No Limits On Corporate Spending For Elections [Archive]

View Full Version : No Limits On Corporate Spending For Elections

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 07:58 AM

...as of today.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE?S ITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Discuss.

saysmydoctor

01/21/10, 08:24 AM

Free speech has been defended, as long as you can pay for it.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 08:27 AM

Interesting.

Free markets?

Is there something extremely bad about this I'm not seeing?

rawesome

01/21/10, 08:41 AM

Interesting.

Free markets?

Is there something extremely bad about this I'm not seeing?
Extremely bad? I don't know, potentially kind of.

Basically this just makes it more likely that politicians will fall directly into the wallets of big business.

rawesome

01/21/10, 08:48 AM

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 09:00 AM

Interesting.

Free markets?

Is there something extremely bad about this I'm not seeing?

I'll have to look it up, I forget if it was Colbert or Stewart who pointed this out, but there are laws and framework already on the books that could lead to corporations having more political sway than the general population. I forget what the process was that could lead to this, but the thing holding it at bay was the law that was just overturned. Give me some time to look into it.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 09:03 AM

Also, this could just be me, but I don't see what a free market has to do with campaign finance. If one really wanted to keep the government out of the business sector I would think they wouldn't want this to be allowed, as it marries the two together pretty tightly.
I don't think the government should run businesses ... but I think businesses should be allowed to spend their money how they choose.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 09:03 AM

Extremely bad? I don't know, potentially kind of.

Basically this just makes it more likely that politicians will fall directly into the wallets of big business.
And if the politicians fuck up - the market/stock holders should hold the business responsible.

I think I'm ok with that.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 09:08 AM

I'll have to look it up, I forget if it was Colbert or Stewart who pointed this out, but there are laws and framework already on the books that could lead to corporations having more political sway than the general population. I forget what the process was that could lead to this, but the thing holding it at bay was the law that was just overturned. Give me some time to look into it.
Interesting. I should do more research on the topic. I have a weird time with this one between what I would like to see - and what I think should be legal under an economistic and constitutional viewpoint.

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 09:20 AM

Interesting. I should do more research on the topic. I have a weird time with this one between what I would like to see - and what I think should be legal under an economistic and constitutional viewpoint.

Yeah, I just kept track of the story because the fallout was potentially very ominous. It's all 'slippery slope' crap, which isn't, as we all know, concrete, but a lot of the laws were apparently on the books, so if someone really wanted to push it, it apparently wouldn't be that much of an uphill battle.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 09:24 AM

Yeah, I just kept track of the story because the fallout was potentially very ominous. It's all 'slippery slope' crap, which isn't, as we all know, concrete, but a lot of the laws were apparently on the books, so if someone really wanted to push it, it apparently wouldn't be that much of an uphill battle.
http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections

Indeed, election data show it is true that the candidate who spends more money in a campaign usually wins. But is money the cause of the victory?

It might seem logical to think so, much as it might have seemed logical that a booming 1990s economy helped reduce crime. But just because two things are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. A correlation simply means that a relationship exists between two factors-let’s call them X and Y- but it tells you nothing about the direction of that relationship. It’s possible that X causes Y; it’s also possible that Y causes X; and it may be that X and Y are both being caused by some other factor, Z. [...] And what about the other half of the election truism-that the amount of money spent on campaign finance is obscenely huge? In a typical election period that includes campaigns for the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, about $1 billion is spent per year-which sounds like a lot of money, unless you care to measure it against something seemingly less important than democratic elections.

It is the same amount, for instance, that Americans spend every year on chewing gum.

I remembered reading this in the past -- worth bringing back out.

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 09:36 AM

http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections

Indeed, election data show it is true that the candidate who spends more money in a campaign usually wins. But is money the cause of the victory?

It might seem logical to think so, much as it might have seemed logical that a booming 1990s economy helped reduce crime. But just because two things are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. A correlation simply means that a relationship exists between two factors-let’s call them X and Y- but it tells you nothing about the direction of that relationship. It’s possible that X causes Y; it’s also possible that Y causes X; and it may be that X and Y are both being caused by some other factor, Z. [...] And what about the other half of the election truism-that the amount of money spent on campaign finance is obscenely huge? In a typical election period that includes campaigns for the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, about $1 billion is spent per year-which sounds like a lot of money, unless you care to mea*sure it against something seemingly less important than democratic elections.

It is the same amount, for instance, that Americans spend every year on chewing gum.

I remembered reading this in the past -- worth bringing back out.

Agreed, which is why I am trying so desperately to find the clip and research it a bit; it wasn't that corporate money would be used in elections, it was that there are laws on the books that could allow corporations to count as people and actually get votes in the election, the only thing that was keeping that from possibly happening was some kind of loophole involving corporations not giving money (or something), i.e., this law that was just overturned. So now that the law is null and void, it would mean that all the legislation is in place for corporations to have levels of power they've never had before politically.

Could all be nothing, but I remember being worried about it enough to keep track of the story...just wish I had done a better job.

My computer is very slow, so scanning through Daily Show clips is a little rough on it...

saysmydoctor

01/21/10, 10:01 AM

Why don't businesses and unions take out the middleman and just pay the voter directly?

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 10:06 AM

Why don't businesses and unions take out the middleman and just pay the voter directly?
Votes for sale!

Wonder what % would take a check for $5k -- and if it would be enough to swing an election.

apoemtothedead

01/21/10, 10:13 AM

http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections

Indeed, election data show it is true that the candidate who spends more money in a campaign usually wins. But is money the cause of the victory?

It might seem logical to think so, much as it might have seemed logical that a booming 1990s economy helped reduce crime. But just because two things are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. A correlation simply means that a relationship exists between two factors-let’s call them X and Y- but it tells you nothing about the direction of that relationship. It’s possible that X causes Y; it’s also possible that Y causes X; and it may be that X and Y are both being caused by some other factor, Z. [...] And what about the other half of the election truism-that the amount of money spent on campaign finance is obscenely huge? In a typical election period that includes campaigns for the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, about $1 billion is spent per year-which sounds like a lot of money, unless you care to measure it against something seemingly less important than democratic elections.

It is the same amount, for instance, that Americans spend every year on chewing gum.

I remembered reading this in the past -- worth bringing back out.
It's been shown that the more campaign spending a challenger does the more likely they are to win the seat. This may not seem like a bad thing but if corporations are funneling tens-of-thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of dollars into certain House races, while regular citizens are still limited to the $2200 set forth by McCain-Feingold, the campaign dollars contributed/spent may not reflect the true will of the people and it becomes more likely the election may not either.

Another reason why I think this is silly is that corporations are legally seen as one person but now they can contribute more than one person can.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 10:15 AM

It's been shown that the more campaign spending a challenger does the more likely they are to win the seat. This may not seem like a bad thing but if corporations are funneling tens-of-thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of dollars into certain House races, while regular citizens are still limited to the $2200 set forth by McCain-Feingold, the campaign dollars contributed/spent may not reflect the true will of the people and it becomes more likely the election may not either.

Another reason why I think this is silly is that corporations are legally seen as one person but now they can contribute more than one person can.
... so is the answer to pull all spending limits? Let the rich rule? I mean, would that be much different than now?

thepianominstre

01/21/10, 10:19 AM

Interesting. I should do more research on the topic. I have a weird time with this one between what I would like to see - and what I think should be legal under an economistic and constitutional viewpoint.

This.

