Should Corporations & Unions Be Allowed to "Influence" (Buy) Elections?

[Andy9o8 0]

This could apply to either end of the political spectrum, since it could help both corporations and unions.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-court-contributions,0,2613959.story

Quote

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative bloc sounded poised Wednesday to strike down on free-speech grounds the nation's historic ban on corporations spending large amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the Presidency.

If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the Congressional campaign in 2010. For the first time, big companies and industries--and possibly unions as well--could fund campaign ads to support or defeat members of Congress.

For example, the health insurance industry would have a much greater ability to target for defeat members of Congress who supported a so-called "public option" for medical insurance. Banks and investment firms could oppose representatives who favor stricter regulation of the financial industry.

And far more money could flow into elections. Last year, the political parties spent about $1.5 billion on the 2008 campaigns, while corporations earned more than $600 billion in profits.

Until now, however, corporations and unions have been restricted in their election-related spending. Since 1907, federal law has prohibited corporations from giving corporate money to candidates. And since 1947, corporations and unions have been barred from spending money on their own to urge voters to elect or defeat federal candidates. Of course, corporate executives, as individuals, can contribute money to a corporate political action committee or PAC, but these amounts are relatively modest, compared to the funds available to the corporate treasury.

At least 24 states (not including California, Illinois, Florida, Maryland or Virginia) have similar bans on corporate spending in state races. (Pennsylvania does have such a law).

[TrophyHusband 0]

is this a question of whether or not corporations share the same constitutional rights as individuals?

i realize its not that simple, but is that the basic premise here?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[funjumper101 15]

There is an extremely dangerous school of thought among righties. The stated idea is "corporate personhood", which grants constitutional protections to US and International corporations. SCOTUS Chief Justice is one of the strongest proponents of the odious philosophy. That is why the 2004 elections were so important, and the results are going to fuck up the USA permanently. ShrubCo got to put more right wing idealogues on SCOTUS.

I have a really easy definition of "personhood", that should be codified into law. Can the entity that is claiming to be a "person" be arrested and put into a jail cell? If you exist in a form that you, personlly, can be taken into custody by the authorities, you have the rights of a "person", as defined in law.
If not, you are not a person and don't have all of the rights of a person.

Companies, corporations, and unions are not persons, therefor they do not have the rights of a person.

Why aren't the rightys up in arms about the "activist judges" on SCOTUS, who are about to gut McCain/Feingold?

I gues they just don't get it and don't care.

[lawrocket 3]

So, where would you draw the lines of free speech? Advertising? Logos?

What about a dba? Let's say I want to run ads urging Ron Paul to run for President. Or, I buy ads urging a vote for him an an election and I am not a corporation?

I have problems with restrictions on speech. Period. If the AFL-CIO wants to spend $2 billion to gét Obama re-elected then let them do it - so long as they refund the mandatory dues they take from dissenting members.

I find it difficult to think one can support limits on political advertisements and support freedom of speech.

In a sense, you've argued that speech by people or entities that you don't like should be suppressed. I think that unpopular speech - even speech by the unpopular - should not be suppressed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Corporations and unions....seems these are organized groups of people that might have political goals

what about churches?

what about PACs too - same position?

what about the DNC, RNC? those are also groups of people which also have political goals

what about the USPA lobbying efforts?

what about 12 little old ladies holding a bake sale to support the local dog catcher?

6 people?
2?

relative size and resources shouldn't matter


I'm with Lawrocket. Just because we might have a bias against one type of group or another, we shouldn't be taking away their speech.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,426]

> Just because we might have a bias against one type of group or another, we
>shouldn't be taking away their speech.

?? No one is taking away anyone's speech. The question is financial support of political candidates. Right now everyone in that corporation can support whoever they like, so every bit of that corporation can contribute. The question is should there be an ADDITIONAL level of contribution allowed, where a CEO takes the profits of a corporation and funnels them in a big way towards a political candidate favorable to their cause.

This presents a bit of a problem IMO. Capitalism is based on free competition in an open market. Any corporation is in business to make money; if they can spend $10 billion to elect a senator that will promise to pass laws to destroy their competition, it is a very good business move to make - but very bad for capitalism overall.

