the Hillary film, then it adds 1 to the right side of the score: so 8-0 (for this 7-day period) = he was not honest once, out of 8 mentions of the CU case. If he had mentioned it once during these 4 programs, the score would be 8-1 = 8 mentions of the case and once saying the truth that it was a case to decide whether the FEC may ban or suppress the showing of a political film (or other political propaganda).


In the score for 6/16 there were 2 ambiguous references:

1) He mentioned the case but did not identify the case by name. He said 5 justices on the Court ruled that corporations may bribe politicians, but he did not name the "Citizens United" case. This is essentially one additional mention of the case, because there's no question that it's this case he was describing, a case he mentions many times. But still he did not identify the case by name, so there were only 7 mentions of Citizens United where he specifically identified the case by name, plus one where he mentioned it without naming it.

2) He mentioned the case and acknowledged that the ruling was to grant corporations free speech rights, but said nothing about the FEC's suppression of the film being overruled. This is partially honest -- not the usual total dishonesty of saying nothing at all about the FEC suppressing the film, so to account for it this mention is omitted from the score. So instead of 4-0 or 4-1, the score for the 16th is 3-0, and the total score is 8-0 rather than 9-0 or 9-1. So this one ambiguous mention is omitted from the survey/test. "Honesty" has to include acknowledgement that a political film was banned by the FEC, and the Court struck this down and upheld traditional free speech rights.

No matter how lofty you think your crusade is, censorship or suppression of free speech should not be a means to that end.

You’ve acknowledged the only federal case of political speech censorship ever—the FEC blocking Hillary: The Movie in 2008 under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. That’s not theory, it’s fact. Citizens United overturned that censorship—not by granting corporations new rights, but by affirming what the First Amendment already protected: the right to free political speech, including films or books—even when produced by corporations.

You asked for another example of federal censorship of political propaganda? There isn’t one. For over two centuries, no federal law or action suppressed political speech until that FEC ruling. Local governments have banned content here or there, but never at the federal level—until Hillary: The Movie. That was the turning point.

So no, your claim of a long history of federal censorship affecting political media is false. The record is clear: Citizens United didn’t suddenly invent corporate speech rights—it restored them against censorship. The real challenge now isn’t whether this happened—it did. The question is, if we reject federal censorship, what’s your alternative to ensure fairness in elections without violating free speech?

NHC