Poor America... Poor democracy...

[ramza]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/pl_nm/..._court_politics

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.

[Enoch]

I don't really believe the doomsayers on this one, for a few reasons.

 

First, it's not like donors and candidates have had much trouble evading these rules over the past few election cycles. Corporations today just create non-profit advocacy groups to run ads and support candidates on their behalf. Is there that much harm in removing the one extra pair of hands the money passes through? McCain-Feingold was a noble effort, but did politics in America get any noticeably 'cleaner' when it was in-effect?

 

Second, disclosure rules still stand (Justice Thomas is the only one arguing in favor of striking them). Politicians already make a lot of hay out of badmouthing the groups who support their rivals, and GiantCorp, Inc. makes a much more effective boogeyman that the advocacy groups with innocuous names ("Citizens for Happy Families and Puppies") that the public generally hasn't heard of.

 

Third, limits on direct cash contributions to candidates still stand, too.

 

Fourth, the shareholders are probably going to hold back a lot of the direct corporate donations. Large institutional shareholders (like, say, public pension funds) pull a lot of weight in shareholders' meetings for big companies, and a lot of them probably don't want money that could be reinvested in the company or paid out as dividends used to fund partisan politics. Also, many big public companies are now owned by foreign shareholders at least as much as they are by Americans. The campaign ads for their rivals pretty much write themselves there.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I've seen a lot of attack ads by third parties that ended with "call this candidate about this issue" thus making it technically an issue ad, not an endorsement ad. The law has been evaded anyway, and now at least it's back to being constitutional.

[Guard Dog]

Unions, PACs, etc all had free reign to run advocacy ads. This ruling just levels the playing field. Like Enoch said, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I think it was nuts for clowns like NY Senator Charles Schumer to label this "Judicial Activisim". #1 is't not. 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.. Seems to me the activist position was the minority. They ruled that the right to free speech did not apply to everyone, just those who filed the proper paperwork with the government for it (PACs). #2 Since when did that S.O.B Schumer think judicial activisim was a bad thing?

[Volourn]

Waa waa to Obama here. Corportions 9whicha re run by people) have the right to choose sides. Afterall, they pay taxes, and have to follow laws so it makes sense they shoukld ahve the right to voice their opinion, and like EVERYONE, they will pimp what benefits them. It's not like they get bonus votes. 8shrug*

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yes, but a lot of corporations have so much money available to them that they can practically buy elections. Say good bye to anti-trust laws being enforced. Also there are a lot of foreign corporations that have American divisions and now could use that connection to direct effect US politics. Last thing I want is Toyota influencing our laws.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Volourn]

"buy elections."

 

As in bribing voters or pollsters to rig results? That's already illegal so jail them.

 

Do you mean be advrtsing for their chosen politician? *shrug* Nothing immoral. No different than countless volunteers going door to door to pimp their chosen politician.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Just because something is illegal does not automatically lead to jail. Corporate lawyers could tie up such cases for years if not decades.

[Enoch]

Unions, PACs, etc all had free reign to run advocacy ads. This ruling just levels the playing field. Like Enoch said, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I think it was nuts for clowns like NY Senator Charles Schumer to label this "Judicial Activisim". #1 is't not. 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.. Seems to me the activist position was the minority. They ruled that the right to free speech did not apply to everyone, just those who filed the proper paperwork with the government for it (PACs). #2 Since when did that S.O.B Schumer think judicial activisim was a bad thing?

If anything can ever be labeled "judicial activism," I think this decision can-- it both overturned part of a reasonably long-standing act of Congress, and overruled past Supreme Court precedent. People like Schumer like to point this out because people on the Right have spilled a lot of ink over "activist" courts over the past few decades, and pointing out when your political rivals are benefiting from something that they have previously denounced is an easy way to score political points. (I also wouldn't consider this "leveling the field" between Corps and Unions-- aggregate corporate revenue in America is many, many, many times higher than aggregate union revenue.)

 

And I didn't mean to imply that the decision will do nothing-- it will certainly have an effect, but it's hardly the catastrophic effect that some are predicting.

 

 

 

The interplay between individual rights and corporate entities is an interesting one. Just skimming over the Bill of Rights, it's obvious that certain rights can clearly have no application to corporations (e.g., they can't vote, and they don't get a jury of their (presumably corporate) peers when they are sued). It is also obvious that certain rights must always apply to corporate entities-- I don't think anybody would argue that the government can take property without just compensation or conduct searches without probable cause simply because the owner is incorporated. Prior to this decision, reasonable limits on corporate speech weren't seen as objectionable by the Court because all of the people involved (the shareholders, officers, executives, etc.) retained their full first amendment rights. But it is interesting that where other Amendments talk about "the right of the People" (see #2 and #4, and the latter part of #1), the Speech clause of the First Amendment simply says "no law" and talks about "speech" rather than focusing on the who or what the "speakers" are.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

Since when did that S.O.B Schumer think judicial activisim was a bad thing?

