We now have two ingredients in place that can completely destroy this country, or at least turn it into something never intended by the Founding Fathers and into a place where the "people" no longer are free.
The first ingredient has been around for a long time and is a major problem in my opinion. It is the fact that "truth in advertising" does not seem to apply to political advertisements. Individuals, businesses, and organizations seem to be able to "advertise" any lie or deception to as many people as they can afford to, without being regulated in any way. Sure, the opposition can counter the lies with advertisements of their own, but only if they can afford it.
If you make false or misleading claims about your latest drug or skin-care product, you could be breaking the law:
"Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
* Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
* Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
* Advertisements cannot be unfair. "
http://www.business.gov/...
So, why does this act not apply to political advertisement? Is it because of the word "Trade" in the title? Does it only apply to advertising about goods and products? But, I am sure it also applies to "services" as well as "goods." Perhaps it has something to do with the profits of the advertiser and the cost to the consumer? This also does not make sense to me, because even if we only look at financial gains and losses, decisions made by elected politicians have serious impacts on the finances of businesses and individuals.
So, if one political party has a hidden agenda to increase the profits of big businesses and increase the wealth of the already wealthy, and political advertisements for that party, funded by big business & wealthy individuals, and broadcast to the masses as truth by media outlets owned by, guess who, big business and wealthy individuals, are misleading and false, then why are these advertisements not regulated? The advertisements are deceiving people into voting for a party that will bring more money to those who are paying for the advertisements, to the financial detriment of those viewing the advertisement! How does this NOT qualify for regulation under Truth in Advertising laws??
The 2nd ingredient has only recently been put in place by the United States Supreme Court. Their recent decision regarding businesses and corporations & free speech:
"Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections."
http://www.nytimes.com/...
So now the political party that represents the few at the cost of the many may have unlimited funding for their unregulated deceptive and misleading campaigns? And this is supposed to still be America? Instead of having campaign funding reform, we have now had campaign funding deformity!
So, let’s review the situation in this country now. There is little or no regulation governing the validity of what is said in political advertising during a campaign. Now, there are no limits to what can be spent, and by whom, on these political advertisements. The only limiting factor is now MONEY. And that is exactly how those with money want it. Congratulations America, we have just taken a long step away from being a Constitutional Republic:
"A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
...And a long way towards being an Oligarchy:
"An oligarchy (Greek ????a???a, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few/one" (?????? olígos) and "rule" (???? arkhe). Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. Some city-states from ancient Greece were oligarchies. The combination of the words plutocracy and oligarchy make the word plutarchy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
So, perhaps you are saying to yourself "we still have those things mentioned in a Constitutional Republic – a Constitution and Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches." Well we do, but perhaps in name only. This very ruling by the highest court in the land shows the the Politicizing of the Judicial Branch, a major goal of the Bush Administration, has been completed. A judicial branch that does not protect the intent, spirit, and letter of the law and the Constitution, is a Judicial Branch that is operating as an Oligarchy, and not a Constitutional Republic.
Consider the wording in the first sentence of the definition of an Oligarchy above:
"...Power EFFECTIVELY rests with a small elite segment..."
This is not the same as "officially," "legally," or even "openly." In this country, power over the lives of Americans already "effectively" rests with MONEY, and this USSC decision just changed that word from "effectively" to "completely." In the effective application of government, the United States already had one foot in the realm of Oligarchy, but now the other foot is crossing over that line as well.
How can this be? The key has always been in the control of information. Yes, apathy of the public is, and has been, a factor, but an even larger factor is the deception of the people by those who control the dissemination of information to the masses. The viscous circle here is that, the "small elite segment" that has the power over the dissemination of information are not regulated in the use of that power, and thus they are free to use that power to elect politicians who will perpetuate that lack of regulation.
How do we fix it? How can we actually become a working "Constitutional Republic," in practice as well as in theory? Obviously, I do not have the answers to that. I have an idea of what it might look like, but how to get there is a problem way above my level of thought and influence. However, I will list a few things that I would like to see as part of our political and governing reality in America. Some of these thoughts may seem impractical and even radical, but read them with the effect they would have in mind, and if there are other ways to achieve the effect, that would make me happy as well!
1. We need to repeal the recent political decision of the USSC (perhaps via a Constitutional Amendment) and impeach the political Justices who supported that decision. The effect is to slow down or stop this rapid movement towards an Oligarchy.
2. All dissemination of information to the masses that is critical to their important decision-making must be regulated for truth and lack of deception, just as it is for products and services sold to the public. The effect would be to put political power back into the hands of an INFORMED public rather than a deceived public.
3. All political contributions should be non-party specific. Contributions would be to the race or the process, and then equally divided among the competing parties. The effect would be to stop big money from owning politicians, and thru the politicians, the government itself.
4. At any publicized and televised political debate, there should be a panel of impartial experts present, providing truth and fact-checking on all the statements made by the debate participants in real-time. Experts in the issues AND in what has happened in the past (voting records, etc.) should be included on the panel. The effect would be an informed public instead of a deceived one.
5. In a more radical light, perhaps it should be illegal for any candidate in any advertisement or debate to make any mention of opponents. They should only be allowed to talk about their own opinions on the issues and their own records and qualifications. The effect! Think about how much better TV would be during election seasons without a mud-slinging commercial every 15 seconds!
One final comment on this subject. The title of this post is about free speech because many of the problems discussed above have been created in the name of free speech. I do not believe that free speech was ever meant to cover deceptive speech that harms those who are being spoken to. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and we do have libel and slander laws that limit free speech. The key factors for the limitation include falsehoods and harm to others. There can be no doubt that many Americans are voting against their own best interests because they believe things that are simply not true. They have been lied to by mass media outlets that operate under the guise "news organizations," and they have been deceived by the flaws in the system discussed above. This is not free speech, this is harmful deception that should be stopped.