And here I was thinking we already had that to some extent. In truth, I'd prefer to hear a senator addressed as "the gentleman from Wal-Mart". At least it would be honest.:shifty:

Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done about this kind of thing in the present system, or any existing large-scale system for that matter. As long as the government has the power to legislate and regulate freely, there will always be people with the means to co-opt or obtain that power, and they won't be any of us.

We already have the solution to these kinds of problems and it's been under our noses for over 230 years - simply eliminate the incentive for business or any cooperative to try to gain control over the power of the state. As long as any significant group is intent on getting power from the government it will eventually succeed.

Lobbyists are a universal pain because their job -their very means of support - is to convince people involved in government legislative, judicial, and executive processes to see things their way, and they will use any methods necessary to do so.

Officials of state, on the other hand, have a lot more to worry about than one agenda. They have a lot of issues to review, evaluate, and vote on, and they must also be concerned with how they are doing in the polls. There are few examples of any representative or senator putting as much thought into a position they hold as the people who lobbied for it, and this is true regardless of platform.

The solution I mentioned is that the Federal government is simply not supposed to have that much power to fight over. That's why its powers were enumerated in the Constitution, and it is why we have the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments. It is also why we have a Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and a difficult Amendment process. It is supposed to be difficult for the Federal government to gain power.

The Supreme Court has often ruled laws and acts that were not strictly constitutional as being so because some kind of workaround that wasn't covered was used. The most infamous of these is the interstate commerce clause. The Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and it was always supposed to, but since the term interstate commerce itself wasn't strictly defined in the constitution it was left open to interpretation and all manner of things have been passed under the dubious premise of being concerned with "interstate commerce".

Another favorite workaround is the block or categorical grant. The Federal government doesn't actually have the power to give money to states because that isn't an enumerated power, but states have the power to petition the government for available grants, and grants also get squeezed through interstate commerce, amongst other things.

Obviously, this is not how this is supposed to work. If the Constitution were drafted with the intent of making the Federal government powerful it would have included a "whatever-power-you-may-need-here" clause or a "consult-founding-related-papers and provide-your-own-interpretation" clause, but it didn't. It goes out of its way to do the exact opposite in the 10th Amendment, which basically states; "If we forgot anything, you can't do that, either."

Even so, it didn't take long for people to figure out how to get around it. Special interests will always beat the government if they try, no matter where they come from. Our only saving grace is that they are also competing with each other.

I'd prefer that they just be absent from the process entirely. Why should one comparitively small and wealthy group of people get to make laws for the whole nation? Take away the government's freedom to invent power for itself and you won't have that anymore. A well-written, limiting, and ironclad constitution that can only be changed through a difficult amendment process is our best defense against the plutocracy that has been building for the past two centuries. We just didn't get it quite right the first time:DL

Those of you who have grander visions for government need not have any fear. There are still powers reserved to the states and to the people, so if you have some enlightened theory on governance you are free to practice it at all lower levels of government. I'm sure it will succeed marvelously and we'll all be flocking to your golden streets in short order. In the meantime I think we should at least be free to choose what kind society we live in to the maximum extent possible and I see 50 perfectly good states and over 3000 counties as a decent start.

Why even worry about campaign financing and all this other Washington nonsense? If there's no puppet then we don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings.

@UnderseaLcpl
Outstanding post!

I find this decision troubling and a little confusing.

I'm confused that it still "limits" free speech. If corporations are entities that are entitled to free speech, and that speech cannot be infringed upon, why not allow direct donations to candidates. Giving money is a form of speech, right?

The way I'm reading the decision (and I'm reading it directly, not having it interpreted to me by FOX or MSNBC or any other "news" outlet) the argument was about broadcasts that can reach 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. This is an avenue of expression that large corporations and unions have that the vast percentage of US citizens have no access to. I cannot create an advertisement because I don't have the means. The court seems to equate corporate and union free speech with citizen free speech. Corporations and unions are not equal to citizens--they cannot vote.

The court could have simply ruled that an on-demand program was separate from a broadcast because you choose if, when, and where to watch it. I would have been comfortable with that ruling.

This does not even touch on the questions about how corporations will make these decisions. Do they need shareholder approval to use general funds in such a way? If you are a shareholder and disagree are you going to sell your stake in protest. If you don't are you giving tacit approval to such expressions? What about the interests of multi-national corporations? Will there be restrictions on foreign money used? What if you are in a union and disagree? Do you stop paying your dues? Do you risk leaving the union?

Many corporations and unions in this country won't do more advertising than they did through PAC's. They just don't have the profit margin to do it. I imagine shareholders would frown on the expenditure without a specific political goal in mind. This just leaves the wealthiest corporations and unions to run ads until we all stop watching TV in disgust. It also opens the door to bulk ads in the last 30 days that make a false claim without time for rebuttal. Sure you can sue if it's slanderous, but you've already lost the election.