Part of me wishes nobody could advertise at all... (can you imagine our founding fathers running like that... "JEFFERSON OWNZ SLAVES!!!! BAD FOR AMERICA!!!!")

...but if I'm sick of government involvement with business, where do I stand on government involving itself with business by telling business how involved it can be with government?

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:19 AM

Votes for sale!

Wonder what % would take a check for $5k -- and if it would be enough to swing an election.

hmm thats an extremely interesting question. i have a good feeling that alot of people would take it considering the mentality that the general public already has of "its only one vote, it doesnt matter"

apoemtothedead

01/21/10, 10:20 AM

... so is the answer to pull all spending limits? Let the rich rule? I mean, would that be much different than now?
I thought the $2200 limit from McCain-Feingold was fine. It leveled the playing field somewhat. I realize most people can't contribute $2200, but limiting corporations to $2200 was much better than them giving politicians a blank check, which it seems they can essentially do now.

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:21 AM

this whole news comes to a big surprise to me by the way. especially considering our current president ran his campaign by not allowing campaign donations from corporations.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 10:21 AM

I thought the $2200 limit from McCain-Feingold was fine. It leveled the playing field somewhat. I realize most people can't contribute $2200, but limiting corporations to $2200 was much better than them giving politicians a blank check, which it seems they can essentially do now.
I guess I'm trying to figure out what the big problem is with a blank check -- which I feel like they pretty much already have.

Again, moreso trying to figure out where I stand on this than having any sort of real opinion at the moment.

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:27 AM

I guess I'm trying to figure out what the big problem is with a blank check -- which I feel like they pretty much already have.

Again, moreso trying to figure out where I stand on this than having any sort of real opinion at the moment.

with a blank check then it feels like politician is way more likely to not do or propose any bills that would in any way harm the business. I know it pretty much happens now but i feel like with the law lifted it sets a new precedence that the business can buy the elections.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 10:30 AM

with a blank check then it feels like politician is way more likely to not do or propose any bills that would in any way harm the business. I know it pretty much happens now but i feel like with the law lifted it sets a new precedence that the business can buy the elections.
I suppose the cynic in me already feels like that happens ... haha.

apoemtothedead

01/21/10, 10:36 AM

I guess I'm trying to figure out what the big problem is with a blank check -- which I feel like they pretty much already have.

Again, moreso trying to figure out where I stand on this than having any sort of real opinion at the moment.
If I remember correctly, prior to this ruling, companies, through their own PACs, could only donate $5000 to a candidate per election cycle (primary, general election). Individuals could only donate $2200 per cycle. The way I read this ruling, corporations can now bypass setting up a PAC and donate limitless amounts, ultimately giving them much greater influence over a common person.

And you could be right that stuff like this might already happen but now it definitely will happen.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 10:38 AM

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:38 AM

I suppose the cynic in me already feels like that happens ... haha.

true true. my poli sci teacher was in the ny state senate and he would tell us how when he was running for election large, mainly local, companies would donate huge amounts of money and it was pretty much unchecked by the government.

i just dont like that. it seems wrong. business should be about business not politics.

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:44 AM

I suppose the counter argument is ... shouldn't those with more money have more influence than the common person? I know in theory this isn't the best way of handling it -- but in a capitalistic society, is there any other way?

no. we shouldnt turn our country into such a strong class system where the top 2 control even more than they already do.
As far as another way to handle this? not really, but thats why a pure capitalistic society is such a poor idea.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 10:46 AM

no. we shouldnt turn our country into such a strong class system where the top 2 control even more than they already do.
As far as another way to handle this? not really, but thats why a pure capitalistic society is such a poor idea.
I don't see how they could control any more than they already do ... haha.

splitsecond

01/21/10, 10:47 AM

splitsecond

01/21/10, 10:48 AM

no. we shouldnt turn our country into such a strong class system where the top 2 control even more than they already do.
As far as another way to handle this? not really, but thats why a pure capitalistic society is such a poor idea.

They have been getting around these laws for years, it isn't going to change a whole lot, other than to get congress to pass some clearer disclaimer laws.

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:48 AM

I don't see how they could control any more than they already do ... haha.

oh im sure those greedy bastards would find a way! haha

JordanBuell

01/21/10, 10:52 AM

They have been getting around these laws for years, it isn't going to change a whole lot, other than to get congress to pass some clearer disclaimer laws.

thats true. we need to treat white collar criminals the same way that we treat blue collar criminals. seriously the police need to crack down on these crimes. its absolutely ridiculous.

apoemtothedead

01/21/10, 10:54 AM

This is constitutionally the correct ruling. I have always wondered how these laws existed for so long. All that needs to be done is the correct transparencies and disclaimers put into place on spending and advertising, similar to the "I Approve this message" lines.
If corporations are legally seen as a single person, why are they able to contribute without limit while citizens, also single persons, have a restriction? Doesn't that violate equal protection or something like that?

I'm not arguing, just asking, since you're the lawyer and all.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 11:04 AM

This is constitutionally the correct ruling. I have always wondered how these laws existed for so long. All that needs to be done is the correct transparencies and disclaimers put into place on spending and advertising, similar to the "I Approve this message" lines.
I think they should have to have on their website - or other public documentation - all their corporate donors. Do they?

splitsecond

01/21/10, 11:08 AM

I think they should have to have on their website - or other public documentation - all their corporate donors. Do they?

I honestly have no idea, I know thats what McCain had wanted for the longest time, but I quit paying attention to all that legislation when it was going through. I agree though, its pretty simple to list all of that stuff.

xshady121

01/21/10, 11:42 AM

In the scope of the original suit, Citizens United V FEC brings up interesting points.

I agree with what Citizens United fought for-- essentially they wanted their film to be treated like a film and not a political ad-- which is understandable.

Hillary: The Movie should have been treated like any other documentary, like Farenheit 9/11 or An Inconvenient Truth.

The creators of "Not Evil Just Wrong", a film which retorts "An Inconvienant Truth" were unable to get their film mass released due to this provision in mccain feingold. On that sense, it doesn't seem fair that AIT can be released but NEJW.

With all of that said, I agree with the decision but fear that it may be opening a larger pandoras box.

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 11:45 AM

With all of that said, I agree with the decision but fear that it may be opening a larger pandoras box.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. I feel so conflicted.

xshady121

01/21/10, 11:45 AM

If corporations are legally seen as a single person, why are they able to contribute without limit while citizens, also single persons, have a restriction? Doesn't that violate equal protection or something like that?

I'm not arguing, just asking, since you're the lawyer and all.

Individuals are limited in the amount they can donate to a campaign. Just like corporations.

The issue here is independent expenditures. They are saying they can't limit Corporation X from spending millions of dollars independently to advocate the issues (they can't tell you who to vote for, just like: McCain is insert bad adjective here).

In that sense, you as an individual also can spend millions of dollars (it's unlimited) of your own money on an independent expenditure.

In that sense, you're allowed to contribute without limit. Limits only apply to direct contributions to campaigns. And that is for both individuals and businesses.

xshady121

01/21/10, 11:51 AM

I thought the $2200 limit from McCain-Feingold was fine. It leveled the playing field somewhat. I realize most people can't contribute $2200, but limiting corporations to $2200 was much better than them giving politicians a blank check, which it seems they can essentially do now.

The limits are still in place.

This decision only applies to independent expenditures and the government saying "no, you can't say this".

