Corporations and unions now have more power than average people in the outcome of our political elections. Many entrenched Republicans are ecstatic. So are many Democrats.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back campaign finance restrictions meant to limit corporate and union influence on elections, ruling that these organizations can spend as much as they like to help sway political races. – AP
I’m of the opinion that there is too much special interest and third party money involved already in our political process, and the decision of the Supreme Court today will only make corporate, union and special interest voices more powerful at the expense of the individual citizen and frankly, our democracy. Think about it… A corporation can now have an entire division dedicated to influencing elections.
To those who may disagree, yes, free speech rights are important. But corporations are not people. Corporations can and often are held by foreign interests. Individuals from foreign countries are forbidden from making contributions to political campaigns, but now any corporation can turn on the spigot of money and get their preferred candidate elected for a relatively small amount of money. Why waste money on lobbyists anymore when you can just spend $10 million to purchase a candidate, or trash one in office who may not agree with you?
Oh, and by the way, activist judges!! Where’s the outrage conservatives? Or is your contempt only on display when it’s convenient? Lastly, I wonder what the tea party folks think of this?
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Why are you assuming conservatives aren’t outraged about this? From what I see in the discourse, everyone is pretty ticked off about this.
But I don’t think limiting campaign contributions is the answer. If we wanted to improve the quality of our food, would we impose limits on the amount of money McDonalds and Burger King can spend on advertising? No, we’d probably fund the FDA or similar organization.
So why don’t we instead tax campaign contributions at 5% and use the revenue to establish a CBO-like independent research arm for candidate research. The more money corporations contribute, the greater the funding this organization receives. Because limits on contributions only help curtail misinformation; they do not do anything to produce truth.
Because every one of them I saw on TV yesterday, including House and Senate minority leaders, on talk radio this morning, and on the conservative blogs I read are all giddy with excitement over the prospect of businesses being able to spend unlimited amounts of money in upcoming elections.
As for your suggestion, let me repeat what I hear on a daily basis: “Because that would be a tax going to support a big government program!”
So, you don’t like the idea? Or are you just projecting things I haven’t said? I’m confused.
By the way, I learned a little more about this ruling. There is a ton of misinformation out there about this ruling. It does not allow corporations to contribute to political campaigns. What it allows is a corporation to create and run ads in support or opposition of a candidate or legislative initiative. They already did this, but before the ruling they had to hide it through a 527 organization. In reality, they will continue to do this, because from a PR perspective it would not look great to end the ad with “Paid for by Exxon Mobile”. The only difference will be that the corporation can now give directly to the 527 without fear, rather than funneling it through additional compensation of the owners, who would then contribute to the 527.
Still think it’s kind of ridiculous, but I also much prefer to peel away layers of obfuscation. This will also lower the threshold for such advertisements where not only huge companies with legal people dedicated to such things can support such ads, but now collectives of small companies could as well.
Obviously, you don’t believe in equal rights or you don’t believe in the first amendent. What other parts of the constitution don’t you like?
Yeah… obviously! Read it again bucko… The rights of people vs. a legal construct.
Dan, you find corporations to have the same constitutional rights as American citizens?
Dan Dan.. You should know by now that it’s only “judicial activism” when conservatives don’t LIKE the existing law or precedent that’s being overturned! When they do LIKE it, it’s “free speech rights”. You can’t expect them to have any kind of consistency about this kind of thing. That in itself would be activist!
But yeah, where’s the outrage from your usual detractors about “legislating from the bench”??
Crickets.
Actually this was specifically covered by some conservative talking heads I know and respect. Don’t confuse Republican party hacks with conservatives.
By the way, this is one of the first articles I read that does a good job on this angle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103199.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”"
RADICAL DECISION??? Take a look at the 1st amendment above. Go ahead, have a gander… perhaps you are unfamiliar with it. There is no grey area there, no exceptions to speech from people you don’t like, or from groups you find distasteful (like businesses). It is quite plain and simple. Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. No law stopping a corporation (made up of people), a political group, an environmental profit group, a pro abortion group, code pink, no one….. especially the people that you don’t like.
Those founders were pretty smart. They realized that there would be Dan’s in the world who would want to muzzle the folks they disagree with. The founders knew that this leads to tyranny. They made it simple, and to the point. No Law…. not any at all.
The PATRIOT Act’s still good though, right, TFG?
How is the Patriot Act (which is supported by Obama) related to Constitutional free speech? I don’t believe that it allows government to restrict political speech, does it? Could you show me an instance where someone was denied their first amendment rights by it? Monitoring the telephone calls of terrorists in the same way we do to the mafia is hardly a problem for me… or for Barack Obama.
…or are you implying that the racketeering statutes violate the free speech rights of La Cosa Nostra… now that would make for an unusual political stand, to say the least.