I would suggest that if corporations are entities entitled to free speech they be subject to the same limits that people are. I am a private citizen. I can donate $2400 (last I checked) to a candidate, $5000 to a PAC, and something like $30000 to a party committee (all of these limits at a per election basis). I believe a corporation as an entity should be held to the same limits. Then they have the same amount of free speech potential as I do.

Finally, does this open the door for corporations as entities to bear arms? Will Exxon build its own navy?

I don't know how this will play out in practice yet, but I may find myself watching little TV this summer and fall.

I don't believe news organizations should be exempt. I guess you forgot when I went off about the Tea Party Protests™ brought to you by Fox News™

I thought you didn't like the tea party folks because they oppose the Democrats evil plans for national domination...

Fine, but what about the New York Times and their endorsements? MSNBC?

The Constitution's 1st Amendment is very clear on this. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say "EXCEPT in the case of elections".

But the fact that you believe that news corporations should also be banned from speech also violates that same amendment.

That 5 justices voted to overturn this law is not disturbing. What scares me is that 4 justices voted against them.

Umm, no. I mean, how is giving money any form of speech?

The 1st Amendment applies to people. Corporations are not people and should not be thought of as such.

Nothing you just said implies that corporations do not have 1st Amendment rights.

Buckley vs. Valeo 1976 Limitations on the amount a campaign can spend (spending limits or caps) are an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the first amendment.

Spending money is protected speech.

The same decision holds that donations can be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

For an opinion that overruled precedents from at least six different decisions, forgive me when I seem surprised that it stopped there.

For those who wish to delve into Citizens United vs. FEC:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Corporations are merely groups of people.

Like unions. Like media outlets. Like the Daily Kos.

And they are not considered people - corporations have no vote.

Oh, and by the way, where does the Constitution say that the first amendment is restricted in ANY way whatsoever?

In any case, however, you're intent is to restrict the speech of a group of people, ultimately. How is that Constitutional?

Good response. :up:

As such, corporations should be allowed to give directly to candidates, following currently accepted contribution limits.

In any case, the fact that they are NOT currently allowed to do so kinda lends the fail to mookie's argument that they shouldn't be treated equally as citizens. They can't vote. They can't give to campaigns. Citizens can do both.

However, after this ruling they CAN exercise their right to speech, just not in the sense of giving directly to a campaign...

...which means they are now on the same footing as, say, a labor union.

Mookie, please answer this: why do you think it's okay for a union to be able to exercise these rights and not a corporation? Both are merely groups of people...

Please tell me its not just that one side overwhelmingly agrees with your perspective, while the other does not...

When did I say unions should be treated differently?

I don't care if a corporation is a group of people. It matters not. The individual people each have their right to free speech. They don't get to participate again as a member of a collective group. A corporation IS NOT A PERSON. It is an article on paper, a legal fiction. It is not subject to the obligations of an individual in this country, and thus should not enjoy the benefits.

Don't paint this as "Mookie wants to shut people up he doesn't agree with." That is completely dishonest and lends no credit to your argument. I want to reserve the rights for WE THE PEOPLE of this country. A corporation is NOT A PERSON.

Pragmatically, what good do you think is going to come from giving big business even more say in government? Jefferson saw the problem 200 years ago: “I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

Good lord, these people spent the Bush years twisting the Bill of Rights around so that it didn't apply to people they didn't like. I find it amazing that they now are jumping through hoops to make it apply to non-persons now.

As often as he and I disagree - Mookie is correct on this one.

What you have to do is look at the whole REASON for the Bill of Rights - which included the Right to Free Speech. The purpose for the Bill of Rights was to provide specific and clear protections to the rights of the CITIZENRY - the Rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

Current law and SC rulings regarding this Free Speech have ignored its purpose. By extending free speech to entities OTHER than the individual, it has allowed corporations, unions, PAC's and lobbyists to drown out the voice of the citizenry (using money), thus perverting the purpose of the enumerated right.

I would be okay with that, except that this decision allows direct corporate and union spending on advertising to expressly elect or defeat a named candidate. This is separate from issue advertising. Advertising to expressly elect or defeat a named candidate is essentially a donation to the candidate because they are doing the work of that candidate. This is now unregulated, giving corporations and unions much more say than the voting citizen.

I find such a new potential influx of money into politics disgusting and find it hard to believe that it can be good for this republic.

Campaign Contributions should be maxed out at USD 100, and lobbyist "contributions" should be outlawed.

Mookie, I think the word you were searching for to describe corporations and unions is Ficticiouse Entity (en. sp?).

Okay, fine - except here's the problem: UNIONS had that right previously; corporations did not.

Now the playing field is leveled.

In any case, I still disagree with your premise. Advertising is just that - spreading a message. Ultimately, it's up to the voter in the booth. No one but the citizen has that right.

In the end, it comes down to a simple dichotomy - either you believe that American voters are stupid and therefore advertising is more important than the electorate itself (as advertising is the primary source of voter information), or you don't. In the case of the former, if you actually believe that, please tell me why you then believe that the electorate is even qualified to choose ANY official for major leadership posts.

