Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

The hysteria seems to be stock in trade with him, too. McCain-Feingold, an act in 2002, sought to alter the then existent campaign contributions climate. Therefore, this decision of the Court, although unfortunate, works no innovation--it simply returns the situation to the status quo ante. If that were a situation in which corporations could have taken over the country with impunity, one would either assume that they have done so, or lacked the means to do so. Either way, it beggars the hysterical thesis of this thread.

I haven't missed your taking the opportunity for some cheap shots, O'George. It is all recorded against your name in the book of revenge.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

That's simply false. The truth is that the government would allow you all those things. After all, you are not a corporation, and have not received money from any.

Correct. But would it have been allowed, or instance, for a union to hire me to write such a book and allow it to be sold during the blackout if it contained political advocacy messages? I'm also assuming that I, as a small business owner, wouldn't be allowed to make a movie with those messages and be able to have it shown during the blackout? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was thinking the ruling would actually allow new voices to heard, maybe even working against large corporations rather than for.

Either way, I'm thinking of starting up an ad agency. Think of the jobs I could create!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think that you have to read the dissenting opinion to say that without being countered Thomas.

I don't mind being countered, and I did read the dissent -- thank you very much. The dissenters do not dispute the principle that corporations have First Amendment rights. Rather, they disagree with the majority on whether the law's free-speech restrictions pass strict scrutiny. The majority says they don't, the dissent says they do. But neither side contends that corporations don't have free speech rights.

This allegation doesn't come from any opinion in this case or any Supreme Court justice. Rather, it comes from political pundits outside the court who used the outrage over its decision to help grind their axe.

farmerman wrote:

Seems that Thomas was in partial dissent also.

Thomas dissented, in part, to the right of the court's opinion. He wanted to strike down additional requirements in the law to disclose information about corporate speakers. Because the four dissenters about the principal holding did join the disclosure part of the Court's opinion, Thomas's dissent has no consequences for the Court's decision.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

But would it have been allowed, or instance, for a union to hire me to write such a book and allow it to be sold during the blackout if it contained political advocacy messages?

Yes, that would have been allowed, both before and after the Court's decision. The provision the Court struck down did not apply to speech distributed in print.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes or no: do you want a system in which the rich and corporations explicitly run our elections?

Whether or not IrishK will answer your question, there are two problems with its premise.

1) Speaking out for or against a candidate for public office doesn't constitute "explicitly running" the election.

I wish I could agree with this but I simply cannot. I believe that this attitude displays some ignorance as to how elections work in the US. Negative ads work and corporations can and will spend tremendous amounts of money on negative ads about their opponents, both true and false. When this money is spent late in the game it is often extremely difficult for the other candidate to counter.

I have a really, really hard time seeing how you could believe this would lead to a fair election, Thomas. Envisage two candidates: one is running a campaign based on limiting the influence/tax breaks/whatever of corporations in America, the other is running a pro-tax cut, pro-corporate agenda. The first candidate will never - and I do mean never - have the ability to match the second in terms of financing a campaign. Never. Do you believe this is a situation in which both candidates would campaign on equal footing?

Quote:

2) The Supreme Court didn't say the government can't curb the power of moneyed interests. The Court merely said it can't curb it on the basis that the money is organized as a corporation rather than some other legal entity. Congress has to find a better basis.

Is it not a good enough basis to say, 'we don't want corporate entities running our elections. because their giant piles of cash unfairly drown out the voice of actual people?

The farce that Corporations are 'people' is a joke. Some of you seem to have taken this legal idea - one which was born out of convenience, not the concept that they should have the rights of actual people - to mean that corporations should enjoy ALL the rights of an actual person. Stunning that anyone could think this is true.

The concept that a Corporation has the same desires, interests, wants, needs, and participation in our system of mutual governance is laughable. They do not. Modern Corporations (so-called 'big business')are interested in one thing and one thing only: the acquisition of money. They will only support policies and politicians who will do their best to give them as much money as possible. They have amounts of money to spend on this support which dwarf the combined contributions of ALL private citizens of the country - truly! When one single 'big business' entity is empowered with the same level of 'speech power' as the rest of the country's citizens combined, it perverts the system of governance completely.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I believe that this attitude displays some ignorance as to how elections work in the US. Negative ads work and corporations can and will spend tremendous amounts of money on negative ads about their opponents, both true and false. When this money is spent late in the game it is often extremely difficult for the other candidate to counter.