Well, it seems to me that you want to limit free speech. Why shouldn’t a corportation, union or or any other organization have the right to speak on a subject during election time?
Further, if you read what this case was about, it was about limiting free speech. The AG even said that if the wrong person or corporation put out a book, the government could restrict that book.
But you are ok with that. Those evil corportations sticking up for themselves during election years is shameful.
Yeah right. Wait until they come for you.
Exactly my point in the original post. The Court took a somewhat narrow issue about the Hillary movie and opened it into a much larger issue and decided to throw our decades of precedent in the process. There’s a reason Roberts and his court cherry picked this case. It’s exactly the kind they were looking for to impose their own judicial beliefs on the rest of society, again, despite decades of past rulings.
You guys have a couple catchy phrases for that.. Legislating from the bench and “activist judges”.
To repeat myself, I don’t think a corporation or union has the same rights as a living breathing person. This goes to TFG’s point about the first amendment (again, I’d caution against making sweeping statements about who knows how much about what) which he copied for us. The part he left off is telling in my opinion, it continues,
“or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the corporation or of the legal construct. The document you’re quoting does not start off, “We the people and or corporation or any other legally initiated institution known and unknown, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”
It starts off “We the PEOPLE”. That is my point, and why I personally feel that granting a corporation the same rights as a person is wrong. The founders were somewhat specific when referencing groups or institutions in the Constitution (See the mention of the “press” in the 1st). It’s my belief that if they intended to have corporations, unions, or other nonhuman bodies covered by the law, they usually were fairly specific in saying so.
So that’s my academic argument.
My personal/emotional one is above. I don’t think it’s right for a corporation, union or whatever to use it’s profits to influence elections. The average person can’t compete on a playing field in which money is already the determining factor in who represents us in this Country. Allowing the powerful and ultra wealthy to have even more influence on our democracy is wrong.
Ironically enough, I thought that’s what a lot of the tea party folks were out there protesting which is why I’m having a hard time understanding why they’re not getting fired up about this.
Here is the full text. I question the interpretation, but if the left is going to take phrases like “general welfare” and “regulate interstate commerce” literally and not consider intention, then I find it a little funny that they won’t do the same here.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The text prohibits Congress from passing any law limiting speech. It does not limit that prohibition to speech from persons, as you suggest. That limitation only comes to the assembly and petition rights.
You are implying a hypocrisy on the right, but there is a pretty clear hypocrisy on the left here. You want to expand the meaning of the Constitution to allow the federal government to transfer wealth and overpower state law and be able to write a low concerning anything (not just the enumerated powers), and in order to do so you completely ignore the intention behind the words in the Constitution. Yet now you argue that intention is important.
This is the danger you get into when you set the precedent that the Constitution is not the only factor to consider, and that current policy desires and the judge’s opinion on what the words might mean with modern technology and case law, etc. are also valid factors.
And now our political process will suffer.
I should have read Warden’s post before my own. Good points here.
Who wants to limit speech Dan? This ruling makes speech more prolific and available to everyone… not just groups with good lawyers. I hope you are not implying that I have, in any way what-so-ever, advocated limiting freedom of speech? If you plan on making some argument comprised of twisted logic regarding this ruling, I’ll urge you not to do so. My family has experienced such a tyrannical repression at hands of their government and I can not tell you how strongly I was raised to believe in that right… and others. I even support your right to continue publishing anti-speech rhetoric directed against groups whose message you seek to mute. It’s foolhardy for you to do so, but that is one of the dangers of such freedom…. that some will use it irresponsibly.
Especially at election time, groups should be allowed to speak out on issues to whatever extent they choose. The group should identify itself and it’s source of funding in some way (that is only fair and needed in order to digest the message). I would have no problem subjecting people making false statements of fact to civil liability, but your opinion, stated as such, is sacrosanct. From my understanding, the case involved a conservative group that wished to distribute a movie during an election. The court also struck down the McCain-Feingold gag rules on groups free speech rights. I must have missed the part where SCOTUS limited speech. Feel free to enlighten me on the part I missed.
I have no idea what else you might be referring to, though I note with with shock that you refer to business as “evil corporations”. Typical of the ultra left, but I did not know that you took residence among that group. Duly noted.
It is also rather disappointing that you see your fellow citizens as mindless sheep and that you feel television ads will have them marching off to the polls like good little robots to vote in favor of their evil masters at Walmart and Exxon. It must be sad to feel that way about your countrymen. I can’t imagine it.
It’s somewhat amusing that you launch into this kind of rhetoric against the wrong person using the same old “ultra left” hyperbole. It’s like you’re just cutting and pasting from previous comments.
There is more than one “Dan” here. The one you just lambasted for being “ultra left” is actually quite a conservative guy from what I’ve gathered in past commentary from him. Duly noted indeed.
