Corporate free speech is not un-American!

Opinion | Corporate free speech is not un-American | Seattle Times Newspaper

The op-ed piece in hyperlink above, written by Bill Maurer, highlights some very important points about the importance of the recent Citizens United vs. FEC. Here are some highlights from the piece:

"Corporations are each different. Some will see this decision as an opportunity to support pro-free-market politicians. Some will use it use it to support liberal politicians. And some will ignore politics completely and simply try to provide goods and services the public wants. This is because a corporation, like every association — a marriage, a neighborhood association or a nonprofit organization — is made up of people. It is the people who are now free to speak and to choose the form they believe is the most effective for disseminating their message.
 

This is America. We do not ban books. We do not make it a crime to speak because the speech may be too influential. With this decision, Americans will get more information, hear more debate, and learn more about their elections. With all due respect to Sen. Schumer, what could be more American than that?"

There is this weird assumption that in this day and age of diversified interests along with multiple information sources with easy platforms of access, that corporations always have nefarious aims and objectives and that the use of corporate money pollutes politics. Hogwash.

Corporations have budget limitations and fiduciary responsibility to their ownership to work at turning a profit. Even the wealthiest corporations can't write blank checks (although very large ones on occasion can be issued) It's a very honorable an open set of objectives to be chasing  bottom-line in the black. Plus, it is explicit by the very nature of the capitalist beast. More so, than can be said about the motives of certain individuals. As high-lighted in the article, the public has long been suspicious of various corporate marketing initiatives that have failed despite having millions of dollars pumped into them. Money might be able to purchase airtime, but it doesn't guarantee results.

The werewolf wonders if corporations should be treated more like an individual on some levels, but will flush that out in a different post. However, he has also thought that if the government and anti-free speech activists really wanted to curb corporate speech in good faith, why don't they push for an elimination of corporate taxes? A reduction in stakeholder status can certainly be linked to a reduction in assumed rights. Food for thought.

Tobacco Control and Free Speech — An American Dilemma

An old nemesis of the werewolf sent him this article, "Tobacco Control and Free Speech - An American Dilemma" recently published in the The New England Journal of Medicine. It provides interesting analysis of how the attempts to restrict tobacco advertising in the name of public health have shaped up recently. For anyone with an interest in free speech, advertising, public health, tobacco, advocacy, and democratic societies this makes for a great read.

A few things struck the werewolf from this article.

-Public health officials hate the 1st Amendment and view it as an impediment.

-People assume that their something virtuous in European social democracies where censorship, conditional speech, and state supremacy all kick around the individual. We have a constitution that guarantees us scared rights and has been cornerstone of our civil society since it was founded. The Europeans lack the same sense of history, document, or tradition. This needs to be highlighted and emulating them needs to be avoided like a case of the clap from $5 Mexican hooker.

-Public health officials still hide behind yesterday's "save the kids" argument. This cynicism needs to end. It's dishonest.

-Tobacco companies have ceded too much of their communications authority over the years and are scared to fight back with full effectiveness. They should be able to transparently communicate efficacy of alternative tobacco products as a worthy substitute.

-A commenter posted that there needs to be an unapologetic tobacco company. The werewolf wholeheartedly agrees. The company should be called 6 Feet Under, have three brands Death, Tumors, and Black Spot, the packs should be black, and coffin shaped,  featuring the grim reaper on them, and the slogan should read "this shit is risky as hell and may kill you, make an adult F*CKING decision, and enjoy."It would usher in a new paradigm for corporate social responsibility.

-There seems to be a desire to obstruct communications about these products or else allow the narrow-minded folks at the FDA and health groups to monopolize all information. Information should never be trusted from a single source, especially when the motives are questionable. What ever happened to the free exchange of ideas and allowing room for debate. Instead of launching new studies and coming to new conclusions, there seems to be a dependence of the health officials on yesterday's data and thoughts. Instead of being permanently adversarial, have public health officials ever thought to partner with big  tobacco in way to shape honest advertising, that allows the market to operate in the interest of the consumer, explains the risk, and allows for inter-brand competition?

Those are just a few thoughts on the article. It is a great read. The werewolf can't get over how strange the times we live in are.