Donating to a campaign is still capped at 2200.

saysmydoctor

01/21/10, 11:53 AM

I thought the $2200 limit from McCain-Feingold was fine. It leveled the playing field somewhat. I realize most people can't contribute $2200, but limiting corporations to $2200 was much better than them giving politicians a blank check, which it seems they can essentially do now.
:appl:
I suppose the cynic in me already feels like that happens ... haha.
It probably does, but not on paper. Unless the people involved are stupid. Sup Stevens.

xshady121

01/21/10, 11:56 AM

If I remember correctly, prior to this ruling, companies, through their own PACs, could only donate $5000 to a candidate per election cycle (primary, general election). Individuals could only donate $2200 per cycle. The way I read this ruling, corporations can now bypass setting up a PAC and donate limitless amounts, ultimately giving them much greater influence over a common person.

And you could be right that stuff like this might already happen but now it definitely will happen.

I suppose the counter argument is ... shouldn't those with more money have more influence than the common person? I know in theory this isn't the best way of handling it -- but in a capitalistic society, is there any other way?

That is not how the decision is at all.

This decision applies to independent expenditures.

If you wanted to donate to Martha Coakley's campaign, you still are capped-- regardless of if you are a individual or business.

This decision says that if Absolutepunk.net wanted to run an add INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CAMPAIGNS, and without the consent or help of any of the campaigns, they can do so unlimited and unregulated, which they should be able to, as it is a matter of free speech.

The decision also says that if Jason Tate wanted to run an add as an individual, he can spend his own money to run one as well, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CAMPAIGNS, and without the consent or help of any campaigns.

That is all. This decision says now they can use corporate money to run independent expenditures.

This has nothing at all to do with PACs.

Jason Tate

01/21/10, 11:59 AM

That is not how the decision is at all.

This decision applies to independent expenditures.

If you wanted to donate to Martha Coakley's campaign, you still are capped-- regardless of if you are a individual or business.

This decision says that if Absolutepunk.net wanted to run an add INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CAMPAIGNS, and without the consent or help of any of the campaigns, they can do so unlimited and unregulated, which they should be able to, as it is a matter of free speech.

The decision also says that if Jason Tate wanted to run an add as an individual, he can spend his own money to run one as well, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CAMPAIGNS, and without the consent or help of any campaigns.

That is all. This decision says now they can use corporate money to run independent expenditures.

This has nothing at all to do with PACs.
Just read through the decision ... don't see why anyone is up in arms about this. Especially if it's got full disclosure on the ads (paid for by X).

xshady121

01/21/10, 12:02 PM

Just read through the decision ... don't see why anyone is up in arms about this. Especially if it's got full disclosure on the ads (paid for by X).

Yeah. It's not like this now allows bank of america to donate millions of dollars directly to a campaign. They are still bound by FEC laws. They just now can run independent expenditures, which really are nothing new.

I think it has the potential to lead to more dangerous forms of politicking, but it was necessary, as the original provision certainly infringed upon first amendment rights.

MyNameIsRoss

01/21/10, 12:08 PM

i've always been cynical about this anyway, imo it won't make much a difference.

punctum facio

01/21/10, 12:53 PM

Pardon me if I am wrong, but doesn't this open up the door to foreign corporations that operate in the United States to make campaign donations?

xshady121

01/21/10, 12:54 PM

Pardon me if I am wrong, but doesn't this open up the door to foreign corporations that operate in the United States to make campaign donations?

This does not effect campaign donations.

punctum facio

01/21/10, 01:05 PM

This does not effect campaign donations.

Well, campaign financing. Regardless, doesn't this decision allow for the possibility of foreign-owned corporations influencing US elections?

xshady121

01/21/10, 01:09 PM

I'm fairly certain there was nothing stopping them in the first place.

nfgrocker16

01/21/10, 04:54 PM

xshady121

01/21/10, 05:05 PM

The fact that corporations are considered legal persons is a whole problem in itself, brought on by a technicality.

No it isn't.

nfgrocker16

01/21/10, 05:06 PM

No it isn't.

The fact that its a problem or the fact that it was created out of thin air?

xshady121

01/21/10, 05:08 PM

The fact that its a problem or the fact that it was created out of thin air?

Well, are you arguing that the right of free speech shouldn't extend to corporations?

nfgrocker16

01/21/10, 05:11 PM

Well, are you arguing that the right of free speech shouldn't extend to corporations?

I'm arguing that corporations shouldn't be considered people because they aren't people.

I'll expand. I believe businesses should be considered sociopathic entities. I always thought our country was meant to be run by all the people, for all their well being. Not by organizations who's main purpose is to make a profit, regardless of it's effect on people.

GeeBee

01/21/10, 05:19 PM

I'm arguing that corporations shouldn't be considered people because they aren't people.

Right, and 1000 shouldn't be considered 1 because it's a helluva lot bigger, more influential, and powerful.

crackedthesky

01/21/10, 06:04 PM

It takes money to run a campaign. The more money you have, the more you can afford to tour, to put otu commercials, etc.
Under this new format, a corporation can dish out as much money as they want to a candidate. Thus, there will be a gross imbalance of power between, say, a Republican funded by the NRA and an independent being self-funded.
The other major issue is that there is a limit to how much an individual can donate to a campaign, but no such limit exists for a large corporation. That's ridiculously unfair.

To put it quite simply, if the CEO of Wal-Mart wants a candidate to win, that candidate is going to win.

Of course, this could turn out to be a lot less of a deal than we think. A lot of companies, unless their very corporation is rooted in it, tend to stay away from politics entirely. Many don't want to take a stance, because they risk losing customers. The best-case scenario I see from this is that our political campaigns will remain largely the same - only much, much louder. Instead of seeing a political commercial every break, they'll likely be everywhere. Billboards will more frequent. And now it's legal to air an ad which says "shop at Wal-Mart, and also, vote Quimby!"

In the end, I can see why people are calling a victory for free speech, and I can see why people are worried. However, the use of the term "fair" in our politcial world is already a farse, and has been for decades. An Independent isn't even allowed to show up to a debate, and we're complaining about unfair spending?

Money isn't the only thing that decides an election. Sarah Palin will have all the money she'll ever need, and she's not going to win an election. The American people are smarter than to let a corporation buy their President.

crackedthesky

01/21/10, 06:06 PM

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:13 PM

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:18 PM

crackedthesky

01/21/10, 06:26 PM

It is a much smaller deal than you're making it to be.

This says that Citizens United (or any other corporation) can run independent expenditure ads. That is all.

They are nothing new.

As I said, I was giving the extreme case. I don't think the effect of this will extend beyond seeing more commercials.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DECISION SAID!

read the fucking thread first. that is not what it said at all.

There is still a limit for corporations donating to campaigns. good grief

Okay, so after reading over it, my understanding is that corporations can't directly contribute to a candidate, but they can pay to run ads for them. If I'm reading this correctly, this seems like it isn't a big deal at all. A corporation running ads for a politician won't influence the vote any more than it will influence people's decisions in buying a product. I don't go to McDonald's more than Burger King because McDonald's airs more commercials than BK, after all.

I am curious as to what would happen if a corporation runs an ad against a candidate which includes false information. Nobody stops candidates from including skewed or false information in their ads against each other, will corporations be penalized if they do the same?

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:27 PM

As I said, I was giving the extreme case. I don't think the effect of this will extend beyond seeing more commercials.

Okay, so after reading over it, my understanding is that corporations can't directly contribute to a candidate, but they can pay to run ads for them. If I'm reading this correctly, this seems like it isn't a big deal at all. A corporation running ads for a politician won't influence the vote any more than it will influence people's decisions in buying a product. I don't go to McDonald's more than Burger King because McDonald's airs more commercials than BK, after all.