So the question is how to balance the good of letting any entity do whatever they like against the bad of gaming the economic system we rely on.

[quade 3]

I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do. As if somehow union money is the same as corporate money.

What is really at stake is whether or not people have equal footing with the corporations. Right now, they don't. Wanna try to fix that? Oh let's threaten to also silence unions, you know, the people that actually have historically been the only groups that do speak for the workers.

The rules as they currently stand are pretty good. I'd like to be able to cut back what corporations can spend on various campaigns because I think it gives them an unfair advantage over the little guys, but I'm not really sure how to do that any more than the current rules.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Niki1 1]

Quote

There is an extremely dangerous school of thought among righties. The stated idea is "corporate personhood", which grants constitutional protections to US and International corporations. SCOTUS Chief Justice is one of the strongest proponents of the odious philosophy. That is why the 2004 elections were so important, and the results are going to fuck up the USA permanently. ShrubCo got to put more right wing idealogues on SCOTUS.

I have a really easy definition of "personhood", that should be codified into law. Can the entity that is claiming to be a "person" be arrested and put into a jail cell? If you exist in a form that you, personlly, can be taken into custody by the authorities, you have the rights of a "person", as defined in law.
If not, you are not a person and don't have all of the rights of a person.

Companies, corporations, and unions are not persons, therefor they do not have the rights of a person.

Why aren't the rightys up in arms about the "activist judges" on SCOTUS, who are about to gut McCain/Feingold?

I gues they just don't get it and don't care.

One of the problems is that free speech is'st free. Or rather the speech is free but it's the volumn of the speech has a price. It costs a lot of money for all the billboards, the TV ads and all the other marketing that goes toward selling a candidate. That money buys the volumn, the loudness of that "free speech." When corporations are granted personhood, they are granted an unfair advantage over the individual VOTER. The corporation doesn't vote but can spend enough money to make a candidate beholden to it. My one vote doesn't count for much against that. Even if I were a small buseness, I couldn't compete against the big corporations. I might be able to give the office holder free landscaping or build an addition onto his house but that is bribery and will get me thrown in jail. I'm thinking, if you don't vote, you should not be able to shout me down. Let everyone vote who meets the above definiton of Person, persons can group together for their common cause but it must be a group of persons.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

The question is financial support of political candidates.

It very clearly is not.

The actual facts of the case do not involve any direct financial support of any specific candidate.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

If a single individual has a right to speak, but a group does not, where do we draw the line?

When there are 10 people in the group? 100? 1000?

Or is it when the group files paperwork with the government declaring themselves something or other?

How can a right belonging to every single member of a group somehow not extend to the entire group?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do.

You don't think unions purchase political ads?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

The question is financial support of political candidates.

It very clearly is not.

The actual facts of the case do not involve any direct financial support of any specific candidate.

Right - As I read it, it is about the ability of a company to finance and carry out campainging for a chosen candidate or the x-verse, campainging against one that is undesireable to them.

This is a slippery slope. I fear it is one of those times where we need to be VERY careful what we ask for, because we might just get it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I'd like to be able to cut back what corporations can spend on various campaigns because I think it gives them an unfair advantage over the little guys, but I'm not really sure how to do that any more than the current rules.

In this context, "corporation" includes all political action groups. The ACLU, MoveOn.org, the NRA-ILA, everyone.

How exactly is reducing the spending of groups going to disadvantage the "little guys"?

If you disallow group spending, the only people doing any spending are going to be wealthy individuals. The "little guys" may only be able to afford 20 bucks a piece. Taken one by one, that's not much. It's only by banding together into those evil "corporations" that the little guys get any voice at all.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

This presents a bit of a problem IMO. Capitalism is based on free competition in an open market. Any corporation is in business to make money; if they can spend $10 billion to elect a senator that will promise to pass laws to destroy their competition, it is a very good business move to make - but very bad for capitalism overall.

The obvious solution is to reduce the power of the government. If there wasn't so much reward for lobbying, people wouldn't spend money on it. Right now, you can spend a buck on lobbying (if you spend it right) and be rewarded by 100 or 1000 dollars worth of competitive advantage. If you reduce that to the point where you only get 10 cents worth of advantage, what will happen?

If you want to take money out of politics, take money out of government (and government actions). The only way to do that is to drastically reduce the size of government.