And when you run an ad early in the game (McCain-Feingold's limit was 30 days), nobody will listen as a matter of practice, because only wonks care about elections until they happen. To tell a legal person with first-Amendment rights that they can only speak when no one is listening is a very serious impediment. It does in time what the suprious "free speech zones" during party conventions do in space. I'm all for your your warnings against ignorance about how electioneering works. But why stop being non-ignorant halfway? Why not be realistic and well-informed about how censorship works, too?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I didn't say that you called anyone a name. I merely said you were an obnoxious prick and, I add, a liar.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

For you to accuse me of not supporting things I say is the height of temerity. You never support your stuff, which is almost always wrong. I do support what I say when appropriate.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is it not a good enough basis to say, 'we don't want corporate entities running our elections. because their giant piles of cash unfairly drown out the voice of actual people?

It is, and the court doesn't say it isn't. But the legal test would need to be something else than the entity's legal form. For example, I suppose it could be the piles of cash that the entity is waging.

Because political speech lies at the core of what the First Amendment protects, every limitation of it needs to pass strict scrutiny: It has to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The integrity of democratic elections unarguably qualifies as such an interest. And if the criterion was that the entity peddles piles of cash, I suppose the restriction would be narrowly tailored to serve the interest. (Needles to repeat, I am not a layer, and I have no authority in this matter except for basic reading comprehension.)

But the previous test -- if the entity is a corporation -- violates the constitution in two ways: First, it is overbroad rather than narrowly tailored: It criminalizes legit political advocacy groups -- such as Citizens United -- for having organized as corporations rather than some other form. Second, it's ineffective rather than -- I guess the term would be "tailored at all": It fails to cover LLCs and individuals trying to "run our elections".

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The rest of your longish post simply shows that you're missing the real issue here. The problems you describe are all about big money corrupting democratic elections. They aren't about the particular legal form into which big money can organize itself. Would it make an electoral contest unfair if all big money was electioneering for one candidate and none would do it for the other? Of course it would, and the government has a compelling interest in preventing it! But what difference does it make to the fairness of the election whether the big-money backing came from a rich individual, a rich LLC, or a rich corporation? I don't see any!

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I believe that this attitude displays some ignorance as to how elections work in the US. Negative ads work and corporations can and will spend tremendous amounts of money on negative ads about their opponents, both true and false. When this money is spent late in the game it is often extremely difficult for the other candidate to counter.

And when you run an ad early in the game (McCain-Feingold's limit was 30 days), nobody will listen as a matter of practice, because only wonks care about elections until they happen.

Oh, no way. Totally wrong.

Obama won in large part because he developed an extremely good brand early on, one which embodied a set of principles which attracted people. His early advertising worked. It set the stage for his early money victories. "When elections happen" has changed big-time from what it used to be.

Quote:

To tell a legal person with first-Amendment rights that they can only speak when no one is listening is a very serious impediment.

I reject your assertion that nobody is listening as well as the reasoning that Corporations are legal persons. They are entities which have been given SOME of the rights of a person; this gross overreach pretends that they should have more than they actually should.

Quote:

It does in time what the suprious "free speech zones" during party conventions do in space. I'm all for your your warnings against ignorance about how electioneering works. But why stop being non-ignorant halfway? Why not be realistic and well-informed about how censorship works, too?

Yes, why not, Thomas? Why not go all the way and unrestrict the amounts of money which can be spent by anyone on elections at all? After all, you are censoring their ability to do so by restricting their donations to a campaign.

I don't understand how your logic does not inevitably lead to the running of our political process by wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals, and I don't understand the logic that would think this is a correct action.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

The rest of your longish post simply shows that you're missing the real issue here. The problems you describe are all about big money corrupting democratic elections. They aren't about the particular legal form into which big money can organize itself. Would it make an electoral contest unfair if all big money was electioneering for one candidate and none would do it for the other? Of course it would! But what difference does it make to the fairness of the election whether the big-money backing came from a rich individual, a rich LLC, or a rich corporation? I don't see any!

I think that most would agree that the solution to the 'big money running elections' problem is not to remove the only restrictions on big money which exist. I understand that you think some other legislative solution could replace the current limits (and better!), but have you considered the fact that such a solution is now impossible to pass, given the fact that the Big Money players have effectively unlimited budgets to oppose it?

Imagine an old apartment building in an expensive area, in which the heating doesn't work. You are proposing demolishing the entire building in order to build an effective heating system from the ground up. But the people are out on the street, no new building is being built, and the property values are so high that the folks are stuck in the cold. This is the situation we now find ourselves in. It is not conceivable that restrictions on Corporate spending will be passed by politicians who rely upon Corporate spending to get elected, in an environment which has unrestricted Corporate spending. It just isn't going to happen.