I am curious as to what would happen if a corporation runs an ad against a candidate which includes false information. Nobody stops candidates from including skewed or false information in their ads against each other, will corporations be penalized if they do the same?

You are still reading it wrong.

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 06:31 PM

Am I being stupid in feeling that this law needed to be overturned, but I'm wary now that the language separating corporations and 'person' seems to be a bit more blurred than it was yesterday?

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:34 PM

Am I being stupid in feeling that this law needed to be overturned, but I'm wary now that the language separating corporations and 'person' seems to be a bit more blurred than it was yesterday?

This is the biggest non issue I've seen in a good while.

The hullabaloo is coming from the lack of individual knowledge on campaign finance.

Everyone is still capped on how much they can donate to an individual campaign. Everyone.

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 06:37 PM

This is the biggest non issue I've seen in a good while.

The hullabaloo is coming from the lack of individual knowledge on campaign finance.

Everyone is still capped on how much they can donate to an individual campaign. Everyone.

But before there was a limit on how much corporations could spend, even for independent support separate from the campaign?

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:40 PM

But before there was a limit on how much corporations could spend, even for independent support separate from the campaign?

the [mccain feingold] law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election
That infringed on a corporations free speech. Of course it was overturned.

crackedthesky

01/21/10, 06:40 PM

You are still reading it wrong.

That's what I got from
"The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name."

Can you summarize it for me, then?

Am I being stupid in feeling that this law needed to be overturned, but I'm wary now that the language separating corporations and 'person' seems to be a bit more blurred than it was yesterday?

There is no language separating the two. Corporations are defined by the Supreme Court to count as individuals.

caveBEAR

01/21/10, 06:42 PM

There is no language separating the two. Corporations are defined by the Supreme Court to count as individuals.

Oh. Well, that's even less settling than I thought. Awesome.

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:49 PM

That's what I got from
"The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name."

Can you summarize it for me, then?

There is no language separating the two. Corporations are defined by the Supreme Court to count as individuals.

kJ5GlbnKl5Y

That's an issue ad. That's what you'll be getting. Now they will be able to run up to an election and will be able to say "vote for X" or "don't vote for Y" at the end. That is all.

Things are going to be just as they were. You won't even notice a difference.

xshady121

01/21/10, 06:52 PM

Okay, so after reading over it, my understanding is that corporations can't directly contribute to a candidate, but they can pay to run ads for them. If I'm reading this correctly, this seems like it isn't a big deal at all. A corporation running ads for a politician won't influence the vote any more than it will influence people's decisions in buying a product. I don't go to McDonald's more than Burger King because McDonald's airs more commercials than BK, after all.

I am curious as to what would happen if a corporation runs an ad against a candidate which includes false information. Nobody stops candidates from including skewed or false information in their ads against each other, will corporations be penalized if they do the same?

1) They can not make any ads in conjucture with any campaign. It has to be 100% on your own with the campaign not helping or even knowing about it til after the fact.

2) The same thing that would happen if a candidate lied or an issue group lied now. FEC fines. And court cases. No one has been dumb enough to lie before and no one will be dumb enough now.

You won't even notice a difference to be honest. This is by and large the biggest non issue ever.

crackedthesky

01/21/10, 06:54 PM

kJ5GlbnKl5Y

That's an issue ad. That's what you'll be getting. Now they will be able to run up to an election and will be able to say "vote for X" or "don't vote for Y" at the end. That is all.

Things are going to be just as they were. You won't even notice a difference.

That's what I said in my assessment, it's basically just that they can advertise, now. And again, I doubt most corporations will even take part. Obviously some will, like I wouldn't be surprised to see the NRA air ads supporting a Republican candidate.

I can almost even foresee this as having some potential good. Like I said earlier, it's technically illegal to say things in your ads that aren't true, but yet every election, we see it, abundantly, from both sides. However, if a corporation was to step into that territory, I think there would be a bigger reaction, which could hopefully spill over into actual campaign ads, and possibly result in more strict rules when it comes to campaign ads.

GuitarR0cker1

01/21/10, 07:10 PM

I'm not that concerned, on constitutional grounds this ruling makes sense and I doubt that this ruling will significantly change how much influence corporations have on politics. As long as corporations are considered to have the same rights as people in the courts(which I will say makes some sense), rulings like this will continue to occur.

I still think its funny that in the past it was the conservatives constantly complaining about "activist" courts and now they're defending a ruling that has the potential to open a huge can of worms.

xshady121

01/21/10, 09:19 PM

That's what I said in my assessment, it's basically just that they can advertise, now. And again, I doubt most corporations will even take part. Obviously some will, like I wouldn't be surprised to see the NRA air ads supporting a Republican candidate.

I can almost even foresee this as having some potential good. Like I said earlier, it's technically illegal to say things in your ads that aren't true, but yet every election, we see it, abundantly, from both sides. However, if a corporation was to step into that territory, I think there would be a bigger reaction, which could hopefully spill over into actual campaign ads, and possibly result in more strict rules when it comes to campaign ads.

If you look at the original case, it is a n brainer that Citizens be allowed to go forth with Hillary: The Movie.

With that being said, of course McDonalds won't endorse a candidate. It would be foolish for any coporation to. However, they have the right to be fools.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 12:13 AM

I'm arguing that corporations shouldn't be considered people because they aren't people.

I'll expand. I believe businesses should be considered sociopathic entities. I always thought our country was meant to be run by all the people, for all their well being. Not by organizations who's main purpose is to make a profit, regardless of it's effect on people.

Right, and 1000 shouldn't be considered 1 because it's a helluva lot bigger, more influential, and powerful.
Thank you.

J.C.

01/22/10, 01:01 AM

I'm arguing that corporations shouldn't be considered people because they aren't people.

I'll expand. I believe businesses should be considered sociopathic entities. I always thought our country was meant to be run by all the people, for all their well being. Not by organizations who's main purpose is to make a profit, regardless of it's effect on people.

I think I'll buy into the idea that corporations get treated legally like the individual when I'm allowed to get away with as many deaths as Philip Morris/whatevertheycallthemselvesnow has.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 09:09 AM