My opinion is simple: especially in the era of "one-click-information", anyone or any entity should be entitled free speech as protected in the Constitution. It's worked for decades prior to McCain/Feingold, and should be only more irrelevent a question considering that anything one needs to know is merely a web-address away.

Plain and simply, free speech is not to be abridged. That's what the Constitution says. If you don't believe in that, than why not just ignore voting rights altogether?

Besides, what's to stop individuals outside of corporations from simply banding together to purchase advertising time?

Oh, wait, nothing. They've been doing it for years as 527s.

At least we can now have some accountability.

An excellent argument, mookie, and I tend to agree with you, but this line of resoning will not present a solution or even identify the real problem.
The only point on which I disagree is the idea that people do not get to voice their opinion again as a collective. We have the right to free speech, but we also have the right to assemble. If a bunch of people with the same opinion, no matter what entity they are a part of, collectively use their right to individual free speech there can be no truly constitutional, effective, or even desireable action taken against them.
Trying to prevent corporations or any other kind of common large-scale collective entity from exerting an undue influence upon politics is an excercise in futility. Even if you work around the constitutional barriers to free speech and assembly (which has been done, on more than one occassion), you will still only create an unenforceable system that doesn't fix anything.

I say unenforceable because people will coalesce into voting blocks no matter what you do, and those blocks will usually conform to some kind of pre-defined issue boundary, as I'm sure you're aware. If you cap corporate contributions or otherwise restrict the actions of members that comprise them they will simply take advantage of the aforementioned fact and use it to bypass the system. For example, let's say that EvilCorp International has an agenda that includes domestic drilling, and there is a candidate who supports it, but EvilCorp's campaign contributions have been capped or eliminated altogether. Since it can't contribute directly, it will just contribute indirectly. All manner or corporate literature will be disbursed to employees and the organization will host, fund, and otherwise assist non-corporate entities with the same agenda. Similarly, if it can't provide its own lobbyists it will simply fund lobbyists with similar objectives from non-restricted entites.

In fact, this has already been going on for quite some time now. A good example lies in the AARP, one of the most prevalent and infamous groups of citizens with a common agenda. It also regularly recieves contributions from companies in the medical field. Campaign reform or no, it is still a huge voting block, and a million 1$ contributions still equals a million dollars. And then, of course, we have political parties themselves. If companies can't get direct access to policymakers they will simply shift the party platform.

Even if the laws are made so restricitve that lobbying as we know it disappears alotogether we'd still be handing the advantage to big business because they already have a well-established structure with a vested interest in the survival of the company.

I say that this will not fix anything because to try to seek out and close down all the means by which such an organization could pressure the state is to violate personal freedoms in the process and ultimately fail, anyway. Powerful companies have legions of attorneys and accounting experts whose livleyhood depends upon achieving satisfactory results with the tasks they are assigned. There is no law or set of laws in the world that will stop them from ultimately accomplishing their objectives, unless we resort to an iron-handed state, which will only kill business along with lobbying for a short time before it resurfaces again in a different form.


Even worse, there will be multitudes of small companies crushed underfoot in the process. Small businesses often band together for political representation because they cannot compete with larger companies on their own. Restrictions placed upon large corporations are bound to affect small corporations as well, not only because small corporations are subject to the same laws but because big corporations have more money to spend on workarounds. Small business is vital to controlling the threat of monopoly, and in cases where the state is not involved it has done a remarkably good job, though such cases tend to be in secondary or specialist industries - the big ones have long since co-opted the state.
Most of all, however, the most dangerous thing about thinking that the political influence of big business can be controlled by any reasonable means is that it perverts the market. Reasonable free markets have their problems, to be sure, but they are nothing compared to the kind of damage inflicted when all kinds of state factors are introduced. Companies that can afford to do so will co-opt the state and use it as a means to defeat competitors outside normal market mechanisms. Others will simply move elsewhere. The latter is particularly prevalent in our increasingly globalized society. As transportation and communication grow more efficient the need for proximity to resources or consumners shrinks, and there are always a dozen nations with easily co-optable governments and poor, cheaply-employed populaces for every reasonably prosperous free nation.

Corporations may be legal fictions, mookie, but don't assume that just because of that they are not people; they are made of people and they will act like people. The same goes for governments. To treat either otherwise in the objective sense is to invite catastrophe.

The only way to way to ensure that the power belongs to "we, the people" is to give it to the people..... and no-one else. Each person should have the power to conduct their own affairs, neither hindered nor aided by the state, to paraphrase TJ. The state's responsibilities should be clearly defined, strictly limited, and vigilantly monitored by an armed populace so that it will not be cost-effective to try to manipulate it in any way unless there is a vast majority opinion.

Tylenol and Aspirin may help headaches, but neither kills tumors. While our nation wastes time quarelling over how much money should be spent on campagins or whether elections are fair or not we are ignoring the cause of our consternation; the fact that we have a vulnerable power structure. As long as the state has enough power to attract the ambitious we will never know peace or prosperity for long.