I understand that many legal minds think this is a good case on the merits, but I must say that very little analysis seems to have been put into what the actual effects of this legislation will be.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

engineer wrote:
I don't see why the Supreme Court would allow a for-profit clause to stand.

Why not? On what basis would the Supreme Court strike it down?

Based on their ruling in citizens-opinion. Have you read the decision yet Thomas. The court said there is really no distinction between a media corporation and another corporation so all corporations should have the same rights.

Quote:

Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech.

That court seems to have already said, you can't differentiate between corporations in any way, shape, or form. A "for-profit" clause would clearly violate their ruling.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obama won in large part because he developed an extremely good brand early on, one which embodied a set of principles which attracted people. His early advertising worked. It set the stage for his early money victories. "When elections happen" has changed big-time from what it used to be.

Your word to Tim Berners-Lee's ear. We'll see if Democrats can repeat it in 2010 and 2012, when Obama will have lost his new-kid-in-town appeal to TV stations.

Cycloptichron wrote:

I reject your assertion that nobody is listening as well as the reasoning that Corporations are legal persons.

Take it up with the US legal system, which universally treats corporations as legal persons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why not go all the way and unrestrict the amounts of money which can be spent by anyone on elections at all?

Because the government has a compelling interest in assuring the integrity of democratic elections. Under US constitutional case law, that gives it the rightful power to impose restrictions, as long as they are narrowly tailored to assert this interest.

I reject your assertion that nobody is listening as well as the reasoning that Corporations are legal persons.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Your word to Tim Berners-Lee's ear. We'll see if Democrats can repeat it in 2010 and 2012, when Obama will have lost his novelty value to TV stations.

Fine. But you must admit that your 'nobody is listening' line is plainly untrue. The 30- and 60- day restrictions occur in what is really the last 10% of the campaign. They prevent no entity from getting their voice out there, they merely sought to accomplish this:

Quote:

Because the government has a compelling interest to assure the integrity of the democratic process. Under US constitutional case law, that gives it the rightful power to impose restrictions, as long as they are narrowly tailored to assert this interest.

The USSC just struck down one of our biggest ways of assuring the integrity of the Democratic process. You may agree with their legal reasoning, but let's be plain about it: they did so in order to advance the Conservative and Republican cause in this country, because those are the allies of Big Business and enemies of all regulation in general.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Because the government has a compelling interest to assure the integrity of the democratic process. Under US constitutional case law, that gives it the rightful power to impose restrictions, as long as they are narrowly tailored to assert this interest.

And therein lies much of the argument. When a corporation spends millions on a candidate and then that candidate rewards the corporation with legislation, does it undermine the integrity of the process? Steven's says it does. The courts majority doesn't seem to think so. I think much of the US would agree with Steven's. We need only look at the outcry of the right in Obama's appointments as evidence of how it affects voters when they perceive supporters are being rewarded.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote:

Based on their ruling in citizens-opinion. Have you read the decision yet Thomas.

Indeed I have. How about you?

Parados wrote:

The court said there is really no distinction between a media corporation and another corporation so all corporations should have the same rights.

... and why does that mean the government can't ban electioneering based on money-waging? Why can't it prohibit the New York Times Corporation from endorsing a candidate shortly before an election? Why can't it regulate Fox News under the fairness doctrine?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

they did so in order to advance the Conservative and Republican cause in this country, because those are the allies of Big Business and enemies of all regulation in general.

Says you. The Supreme Court says they did it for different reasons: A plaintiff had appealed to them with the claim that the FEC had violated their First Amendment rights. The FEC had defended its restrictions as constitutional. Therefore the Supreme Court had to decide the conflict. I have no evidence to suggest they're lying.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Yes David a billion dollars or so of tv advs to convict us all that red is blue and green is white.

Yes freedom of speech indeed and the end of the republic.

Now it will be an empire of and for the corporations.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

When a corporation spends millions on a candidate and then that candidate rewards the corporation with legislation, does it undermine the integrity of the process?

Yes. So does an LLC that spends millions on a candidate, and an individual that spends millions of dollar on a candidate, and a religious cult that spends millions on a candidate, and so forth and so forth. What difference does it make that in one case the millions come from a corporation and in another they don't?

parados wrote:

Steven's says it does.

I agree, and so does the majority -- at least doesn't disagree with Stevens on that point. The majority merely disagrees with Stevens about the permissible classifications by which the government can secure the integrity. Even good ends justify all means. That's the price we pay for the rule of law.

0 Replies

Supreme Court Provides For Corporate Takeover of Nation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know