The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
– Plato, ancient Greek philosopher
…The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
– Alex Carey, Australian social scientist
The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.
– Noam Chomsky, M.I.T. emeritus Professor of Linguistics
On Tuesday, January 19 (2010), the Obama administration got a kick in the pants from the Massachusetts voters when they filled former Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat by electing a conservative Republican candidate. The essence of their message was: stop dithering and start governing; stop trying to satisfy the bankers and please the editors of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, and start caring for the ordinary people.
Two days later, President Barack Obama seemed to have understood the people’s message when he announced a “Volcker rule” that will forbid large banks from owning hedge funds that make money by placing large bets against their own clients, using information that these same clients gave them. It was about time. Such a policy should have been announced months ago, if not years ago.
On the same day, however, a nonelected body, the U.S. Supreme Court, threw a different challenge to the Obama administration. Indeed, on Thursday January 21 (2010), a Republican-appointed majority on the U.S. Supreme Court took it upon itself to profoundly change (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?src=tptw) the U.S. Constitution and American democracy. Indeed, in what can be labeled a most reactionary decision, the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court, ruled (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?src=tptw) that legal entities, such as corporations and labor unions, have the same purely personal rights to free speech as living individuals. Indeed, the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_State s_Constitution) of the U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.
The only problem with such a wide interpretation of the U.S. Bills of Rights (N.B.: The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights) is that this runs contrary its letter and its spirit, since it clearly states later on that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States.” The words “people” and “citizenry” clearly refer here to living human beings, not to legal or artificial entities such as business corporations, labor unions, financial organizations or political lobbies.
Such entities, for example, cannot vote in an election. Indeed, laws governing voting rights in the United States clearly establish that only “Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50 states have the right to participate fully in the political system of the United States”. No mention is made of corporations or other legal entities.
However, with its January 19 (2010) decision, the majority on the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court is saying in effect that even if artificial entities cannot vote in an election, they can spend as much money as they like to influence the outcome of an election. Money is speech for them, and the more a legal entity has of it, the more it has a right to become powerful politically and control the political agenda.
In fact, what Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative Supreme Court majority have done is to overcome a century-old democratic tradition in the United States in granting a constitutional right to business corporations and to banks, (because they are really the ones with a lot of money), to use their enormous resources to not only participate in debates about public issues, but also, and above all, to de facto dictate the election of candidates of their choice to public office.
That’s plutocracy, not democracy!
Plutocracy is defined as a political system characterized by “the rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.” Democracy, on the other hand, is defined as a political system where political power belongs to the people. This means “a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The terms “the power to the people” are derived from the words “people” and “power” in Greek.
This fundamental idea of democracy was well summarized by President Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Gettysburg Address, when he said that it is “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” This is a definition that is based on the basic democratic principle of equality among human beings.
But now, the Roberts Court’s decision must have made President Lincoln turn in his grave, because that decision, in effect, transfers political power from the living “people” to artificial corporate entities, with tons of money to spend. If Congress does not act quickly to reverse this decision, legal entities will be able to spend freely in the media to support or oppose political candidates for president and Congress, and this, as far as the last moment of a political campaign. This is quite something!
By a stroke of the pen, the Roberts Court has thus abolished the laws governing American electoral financing and removed limits to how much special money interests can spend to have the elected officials they want. The government they want will largely be “a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” Truly amazing!
To reflect the new political philosophy of the five-member majority of the Roberts Court, the Preamble (http://www.answers.com/topic/preamble-to-the-constitution) of the U.S. Constitution that says “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” should, maybe, more appropriately be changed for “We, the business corporations of America…”
It is that much more ironic that the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the Constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. But the Roberts Court majority does not seem to agree with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Mason…etc. Because of their decision, the five conservative members of the U. S. Supreme Court of today have become the new Fathers of the U. S. Constitution.
For nearly a century, it has been assumed that the U.S. Bill of Rights protected persons, not corporations. Even if sometimes the courts have extended the rights of the14th Amendment banning the deprivation of property without due process or equal protection of the law to the property of corporations, it was never thought that the purely personal rights of the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights applied to corporate entities as well as to human beings. This is understandable. Business corporations are created through legislation that gives them potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance their efficiency as economic entities. While such characteristics can be beneficial in the economic sphere, they represent special dangers in the political sphere. That is the rationale for not extending constitutional rights to purely legal entities.
But now, the five-member majority of the Roberts Court have said that such legalized artificial entities have the same constitutionally protected rights to engage in political activities as living individuals.
This is clearly revolutionary or, more precisely, counter-revolutionary.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/the-united-states-of-corporate-america-a-plutocracy/

Also, read this as well: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/corporate-personhood-and-political-free-speech-tin-man-k-o-s-straw-man/

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 09:19 AM

rainnwilson (http://twitter.com/rainnwilson) (http://www.absolutepunk.net/)
Hey @SenJohnMcCain (http://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain) - what do you think of our new activist supreme court overturning what had been law for years & helping those lobbyists?

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 09:29 AM

I'm curious what McCain's legacy is now, McCain-Feingold was really all he had going for him.

xshady121

01/22/10, 09:32 AM

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/the-united-states-of-corporate-america-a-plutocracy/

Also, read this as well: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/corporate-personhood-and-political-free-speech-tin-man-k-o-s-straw-man/

I don't agree with that commentary at all.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 09:33 AM

Corporations hire thousands of people. How can they be counted as individuals? It's the stupidest fucking ruling I've ever seen.

xshady121

01/22/10, 09:38 AM

That doesn't change the fact that the should be afforded the right to free speech.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 09:38 AM

Corporations hire thousands of people. How can they be counted as individuals? It's the stupidest fucking ruling I've ever seen.
They're made up of people that hold certain rights - should the corporation not have those rights?

Say AP.net (an LLC) wants to put something together (show, etc.) -- should we not have the same rights as Jason Tate the person has?

wrppdarndyrfngr

01/22/10, 09:41 AM

I don't think I like this ruling. Still trying to wrap my head around it tho.

xshady121

01/22/10, 09:42 AM

They're made up of people that hold certain rights - should the corporation not have those rights?

Say AP.net (an LLC) wants to put something together (show, etc.) -- should we not have the same rights as Jason Tate the person has?

Exactly this.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 09:42 AM

That doesn't change the fact that the should be afforded the right to free speech.

They're made up of people that hold certain rights - should the corporation not have those rights?

Say AP.net (an LLC) wants to put something together (show, etc.) -- should we not have the same rights as Jason Tate the person has?
No the corporation should not have those rights because it is an artificial institution. It's basically giving a blank pass for corporations to use their huge wallets to fund essentially a second campaign for whatever candidate they choose.

If the people involved in the company want to do it, they should it individually. But whether corporations should be allowed to do so, I don't believe they should have the same right. It's not a right they are entitled. They aren't a person. They are a company.

Personal opinion.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 09:43 AM

I'd approve of this more if every-day stockholders in companies were WAY more represented. This decision is ridiculous.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 09:50 AM

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-scotus-decision.html
"It strikes me as an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment, as extreme as this court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. And I think it will tilt the political balance toward a fusion of government and corporatism - even more than we have already."

And the word he is looking for is clusterfuck.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 09:52 AM

No the corporation should not have those rights because it is an artificial institution. It's basically giving a blank pass for corporations to use their huge wallets to fund essentially a second campaign for whatever candidate they choose.

If the people involved in the company want to do it, they should it individually. But whether corporations should be allowed to do so, I don't believe they should have the same right. It's not a right they are entitled. They aren't a person. They are a company.

Personal opinion.
But Jason Tate does not want to put on a show to support XYZ personally. AP.net does. And AP.net would like the freedom of speech protection to be able to do so.

This ruling is being looked at by critics as "the big (bad) companies spending money on campaigns" and ignores a lot of the good it does for smaller companies. Hell, my take (as counter intuitive to my usual stance on politics may be) is that people should be able to spend their money as they please. I don't like the idea of anyone being able to tell someone how they can or can't spend their money. If a company is going ape shit with spending for a candidate and you don't like it? Don't buy their products and harm their bottom line so they can't. I don't think we should limit the rights of anyone simply because we don't like what they're saying. I do, however, think it should be transparent. If company X is spending a shit load of money to support candidate Y - we should be able to see it. Similar to the PAC laws currently in place.

I feel that it would be hypocritical of my first-amendment stance to state otherwise. The thing is, and I'll admit this ... the slippery slope this opens (casinos, banks, insurers, and utilities) is going to put a massive strain on my stringent first-amendment beliefs.

caveBEAR

01/22/10, 10:01 AM

Does a company you work for funneling money into a candidate you don't supportl violate freedom of speech?

