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?

[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

What was prevented was something like the NRA saying "Senator Whozit has voted to take your gun rights away" within 60 days (maybe 30) of an election.

The NRA could run ads saying "support gun rights" but could not mention Senator Whozit.

You keep focusing on orginizations like the NRA, thus missing the point. Corporations are the problem. Faceless, greed driven "persons" with no interest in the common good, and who are often partially foreign owned. This is the danger, not non-profits orginizations. Can the NRA or Sierra Club spend a billion dollars to elect a President or pack the Senate? How many mega-corps could? How about the King of Saudi Arabia being able to buy an American corporation and funnel billions through it to elect members of Congress? Does that thought still make you all warm and fuzzy about the SCOTUS's ruling?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

This may not be directly related but I heard this story yesterday and it, to me, speaks well to how allowing greater involvement of corporations in the political process is a threat to individual liberty (quite literally in this case). Our government is becoming more and more about protecting the healthy bottom line of corporate entities and less about protecting its citizens' rights and freedom.

Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed With Inmates