Anyways… I always post with my first and last name. It’s not a huge deal, but I wish there was less a desire for “gotchas!” like that in our discourse and more focus on the actual issue.
I stand corrected. I will have to note carefully which Dan is which Dan.
I will take your suggestion to heart and attempt more of a even handed discourse in future posts.
While I agree with your statement, “But corporations are not people”, unfortunately state and federal laws disagree.
I know quoting Wikipedia won’t get me any credibility here, but their page about corporations is pretty interesting. Here are some nice quotes:
“Once incorporated, the corporation has artificial personhood everywhere it may operate, until such time as the corporation may be dissolved.”
“A corporation is legally a citizen of the state (or other jurisdiction) in which it is incorporated (except when circumstances direct the corporation be classified as a citizen of the state in which it has its head office, or the state in which it does the majority of its business). Corporate business law differs from state to state, and many prospective corporations choose to incorporate in a state whose laws are most favorable to its business interests.”
But the most interesting quote I found was this:
“But a corporation has no constitutional right to freely exercise its religion because religious exercise is something that only “natural” persons can do. That is, only human beings, not business entities, have the necessary faculties of belief and spirituality that enable them to possess and exercise religious beliefs.”
I think the interesting question here would be if free speech is something only “natural” persons can do as well. I’m sure this must have been addressed by the justices–as I’m no lawyer–but I just found it to be very interesting.
As a matter of policy, I’m a liberal and not in favor of the dysfunctional system (let’s face it–its already dysfunctional with or without these limits). But as a constitutional matter, which is what we’re talking about here (I note that your post doesn’t even mention the language of the Constitution or the legal issue–which, after all, is what the case is about), it is pretty clear to me that the First Amendment applies.
:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
There isn’t anything there that suggests that the ban on laws abridging the freedom of speech covers only laws directed at people rather than organizations of people (corporations, unions, non-profits, etc.).
The policy solution is public funding of these campaigns so that candidates don’t have to effectively whore themselves out to big money donors. Changing the First Amendment to start to allow speech restrictions is a dangerous and terrible idea.
I still submit that the policy solution is less government and an end to the give-aways that spur special interest groups to buy a candidate in order to get a big piece of the pie. If the pie were reduced to a saltine cracker, the line for hand outs would be much smaller.
Maybe a silly question, but if one ‘right’ now applies to a corporation, should all the others as well? Why stop at the first amendment?
Should a union be able allowed to not testify against itself in a court of law? Why shouldn’t a corporation be allowed to maintain and regulate it’s own militia? If and when a company faces trial by jury, shouldn’t the jury be made up of similar companies of equal market share instead of individuals who really aren’t their “peers”?
Silly questions or not? Or does the extent of which some who are defending this latest ruling stop at the first amendment because it benefits them here and now?
“”…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”"
A simple read of the document answers your question on the union. The Constitution is very well written and quite clear, if you just give it a chance. The right to bear arms specifies that it applies to the people. Trial by jury applies to criminal prosecutions… and if a corporation were subject to criminal investigation, it would be the people who made the decisions who would be tried in court, not the corporation itself. That only happens in civil cases where the rules are quite different. Ask Enron… it’s the execs who are in prison, not the corporate logo.
C’mon Dan, why are you being intentionally ridiculous. I’m sure you’ve read the first amendment. It’s quite clear on the issue. Why try to muddy the waters simply because you don’t agree with the Constitution on free speech?
Sorry for causing confusion about the Dan’s. My fault.
What are corporations? People. What are unions? People.
You are denying free speech rights to people- not corporatations or unions.
Will it increase advertisements for political advertisments which most people listen to anyways.
I’d rather give free speech rather than take away that right.
People, that is, a ‘person’, has all the rights you’re talking about whether or not they’re part of a corporation or union.
There’s a difference between a person and a group of people bound by a legal document.
That’s not what it says at all. It does not specify people, clubs, political parties. It say that Congress can not make any law at all abridging freedom of speech… not any law for any entity. “Person” is not mentioned.
Let’s go with your new rewrite though. Let’s say that only people can speak freely. Can a political party speak? How about a union? The Sierra Club? Friends of Jim Doyle? Can they pool money to speak as a group?
Found this interesting:
“all 9 Justices — including the 4 in dissent — agreed that corporations do have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy does trigger First Amendment protections.”
http://salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html
The actual dissent is that freedom of speech can be limited when there is a compelling state interest. No one was suggesting that corporations do not have free speech.
“”freedom of speech can be limited when there is a compelling state interest”"
What a frightening concept THAT is. You folks do realize that it will not always be the beloved and benevolent Barack who decides what is a compelling state interest, right? Some day it may be someone who finds open opposition to the government to be sedition…and that might be a compelling state interest. Some day, it might not just be those hated corporations that find their voices banned under penalty of law. You folks do get that, don’t you?