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:04 AM

Does a company you work for funneling money into a candidate you don't supportl violate freedom of speech?
Don't see how it could.

If your company tells you you can't personally donate to the opposition - then it (probably) would.

xshady121

01/22/10, 10:05 AM

Does a company you work for funneling money into a candidate you don't supportl violate freedom of speech?

I wouldn't use the term funneling money as that is not what is happening.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:10 AM

I wouldn't use the term funneling money as that is not what is happening.
Maybe you know this ... what's the big difference between this new ruling and the current laws for PACS?

Could a corporation have created a PAC with company $ in the past to bypass the law?

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:19 AM

Does a company you work for funneling money into a candidate you don't supportl violate freedom of speech?
Exactly, the products of my labor are being used to support some candidate. Are the executives consulting their employees? Are they consulting their stockholders?

xshady121

01/22/10, 10:20 AM

Maybe you know this ... what's the big difference between this new ruling and the current laws for PACS?

Could a corporation have created a PAC with company $ in the past to bypass the law?

With the corporate account? No.

A PAC needs to accept donations from 50 or more people and donate to 5 or more federal campaigns. PACs are limited as to the amount one can donate and the amount it can contribute to a campaign.

I believe PACs also can't advocate the direct election or defeat of any candidate, as per the 8 magic words of buckley v valeo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Magic_Words) but I'm not 100% certain if that applies to PACs.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:20 AM

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/494/652.html)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html)

The two precedents overruled. Interesting to read how the basis of the original law was to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. This is why I think transparency needs to be paramount.

xshady121

01/22/10, 10:21 AM

Exactly, the products of my labor are being used to support some candidate. Are the executives consulting their employees? Are they consulting their stockholders?

What about the General Motors PAC? Do you think it consulted everyone on who to donate to?

wrppdarndyrfngr

01/22/10, 10:21 AM

Maybe you know this ... what's the big difference between this new ruling and the current laws for PACS?

Could a corporation have created a PAC with company $ in the past to bypass the law?

Yes they could and did

Koch Industries PAC
https://www.kochpac.com/ssl/default.aspx
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:21 AM

Exactly, the products of my labor are being used to support some candidate. Are the executives consulting their employees? Are they consulting their stockholders?
You're not being forced to work -- you can quit. You can sell the stock. Don't like this rebuttal.

xshady121

01/22/10, 10:22 AM

Yes they could and did

Koch Industries PAC
https://www.kochpac.com/ssl/default.aspx
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489

That was from individual donors and not the company purse itself.

The company couldn't donate money from it's corporate account to a PAC. It could however set up a PAC and encourage it's workers to donate to it, as the Kock PAC did.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:23 AM

You're not being forced to work -- you can quit. You can sell the stock.
And find work where else? Yes, people are being forced to work--in that if they want to live and support their families, they better work.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:24 AM

What about the General Motors PAC? Do you think it consulted everyone on who to donate to?
Just because I didn't name this particular example doesn't mean I don't think it's an ethics issue. Then again, PACs also generally advertise who they are raising money for with fundraising letters and such. I get them all the time.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:25 AM

With the corporate account? No.

A PAC needs to accept donations from 50 or more people and donate to 5 or more federal campaigns. PACs are limited as to the amount one can donate and the amount it can contribute to a campaign.

I believe PACs also can't advocate the direct election or defeat of any candidate, as per the 8 magic words of buckley v valeo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Magic_Words) but I'm not 100% certain if that applies to PACs.

Yes they could and did

Koch Industries PAC
https://www.kochpac.com/ssl/default.aspx
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489
Interesting.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we should not allow a company to spend its money as they wish (even the dissenting opinion was not overtly strong IMO). The best I've heard is to prevent corruption. But from my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) the money still can't go directly to a candidate (ie: a company can't just hand Obama a bucket of cash) ... and if it's very clear on all ads who is paying for what ... why can't Coke run an ad for someone?

Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements, at least in the absence of proof of threats or reprisals. “Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per) dissented on this point.

Thomas is a moron.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:27 AM

And find work where else? Yes, people are being forced to work--in that if they want to live and support their families, they better work.
Find work at a place not spending money on a candidate you don't support. You have the personal choice of where you work. Come on.

wrppdarndyrfngr

01/22/10, 10:27 AM

That was from individual donors and not the company purse itself.

The company couldn't donate money from it's corporate account to a PAC. It could however set up a PAC and encourage it's workers to donate to it, as the Kock PAC did.

ok gotcha.

xshady121

01/22/10, 10:28 AM

Interesting.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we should not allow a company to spend its money as they wish. The best I've heard is to prevent corruption. But from my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) the money still can't go directly to a candidate (ie: a company can't just hand Obama a bucket of cash) ... and if it's very clear on all ads who is paying for what ... why can't Coke run an ad for someone?

Exactly.

The limits on campaign contributions are still in place. All this decision did was level the playing field. You as Jason Tate could have ran a campaign against Huckabee, enlightening people as to his clemency blunder, but up until yesterday, Absolutepunk.net couldn't have.

You as absolutepunk.net LLC are still limited to the same direct contribution limit you were limited to in the past.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:30 AM

Because Coke has a bottomless wallet practically where they pour however much they want into a campaign--you don't see how that kind oversaturation can be a problem? They could drown out opposition.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:30 AM

Find work at a place not spending money on a candidate you don't support. You have the personal choice of where you work. Come on.
You obviously haven't been on the job hunt lately.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:33 AM

Because Coke has a bottomless wallet practically where they pour however much they want into a campaign--you don't see how that kind oversaturation can be a problem? They could drown out opposition.
The amount of money being spent in campaigns is already virtually bottomless. The opposition is given the same tools -- Coke supports candidate X, Google supports candidate Y. If they want to get into a spending battle -- so be it.

The saturation of political ads is already in the "over" category. We see massive ad-blanket-campaigns all the time.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:34 AM

You obviously haven't been on the job hunt lately.
That doesn't change anything. If someone feels strongly about something - they don't have to take the job. Because the job market sucks - you have to make sacrifices where you choose to work. Maybe it's in pay. Maybe it's in benefits. Maybe it's in title. Maybe it's in distance from home. Maybe it's in who they support in elections.

This is reality.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:34 AM

The amount of money being spent in campaigns is already virtually bottomless. The opposition is given the same tools -- Coke supports candidate X, Google supports candidate Y. If they want to get into a spending battle -- so be it.

The saturation of political ads is already in the "over" category. We see massive ad-blanket-campaigns all the time.
In a way, but really no. Previously companies couldn't spend limitlessly their own money. PACs could, but they made it all through donations. It's different.

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 10:37 AM

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:39 AM

In a way, but really no. Previously companies couldn't spend limitlessly their own money. PACs could, but they made it all through donations. It's different.
With the amount of $ being spent during the past few elections - it's practically a moot point. At some point we reach a limit on available airtime to begin with ... and I still don't see why a company can't spend their own money. It's their own money.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 10:41 AM

I believe this to be a ridiculous assertion. People NEED to work.
And people CAN work. No one is stopping them from taking a job with lower pay, different title, farther distance, different political views, etc. etc. etc. This does not limit anyone's ability to work.

Don't like that Nike has overseas plants? Don't work there.

Need a job? Guess your moral trepidation doesn't feed mouths. Or you find a job that's a better fit for you.

WarpSpeedChewy

01/22/10, 10:52 AM

That is not how the decision is at all.

This decision applies to independent expenditures.