Enacting increasingly byzantine regulations on fundamental rights is a poor workaround when the underlying problem is so obvious, and able to be addressed directly.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,426]

> Right now, you can spend a buck on lobbying (if you spend it right) and
> be rewarded by 100 or 1000 dollars worth of competitive advantage.

Right.

>If you reduce that to the point where you only get 10 cents worth of
>advantage, what will happen?

You will choose a senatorial candidate with a better return on investment.

>The only way to do that is to drastically reduce the size of government.

I agree. Unfortunately, companies have a very strong monetary interest in INCREASING the size of government in a manner that benefits them. Boeing wants the government to finance more airports. Ford and Kenworth want the government to build more roads. Halliburton wants more wars. None of them want to pay a lot more taxes, but in the classic prisoner's dilemma, will always go for the tiny tax increase if it gives them a huge competitive advantage.

So in the long run, removal of such financial limits will greatly increase the size of government.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do. As if somehow union money is the same as corporate money

I don't equate them at all. I think unions are far more powerful - because while other corporations have more money, there are hundreds of different lobbying groups out there against each other. Unions also take money off of the top of their members. Plus, unions are exempt from antitrust laws so they don't have to play by rules of other corporations.

I'll put it this way - look at all that labor unions are accomplishing right now. They got sweetheart deals that screwed seucred creditors with the auto bailouts. They are looking at getting the card-check system passed.

And now, unions are in favor of universal health care. See, Paul, you gotta ask yourself, "Why do unions want healthcare for everybody? They've worked to get that only for their members. Now they are thinking of non-members. Why is that?"

What's in it for unions? Oh, yes. They now have an easier way of unionizing the health-care profession because they'll all be government employees! The unions are just like any other business - lobbying and lookign for other opportunities to expand.

Corporations, of course, are like anybody. They've got their own business.

I ask this - who has problems with things like farmers getting together and pushing for laws to help them out? These people get together to be heard. Corporations try to be heard. Everybody tries to be heard.

I will link unions to anybody. People want to be heard. Unions, like corporations (they actually ARE corporations), have voices that they want heard.

Quote

What is really at stake is whether or not people have equal footing with the corporations. Right now, they don't. Wanna try to fix that? Oh let's threaten to also silence unions, you know, the people that actually have historically been the only groups that do speak for the workers.

No. It's not about "equal footing." It's about "speech" versus "limited speech."

You may want to say, "We must ensure an equal voice." Doign so means squelching out someone who speaks more loudly. Doesn't that suck?

Quote

The rules as they currently stand are pretty good. I'd like to be able to cut back what corporations can spend on various campaigns because I think it gives them an unfair advantage over the little guys, but I'm not really sure how to do that any more than the current rules.

Don't you see a problem with bringing people down to fit your idea of order?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

> Right now, you can spend a buck on lobbying (if you spend it right) and be rewarded by 100 or 1000 dollars worth of competitive advantage.

Right.

>If you reduce that to the point where you only get 10 cents worth of
>advantage, what will happen?

You will choose a senatorial candidate with a better return on investment.

What if the government could be downsized to the point where this was not possible?


***Unfortunately, companies have a very strong monetary interest in INCREASING the size of government in a manner that benefits them.

Right. Which is why we need strict constitutional safeguards against an overgrown government. Oh, wait, we had those. What happened again? Something about a different shuffle...or was it a new deal? I can't recall...

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,426]

>What if the government could be downsized to the point where this was
>not possible?

Then you'd have to prevent corporations like the ones listed above from upsizing it again. Any actions you take to downsize it, arrived at via a democratic process, can be reversed by the very same democratic process - and this is far more likely when large companies are willing to invest billions to ensure a competitive advantage.

So let's say you pass a law that abolishes the Department of Transportation. How do you provide safeguards so that no one can vote it back into existence? How do you prevent Ford, Boeing et al from buying as many senators as they need to ensure that happens?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

companies have a very strong monetary interest in INCREASING the size of government in a manner that benefits them.

Yes. Part of this is because government has a very strong power interest in increasing its size. Corporations have an interest in getting each taxpayer to send a buck a year to them, via the government. As does each group have the same interest. Thus, it may concentrate the benefits for very small comparative to the individual.

