Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
I love that Tribe mentions representative democracy
I love that Tribe mentions representative democracy
questioner: For me the most disturbing decision has been Citizens United ... people voting for it voted for money being basically the same as a soul"
31:45 into video
Well the question is whether the Supreme Court's dismantling of campaign finance reform and it's rejection of ESSENTIALLY EVERY CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT that NOW COMES BEFORE IT TO limit the influence of WEALTH AND of CORPORATE POWER BUT ALSO OF UNIONS ON ELECTIONS
WHETHER THAT SET OF DECISIONS, WHICH DO TEND TO SPLIT IN PARTISAN WAYS, WHETHER THAT SOMEHOW is A REFUTATION OF MY VIEW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO GIVE vent to THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. I DON'T REALLY THINK SO.
...you can AGREE OR DISAGREE ABOUT CITIZENS UNITED, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MAJORITY in those CASES IS NOT CONTRARY TO WHAT LOTS OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK -- THAT CORPORATIONS ARE JUST HUMAN BEINGS IN DRAG, OR NOT MONEY IS SPEECH. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT. THEY ARE SAYING THAT -- WE DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT SPEAKERS SHOULD BE HEARD AND HOW MUCH MONEY VARIOUS INTEREST SHOULD SPEND ON SPEECH.
AS IT HAPPENED, CITIZENS UNITED WAS AN ANTI-HILLARY CLINTON DOCUMENTARY BUT IF IT HAD BEEN AN ANTI-ROMNEY DOCUMENTARY OR an ANTI-MCCAIN DOCUMENTARY, THAT SUSPICION OF GOVERNMENT PLAYING THE ROLE OF ORCHESTRATING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR SPEECH WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACTLY THE SAME.
ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS THAT HOWEVER MUCH WE MAY WORRY, AND I DO A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE INJURY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY , OF HAVING GREAT WEALTH PLAY so HUGE ROLE -- WE MAY BE LESS THAN CONFIDENT that THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS TO TAKE THE VERY PEOPLE...
...too INFLUENCED BY MONEY. BY REVERSING THE SUPREME COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE MUCH OF A SOLUTION TO ME. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS PARADOXES THAT CONFRONT US. THE paradox of SPEECH AND MONEY AND POWER.
31:45 into video
Well the question is whether the Supreme Court's dismantling of campaign finance reform and it's rejection of ESSENTIALLY EVERY CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT that NOW COMES BEFORE IT TO limit the influence of WEALTH AND of CORPORATE POWER BUT ALSO OF UNIONS ON ELECTIONS
WHETHER THAT SET OF DECISIONS, WHICH DO TEND TO SPLIT IN PARTISAN WAYS, WHETHER THAT SOMEHOW is A REFUTATION OF MY VIEW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO GIVE vent to THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. I DON'T REALLY THINK SO.
...you can AGREE OR DISAGREE ABOUT CITIZENS UNITED, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MAJORITY in those CASES IS NOT CONTRARY TO WHAT LOTS OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK -- THAT CORPORATIONS ARE JUST HUMAN BEINGS IN DRAG, OR NOT MONEY IS SPEECH. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT. THEY ARE SAYING THAT -- WE DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT SPEAKERS SHOULD BE HEARD AND HOW MUCH MONEY VARIOUS INTEREST SHOULD SPEND ON SPEECH.
AS IT HAPPENED, CITIZENS UNITED WAS AN ANTI-HILLARY CLINTON DOCUMENTARY BUT IF IT HAD BEEN AN ANTI-ROMNEY DOCUMENTARY OR an ANTI-MCCAIN DOCUMENTARY, THAT SUSPICION OF GOVERNMENT PLAYING THE ROLE OF ORCHESTRATING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR SPEECH WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACTLY THE SAME.
ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS THAT HOWEVER MUCH WE MAY WORRY, AND I DO A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE INJURY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY , OF HAVING GREAT WEALTH PLAY so HUGE ROLE -- WE MAY BE LESS THAN CONFIDENT that THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS TO TAKE THE VERY PEOPLE...
...too INFLUENCED BY MONEY. BY REVERSING THE SUPREME COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE MUCH OF A SOLUTION TO ME. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS PARADOXES THAT CONFRONT US. THE paradox of SPEECH AND MONEY AND POWER.