If you wanted to donate to Martha Coakley's campaign, you still are capped-- regardless of if you are a individual or business.

This decision says that if Absolutepunk.net wanted to run an add INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CAMPAIGNS, and without the consent or help of any of the campaigns, they can do so unlimited and unregulated, which they should be able to, as it is a matter of free speech.

The decision also says that if Jason Tate wanted to run an add as an individual, he can spend his own money to run one as well, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CAMPAIGNS, and without the consent or help of any campaigns.

That is all. This decision says now they can use corporate money to run independent expenditures.

This has nothing at all to do with PACs.
Thank you for clearly laying this out.

I suppose this makes no difference from what's happening now. I do think however it could easily be abused unless there are rules of transparency in place. It could create a more of market of influence trading.

caveBEAR

01/22/10, 11:15 AM

I wouldn't use the term funneling money as that is not what is happening.

Sorry, I was just being loose with the vocabulary. I just meant 'supporting', but I'm sure anyone who opposed who they chose to support would probably angrily refer to it as 'funneling money'. :shrug:

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 11:34 AM

But Jason Tate does not want to put on a show to support XYZ personally. AP.net does. And AP.net would like the freedom of speech protection to be able to do so.

This ruling is being looked at by critics as "the big (bad) companies spending money on campaigns" and ignores a lot of the good it does for smaller companies. Hell, my take (as counter intuitive to my usual stance on politics may be) is that people should be able to spend their money as they please. I don't like the idea of anyone being able to tell someone how they can or can't spend their money. If a company is going ape shit with spending for a candidate and you don't like it? Don't buy their products and harm their bottom line so they can't. I don't think we should limit the rights of anyone simply because we don't like what they're saying. I do, however, think it should be transparent. If company X is spending a shit load of money to support candidate Y - we should be able to see it. Similar to the PAC laws currently in place.

I feel that it would be hypocritical of my first-amendment stance to state otherwise. The thing is, and I'll admit this ... the slippery slope this opens (casinos, banks, insurers, and utilities) is going to put a massive strain on my stringent first-amendment beliefs.

Freedom of speech isn't my biggest concern with the business=persons rule. What worries me more is influence in politics strictly based on money for the betterment of a corporation, regardless of its effect on people or the economy as a whole. This is definitely a sticky one because why not argue that since corporations are entitled to law A why not also entitle them to law B?

I guess my opinion comes down to believing the government should be used as a tool to try and better the lives of as many people as possible. But again, that's my opinion of the purpose of government.

xshady121

01/22/10, 11:38 AM

Sorry, I was just being loose with the vocabulary. I just meant 'supporting', but I'm sure anyone who opposed who they chose to support would probably angrily refer to it as 'funneling money'. :shrug:

Funneling implies direct contributions to Candidate A

That is not what is happening here. This is Company X running adds that shit talk candidate B, which are done without the help or agreement of Candidate A.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 11:39 AM

Interesting.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we should not allow a company to spend its money as they wish (even the dissenting opinion was not overtly strong IMO). The best I've heard is to prevent corruption. But from my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) the money still can't go directly to a candidate (ie: a company can't just hand Obama a bucket of cash) ... and if it's very clear on all ads who is paying for what ... why can't Coke run an ad for someone?

Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements, at least in the absence of proof of threats or reprisals. “Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per) dissented on this point.

Thomas is a moron.

Would Congress need a warrant to find papers on their spending?

xshady121

01/22/10, 11:39 AM

Freedom of speech isn't my biggest concern with the business=persons rule. What worries me more is influence in politics strictly based on money for the betterment of a corporation, regardless of its effect on people or the economy as a whole. This is definitely a sticky one because why not argue that since corporations are entitled to law A why not also entitle them to law B?

I guess my opinion comes down to believing the government should be used as a tool to try and better the lives of as many people as possible. But again, that's my opinion of the purpose of government.

In New York, Governor Patterson was thinking of enacting a tax on sodas.

So Pepsi Cola, which world headquarters is located in Somers, NY, shouldn't be able to speak out in opposition of the proposed tax?

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 11:44 AM

That doesn't change anything. If someone feels strongly about something - they don't have to take the job. Because the job market sucks - you have to make sacrifices where you choose to work. Maybe it's in pay. Maybe it's in benefits. Maybe it's in title. Maybe it's in distance from home. Maybe it's in who they support in elections.

This is reality.

I agree with you in that where you work is a choice. I think an argument can be made though when talking about the pursuit of happiness and the ability of the majority (a business) to create circumstances that make life harder on the minority (an employee).

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 11:44 AM

Would Congress need a warrant to find papers on their spending?
Unsure how that relates ... in regard to their spending on ads for an issue?

xshady121

01/22/10, 11:45 AM

I agree with you in that where you work is a choice. I think an argument can be made though when talking about the pursuit of happiness and the ability of the majority (a business) to create circumstances that make life harder on the minority (an employee).

No an argument can't be made.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 11:45 AM

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 11:47 AM

In New York, Governor Patterson was thinking of enacting a tax on sodas.

So Pepsi Cola, which world headquarters is located in Somers, NY, shouldn't be able to speak out in opposition of the proposed tax?

Again freedom of speech isn't my biggest concern because when it comes down to it words are just words. They are rendered useless unless meaning or value is placed behind them.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 11:48 AM

Unsure how that relates ... in regard to their spending on ads for an issue?

In regards to transparency and where the money goes.

xshady121

01/22/10, 11:48 AM

Again freedom of speech isn't my biggest concern because when it comes down to it words are just words. They are rendered useless unless meaning or value is placed behind them.

You're sidestepping the question.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 11:49 AM

In regards to transparency and where the money goes.
I'd assume it would mean disclaimers on all ads - maybe a page in the SEC filings/reports/declarations as well. And I'd like to on their website where they are donating too.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 11:56 AM

You're sidestepping the question.

Again, freedom of speech isn't where my biggest problem lies. I just don't like politics being influenced by anything but votes. This defeats the purpose IMO.

So to answer your question directly, I think corporations should be able to say what they want. But I think there needs to be a separation in the fact that they are considered people. I'll make my argument that if you apply one law why can't you apply all to them?

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 11:57 AM

Again, freedom of speech isn't where my biggest problem lies. I just don't like politics being influenced by anything but votes. This defeats the purpose IMO.

So to answer your question directly, I think corporations should be able to say what they want. But I think there needs to be a separation in the fact that they are considered people. I'll make my argument that if you apply one law why can't you apply all to them?
This is the same logical fallacy anti-Gay marriage people use: If we let them marry - soon everyone will be marrying goats.

It's just as logically flawed when used in either context.

xshady121

01/22/10, 11:58 AM

Again, freedom of speech isn't where my biggest problem lies. I just don't like politics being influenced by anything but votes. This defeats the purpose IMO.

So to answer your question directly, I think corporations should be able to say what they want. But I think there needs to be a separation in the fact that they are considered people. I'll make my argument that if you apply one law why can't you apply all to them?

What other laws are you trying to apply? The right to marry?

You are cordially invited to the marriage of Google and McDonalds.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 12:04 PM

This is the same logical fallacy anti-Gay marriage people use: If we let them marry - soon everyone will be marrying goats.

It's just as logically flawed when used in either context.

Which is my reason for arguing that these laws are human laws, and shouldn't be connected towards things other than humans.

My brains hurting from trying to form a cohesive opinion on this. Sorry if I sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 12:08 PM

I'd assume it would mean disclaimers on all ads - maybe a page in the SEC filings/reports/declarations as well. And I'd like to on their website where they are donating too.