Since his Al got gored.

 

Political freedom means freedom to organize, not just an individual right of free speech. Thus organizations have the same right of free speech that individuals do. There's no rule that you can't overturn a bad precedent, the decision was strictly constitutional and thus not judicial activism. And Enoch, do you actually know there was a Supreme Court ruling that corporations had no right of free speech? I don't think I've ever heard of such a ruling. There were rulings against unlimited political contributions, but those still stand. Edit: Never mind, I see the OP article says there were.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Meshugger]

Cool, does this mean that i can establish a coorperation on US soil calling itself "The Obsidian Foundation", where i can donate as much as i want to those that i want in local/federal elections?

 

In that case, come to me, my fellow politicians. Be my whores as you are.

 

Or maybe i should be fair and make it a public company and sell shares only to members of this board. We can have our own mascot in congress!

[Aram]

America is stupid and most of our politicians are in someone's pocket. It's not anything new.

[Guard Dog]

If anything can ever be labeled "judicial activism," I think this decision can-- it both overturned part of a reasonably long-standing act of Congress, and overruled past Supreme Court precedent.

 

Disregard of Stare Decisis is not judicial activisim. Disregarding the founders words or intent is, as I understand it anyway.

 

(I also wouldn't consider this "leveling the field" between Corps and Unions-- aggregate corporate revenue in America is many, many, many times higher than aggregate union revenue.)

 

True but not relevant when it comes to applying the law in terms of free speech.

 

 

The interplay between individual rights and corporate entities is an interesting one. Just skimming over the Bill of Rights, it's obvious that certain rights can clearly have no application to corporations (e.g., they can't vote, and they don't get a jury of their (presumably corporate) peers when they are sued). It is also obvious that certain rights must always apply to corporate entities-- I don't think anybody would argue that the government can take property without just compensation or conduct searches without probable cause simply because the owner is incorporated. Prior to this decision, reasonable limits on corporate speech weren't seen as objectionable by the Court because all of the people involved (the shareholders, officers, executives, etc.) retained their full first amendment rights. But it is interesting that where other Amendments talk about "the right of the People" (see #2 and #4, and the latter part of #1), the Speech clause of the First Amendment simply says "no law" and talks about "speech" rather than focusing on the who or what the "speakers" are.

 

I'd only point out that coporations are run, owned, and represent the interests of people. But it is an area I do not know much about admittedly. I'm going to have to do some reading on this.

[Gorgon]

You can't stop interest groups from plying their trade, but you should at least try not to end up in a situation where the the power they exert on government does not become completely unproportional.

[RPGmasterBoo]

That's a disaster.

 

You can't stop bribery, but making it legalized is definitely not a solution. The US political system was already too susceptible to what's effectively "policy shopping".

 

In the short term, nothing will change of course, but in the long its just apt to lessen the influence of the people (as a whole) and groups (the ones with less money) on decision making. If one's interests are constantly pushed aside by big money, that will breed dissent - not to mention corruption in the government.

 

Obama will never make it to a second term I'll wager.

Edited January 23, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Volourn]

Bribery isn't legal nor is this ruling making it so.

[Killian Kalthorne]

In my ever so humble opinion this is bribery.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.

 

This.

[Meshugger]

Personally, i think it sends the wrong message to the avarage person. If you want some serious change in political policy, it doesn't work by simply voting, since you will most likely lack the capital to put your issue on the public agenda.

 

If anything, i think that this will breed a generation cynicists, which is very bad for a democracy.

 

That's why i think that we need our own 'Obsidian community'-mascot in congress. I have worked, and i am currently working for a multi-national cooperation. The previous one was a public company, but this one is private. I do not see coorporations speak as one voice in political matters. Everyone, from the janitor to the CEO seems to have different political views. If the company makes a donation for a political issue, it is usually based on the views of the board of management or the majority of the shareholders, not by the majority of those working there. That's why i see coorperations more as pools of money that those involved are interested in getting a share of, instead of a direct representation of people with a common goal in political issues.

 

My point? The rich will have far greater influence on the political system than those with less. It has always been that way, but atleast people have tried to limit it. But now...

[Walsingham]

You can't stop interest groups from plying their trade, but you should at least try not to end up in a situation where the the power they exert on government does not become completely unproportional.

 

As appears to be the case more and more often, I am in agreement with Gorgon.

 

I know it's difficult to obstruct special interests, but for the love of all that's good and holy, WoD, don't be ****ing HAPPY about it!