The thing is that it keeps happening. And ongoing. Such that we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. And trust me, bill - the majority of it ain't corporate speech.

The speech, lobbying, etc., has gotten us to this point. I'd rather have us here with free speech than someplace else without it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How do you prevent Ford, Boeing et al from buying as many senators as they need to ensure that happens?

You don't. You can't.

Of course, a good way would be to perhaps repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The one that changed the system where senators are elected by the state legislators to one where Senators are popularly elected. Perhaps if we can keep the Senate out of campiagning we could have a system where the money isn't put in quite so much because they don't have to worry so much about campaign funds.

The 17th Amendment really caused some serious problems far in excess of the problems it allevaitaed.

While we're at it, repeal the 16th Amendment.

Let the House deal with popular elections.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do.

You don't think unions purchase political ads?

Of course they do. However, I don't think they have the money to saturate the marketplace of ideas the way corporations can. They simply do not have that kind of money at their disposal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it's absolutely adorable the way the author and some of the posters here include "Unions" into this argument as if they have anywhere near the same financial clout to purchase political ads as corporations do.

You don't think unions purchase political ads?

Of course they do. However, I don't think they have the money to saturate the marketplace of ideas the way corporations can. They simply do not have that kind of money at their disposal.

Remember when the news broke about the "bonus's" during the bail out? Did you ever come across a the story. the story, about the week or two week long "convention" the union bosses were having at the (I cant remember the figure for sure) $2500 per night resort where they flew in the corp jets? ( I doubt you found that from the sources you frequent)


Point is, the unions (of which I was once a part of) spend huge amounts of monies in "voter education" adds that allow them to bypass the laws they function under.

Those bastards have as much money as any corp and they step on membership way more than any corp to get their way.

Read up and learn my friend. It is a journey you will not soon forget

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Rush, with all due respect . . . I've worked on both sides of the bargaining table as labor and as management. I've belonged to a union started by a hit man for the mafia (it got better!). In that union I made far more money than I did as management and had far more rights in my employment. The amount of money I paid the union was trivial compared to the increase in wages I had because of it.

I still belong to one union that is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by one half of the industry I work in and hope to one day belong to two others.

Not all unions are alike. Not all unions shit on their people like the one you must have belonged to. I'm sorry, but I can't speak to that experience of yours.

All of the above said and when looked at across the table, management and corporations does and always will have the advantage in their abilities to control the workforce and money to spend on politics. To try to lump them together in the same sentence as if they are somehow "equal" is ridiculous.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Rush, with all due respect . . . I've worked on both sides of the bargaining table as labor and as management. I've belonged to a union started by a hit man for the mafia (it got better!). In that union I made far more money than I did as management and had far more rights in my employment. The amount of money I paid the union was trivial compared to the increase in wages I had because of it.

I still belong to one union that is a prerequisite for being taken seriously by one half of the industry I work in and hope to one day belong to two others.

Not all unions are alike. Not all unions shit on their people like the one you must have belonged to. I'm sorry, but I can't speak to that experience of yours.

All of the above said and when looked at across the table, management and corporations does and always will have the advantage in their abilities to control the workforce and money to spend on politics. To try to lump them together in the same sentence as if they are somehow "equal" is ridiculous.

No, not ridicules. and I too have been on both sides of the table for nearly all reasons.

When we talk unions and politics we are talking a limited few I will agree but, to think them less than able to stand toe to toe with any special interest is just crazy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhaig 0]

Quote

In a sense, you've argued that speech by people or entities that you don't like should be suppressed. I think that unpopular speech - even speech by the unpopular - should not be suppressed.

I didn't see where he mentioned limiting speech by people or entities.

To put it simply, I don't believe corporations are the political equivalent of a person, and are not guaranteed the same constitutional rights as people.

That said, I agree that we shouldn't limit their speech, or prevent them from running ads of a political nature. It's up to the business, the board, and stockholders what they do. Not government's business. But I'm not saying the bill of rights applies to corps. Corporations are legal entities formed on paper. Not people. They may be formed by "the people" but they are not people. Should there be an amendment granting the same rights to corporations, then I might change my mind regarding the protection of corp rights.

--
Rob