Ok. I thought that warrants needed to be issued for any type of seizure or knowledge of documents. But I agree that donations should always be made public.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 12:23 PM

What other laws are you trying to apply? The right to marry?

You are cordially invited to the marriage of Google and McDonalds.

Its in the vein that many corporations have the ability to sway policy and opinion more than a voter. I just don't like it. Most of the time you won't see corporations trying to get laws past that service the people of America which is what I believe laws should do.

Do you believe that any government regulation or cap is bad? Not implying you do, just curious.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 12:48 PM

I think that argument is superficial at best.

I don't think its superficial because money buys policy. I don't like that any opinion or personal agenda should be given more political clout than another but I get the impression from current political policy that this is the case. Maybe this is just me being aggravated with how capitalism seems to drive politics.

caveBEAR

01/22/10, 12:54 PM

Funneling implies direct contributions to Candidate A

That is not what is happening here. This is Company X running adds that shit talk candidate B, which are done without the help or agreement of Candidate A.

True, but said company is still funneling money to the interests of Candidate A, we can't act like these actions exist in vacuums. These donations can have real world effects on Candidate A or B.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 01:02 PM

True, but said company is still funneling money to the interests of Candidate A, we can't act like these actions exist in vacuums. These donations can have real world effects on Candidate A or B.
... not sure why this is a bad thing?

Zeran

01/22/10, 01:14 PM

...as of today.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE?S ITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Discuss.
great.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 01:15 PM

... not sure why this is a bad thing?

Policy tends to sway towards the heads of businesses instead of the employees? Not good IMHO. I don't like the idea of a ruling class.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 01:21 PM

I guess my opinions gotten to this point. Let the businesses do whatever they want with their money. Its their money and they can spend it how they choose. But then its the responsibility of the people to hold the business accountable, whether it be through not buying their product, not supporting candidates they support, etc.

My only worry is that there will come a point where people's opinions really don't hold any sway in political forum. Where money becomes the only way to honestly get policy initiated. And the idea that businesses being to big to fail will be the norm.

FueledByFrodo

01/22/10, 01:22 PM

xshady121

01/22/10, 01:34 PM

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 01:37 PM

I really think this has the makings to end badly for companies. If they continuously support a candidate many people are against, they're going to lose customers. Or they'll gain customers who do support that candidate. But I think if companies realize it's a huge risk of losing customers, this probably won't end up that big of a deal.

Also, if people just blindly follow the companies' candidate choices, does anyone think this has the makings to bring a third party into relevance, on par with the Democratic and Republican parties?

ehhh, I'm not sure this will have that much of an effect on companies. People need to get their product from somewhere and they usually don't stop buying based on political commentary of a company. My only worry is policy being put in place that would create a condition in which most of these companies would be too big to fail, regardless of poor practices that could have potentially negative effects on employees lower down on the company ladder or even people that have nothing to do with the company.

FueledByFrodo

01/22/10, 01:43 PM

You missed the entire point of this decision.
Free speech for companies, so they can promote any candidate they want with their own ads and their own money. That's the point. I was pointing out what end results could be.

ehhh, I'm not sure this will have that much of an effect on companies. People need to get their product from somewhere and they usually don't stop buying based on political commentary of a company. My only worry is policy being put in place that would create a condition in which most of these companies would be too big to fail, regardless of poor practices that could have potentially negative effects on employees lower down on the company ladder or even people that have nothing to do with the company.
That's true, but if people hold strongly enough to their political mindset they'd stop buying from them. It's not too likely, but it is possible.

Jason Tate

01/22/10, 01:44 PM

Policy tends to sway towards the heads of businesses instead of the employees? Not good IMHO. I don't like the idea of a ruling class.
The reality then ... is that you're living in the wrong country.

nfgrocker16

01/22/10, 01:46 PM

The reality then ... is that you're living in the wrong country.

I'm beginning to believe this myself.

My reason for sticking around his the hope that this might change with enough political push like we saw in the '08 election.

Plus I think this country is the best we got right now regardless of its obvious flaws.

Sorry for the multiple edits. Didn't feel like writing 3 different things.

x togepi x

01/22/10, 04:33 PM

this is yet another reason why capitalism is a bad idea nowadays.

punctum facio

01/22/10, 04:54 PM

Not sure if it has been posted, but it is pretty interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?scp=2&sq=Lobbyists&st=cse

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 06:22 PM

The reality then ... is that you're living in the wrong country.
What, so now we should leave if we don't like it too?

saysmydoctor

01/22/10, 06:38 PM

http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/8j2yz32CUwQ/index.html
Ok, Glenn Greenwald made a decent point.

xshady121

01/22/10, 07:44 PM

I don't think this will have any effect on PACs.

GeeBee

01/22/10, 08:19 PM

I'm for a technocracy.

nfgrocker16

01/23/10, 01:08 AM

this is yet another reason why capitalism is a bad idea nowadays.

Anything in moderation is fine. Capitalism is not a bad thing but when the few have more influence than the many there's a problem. And when the many make rules that take away freedoms of the few this is also a problem.

x togepi x

01/23/10, 11:30 AM

Anything in moderation is fine. Capitalism is not a bad thing but when the few have more influence than the many there's a problem. And when the many make rules that take away freedoms of the few this is also a problem.

we've never had capitalism in moderation because moderation contradicts the entire point of it.

don't care about the poor poor rich men that might get sort of screwed over from a shift to a new economic system. their lives will still be better than basically anyone currently being exploited in the third world is now.

open mind

01/23/10, 11:35 AM

unchecked corporate influence should work out just fine.

corporations are not people and they shouldn't be treated as such.

saysmydoctor

01/29/10, 09:20 PM

I_e2L9_8t8Q

Yeah, I've come around on this topic. I don't particularly like it, but :shrug:

oldwirehands

01/29/10, 11:45 PM

Well, this is interesting.

Dunn.Nope

02/11/10, 03:33 PM

changes like this make me scared for the future of Net Neutrality.

GeeBee

02/11/10, 03:37 PM

I_e2L9_8t8Q

Yeah, I've come around on this topic. I don't particularly like it, but :shrug:

Exactly. It's not like they're sanctioning anything that doesn't already happen anyway.

open mind

02/23/10, 12:42 PM

I_e2L9_8t8Q

Yeah, I've come around on this topic. I don't particularly like it, but :shrug:

treat the people running the corporation as people. being able to sue corporations isn't bad, but if corporations weren't considered people you'd have to sue the people running the corporation directly (the people who auctually carried out some wrongdoing) which would probably limit temptations to say....discard hazardous materials into the local water supply.

the issue of direct contributions isn't really much of an issue when it's just as easy to create groups out of thin air that create ad campaigns that don't directly endorse a candidate/position but clearly still tell you who/what you should vote for.

corporations won't stamp their brands on political ads, they'll use the old "paid for by concerned citizens of blah blah blah" so only those who bother researching various political groups will have any idea who's really saying what.

non-profits are freed some by this decision, but not as much as the for-profits since for-profit businesses tend to have much deeper pockets.

it doesn't surprise me that those with conflicting political views can agree that this isn't so bad. they all think they can use this to their advantage in one way or another.

open mind

02/23/10, 12:44 PM

Exactly. It's not like they're sanctioning anything that doesn't already happen anyway.

they are sanctioning the continuation and more then likely the worsening (know there's a better word for that but can't think of it) of a horrible trend.