[Guard Dog]

I know there is a whole lot of business=bad, coporation=evil sentiment going on here but if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment. Prior to this ruling, Labor Unions and Political Action Comittees (not for profit advocacy groups) were able to run any kind of advertisement they wished without worrying about the FEC coming down on them. A private citizen did not even enjoy that freedom under McCain Feingold. A corporation certainly could not. During oral arguments Justice Roberts asked the lawyer for the FEC straight out if a book was published (remember this case was about a privately produced and funded movie that was banned) that could be construed as taking a political position on a candidate, could that book be banned. The answer was yes. Dosen't that strike any of you as a bad thing? The soundbites for these campaign finance laws sound great but you really need to look at what they do. And even more important, who was exempted from them. Freedom of speech has to apply equally to everyone. These campaign finance laws gave the government the power to decide who was able to speak freely and who was not. I think Andrew Napolitano put it best, they are incumbent protection acts. The Citizens United v FEC defanged a really bad part of a bad law (most of McCain Feingold is still in effect) that should never have been enacted. You guys really should invest some time in actually reading what Justice Kenndy wrote before you bitch and moan about how unfair it all is. You might be surprised at how unfair it was before.

 

I'd like to point out one more thing. Corportions do not get a vote. Voters are the one who decide who gets elected. If you think they are incapable of making an intelligent and informed decision that runs contrary to a swarm of advertisement and high powered influence I'd like to direct your attention to the Special Election for US Senate that just took place this week in MA.

[Enoch]

I'd like to point out one more thing. Corportions do not get a vote. Voters are the one who decide who gets elected. If you think they are incapable of making an intelligent and informed decision that runs contrary to a swarm of advertisement and high powered influence I'd like to direct your attention to the Special Election for US Senate that just took place this week in MA.

... because voting for the former nude-male-model is always the intelligent and informed decision!

 

(I kid. Honestly, I don't have much of a dog in the MA Senate fight-- from what I've read, they were both pretty lousy candidates for a variety of reasons, with the difference being that the right is generally a lot angrier and more motivated right now. Plus MA is probably the "blue" state least likely to care about the healthcare reform issue that dominates the headlines right now because they already have state-level healthcare laws that are more progressive than the ones being talked about in Washington.)

 

 

I do agree that the whole 'money in politics' issue is one worth worrying about. But America has a First Amendment, and Buckley v. Valeo's holding that money spent supporting a political candidate counts as "speech" for the purposes of that Amendment is, I think, a good rule. Given all this, any legislative attempt to restrain said money is going to be like trying to catch rainwater in a cardboard box-- it's all going to seep through eventually. Even full-on public funding probably won't work all that well because you can't restrain self-funded candidates, nor can you restrain wealthy proxies from using their wealth to give full-throated voices of support for the candidate of their choice. The only solution that has any hope of working in this environment is rigorous public disclosure. And I mean rigorous. If there's a corporate donor, I want to know who is on the Board and who the major shareholders are. If there is a non-profit, I want to know who their big supporters are. If the donations are from individuals, I want to know if there are any trends in where they work and live. And I want the opposing candidates to know all this stuff, too, and to feature it in their campaigns when the stink of influence from a particular quarter gets too heavy.

[~Di]

In my ever so humble opinion this is bribery.

 

Indeed. It is now legal for corporations to purchase their politicians openly, without all those pesky disclosure laws and financial limitations. Wannabe politicians can openly solicit from corporations in return for favors, and unlike those who have done the same in the past and our serving time in Club Bed, they simply choose a sponsor to purchase their congressional seats in return for favors. All legal.

[Guard Dog]

The only solution that has any hope of working in this environment is rigorous public disclosure. And I mean rigorous. If there's a corporate donor, I want to know who is on the Board and who the major shareholders are. If there is a non-profit, I want to know who their big supporters are. If the donations are from individuals, I want to know if there are any trends in where they work and live. And I want the opposing candidates to know all this stuff, too, and to feature it in their campaigns when the stink of influence from a particular quarter gets too heavy.

 

This makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. It is never a good thing to restrict freedom, opinion, and information. It is always a good thing to disclose where it is coming from. This does both. Good call, too bad you are not in Congress. But then again, this idea would never fly there.

 

On my last post I was not ensorsing Scott Brown as a candidate or a Senator. Although, I was VERY happy to see the Democrat super majority in the Senate end. Total veto-proof, filibuster proof, ethics proof, control over the government by any political party is something to be feared and vigorously opposed no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. I was only pointing out that despite conventional wisdom, Obama and half of Hollywood, and millions uopn millions of dollars in advertising the voters in MA did what they thought was right, not what was expected of them.

 

OT here but have you ever considered running for office? You have the education, location, and you are already "inside" the machine. You have to at least thought about it. Not that I'm suggesting you should. I would not wish that on anyone.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Guard Dog