The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

No, that's not right. Corporations are still limited like everybody else on direct contributions to candidates.

This just means they can spend as much of their corporate money as they want on their own political advocacy during certain periods before an election. You and I could already do that, if I had a billion dollars no law would prevent me from running my own commercials saying "Vote for Bob" so long as they were produced independently of Bob.

The effect is the same. How many average Americans would it take to be able to outspend the likes of Exxon/Mobil?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JWBear

The effect is the same. How many average Americans would it take to be able to outspend the likes of Exxon/Mobil?

A lot. But it would also take a lot to outspend George Soros (who problaby spends more on political advocacy than Exxon/Mobil). But I'm not particularly disagreeing with the general sentiment. Just correcting the incorrect statement you'd made.

It is worth pointing out that before yesterday corporations could already spend unlimited amounts on direct election advocacy. They just couldn't do it 30-days before an election or 60 days before a general. So it isn't like the status quo ante was a complete ban on corporate political speech.

I understand that it is very difficult to figure out how to draw a line in this arena, but I just have a gut feeling that it is not a good thing to extend the corporation=person metaphor beyond a very narrow reading. And political power is full of nearly infinite inequalities that are just as fundamentally unfair as access to cash.

[Strangler Lewis]

Corporations are considered "persons" for purposes of the due process clause. I don't recall the specifics, but I believe that there was a fair amount of discussion of that very point when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

The First Amendment does not speak of whom it is protecting. It speaks of what may not be done. It is inconceivable that a content-based restriction on speech could be enforced against speech that comes from an organization but not against speech that comes from an individual.

I haven't read the decision. I assume it discusses whether or not the legislation was justified by a compelling state interest. One can conceive of such an interest. The antitrust laws bespeak the view that there can be a point where concentrations of power and wealth effectively freeze the game and, therefore, become anti-democratic. One can see the same potential with well-funded corporate speech.

[Chernabog]

Olbermann's comments on the issue were interesting -- of course, he takes it to his usual nth degree of histrionics but his heart is in the right place.

There's something fundamentally wrong (and this is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong) when the CEO of Walmart can donate a limited amount of $$ to a candidate, but Walmart itself can donate an unlimited amount to a candidate. In my book, that means that the candidate is thereby bought and beholden to Walmart. Walmart wants a piece of legislation passed? Walmart has bought that piece of legislation. Walmart doesn't want to pay for domestic partner benefits because they cost too dang much? Walmart starts paying for "those" politicians. Hallelujah, profits go up.

I've definitely read enough scifi where the corporation and the state are one and the same ("Snow Crash," anyone?). This seems to be one of those decisions which pushes things closer to that "fiction."

Edit: After reading Alex's post, , maybe one of my assertions isn't correct.. but still, let's face it, Walmart has a lot more money to run those commercials and "indirectly" donate to a candidate than even the CEO of Walmart.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

In my book, that means that the candidate is thereby bought and beholden to Walmart.

I disagree. Walmart might think that the policies supported by Candidate A are better for their business than the policies supported by Candidate B. The issue then comes down to the integrity of the candidate, not the money donated (or the commercial in support of the candidate....whatever type of donation it is). The candidate may have voted for a certain piece of legislation with or without what Walmart did. The problem is when the incumbant says "I want Walmart to support me, so even though I don't like this legislation, I will vote for it anyway.". If the incumbant votes against the legislation, Walmart should be allowed to run ads saying why the incumbant hasn't been good for the community or country or whatever.

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I disagree. Walmart might think that the policies supported by Candidate A are better for their business than the policies supported by Candidate B. The issue then comes down to the integrity of the candidate, not the money donated (or the commercial in support of the candidate....whatever type of donation it is). The candidate may have voted for a certain piece of legislation with or without what Walmart did. The problem is when the incumbant says "I want Walmart to support me, so even though I don't like this legislation, I will vote for it anyway.". If the incumbant votes against the legislation, Walmart should be allowed to run ads saying why the incumbant hasn't been good for the community or country or whatever.

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

How naive.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

How naive.

I don't think so. What power does the money (or whatever type donation) have over the politician except his desire to have more of it?

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

Well I think that is true in a vacuum. But the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Well I think that is true in a vacuum. But the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird.

Indeed, the Constitution and numerous pieces of legislation rely on many "legislative facts" and assumptions about the world without bothering to define them or set them out. We know what life, liberty and property are without their being defined. Similarly, we know that our leaders lack integrity and devotion to the common good. Indeed, we fought a revolution over that.

Of course, if, in enacting the law, Congress had made a finding of fact that "the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird," the law would certainly survive rational basis scrutiny.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Of course, if, in enacting the law, Congress had made a finding of fact that "the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird," the law would certainly survive rational basis scrutiny.

LMAO..... I'd love to see THAT in the legislative notes

Though I don't think ALL of our leaders "lack integrity and devotion to the common good" (at least, not now in 2010). I just think that they all play a political game (duh),they are all forced to compromise on their values to do so, and where their money comes from is a big part of that. Who doesn't want to help the people that helped them?