21st January
2010
The Supreme Court ruled today to roll back restrictions on corporate campaign spending. They decided that corporations are to be treated as people, and since they are people they have a right to free speech. Get ready for millions and millions spent on attack ads. If you thought it was bad before, it’s about to get aggressive.
I don’t really know why Republicans are excited about this. Isn’t campaign finance reform something all Americans want?
Democrats are going to try and pass legislation in response, and I hope they actually achieve what they set out to do for once.
Enjoy incessant mudslinging.
Adam Feser
36 Comments
Leave a Reply
login
Polls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...Recent Comments
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- I Wanna BE Elected. . .Alice on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- adamfeser on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- Jammer on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- adamfeser on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- DR on Tired of the Traffic Battle
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (117)
- Arizona's Racist Law (111)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (77)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (72)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (53)
- Healthcare (48)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (48)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (44)
- Steele Steals Speech and Does Not "Do Policy" (39)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (38)
On the other hand, the supreme court finally got this right. . .as in correct. There are lots of corporations that did not have the retrictions on them that the law was presumably limiting. Those would be media and news corporations. Why the double standard? The nature of free speech also places a burden on the consumer of the information. This modest attempt at a blog is an example. You should never rely on your governemt to restrict your access to any comments no matter the source or the timing of when those comments are made or by whom. As you censor the crap you censor the truth. Our founders knew this. Freedom has its risks and I choose to face them rather than flee from them by the censorship disguised in finance reform. Believe it or not, Adam, there was a time not too long ago when the youth of America screamed this from their long haired blue jeans. I wa one of them. Still am. This is good for America. C’mon, the only thing you could be scared of is the weakmindedness of your crowd. I am not afraid of mine.
Several of the founders attempted to restrict free speech just years after they put it in the Bill of Rights (Alien and Sedition Acts). Not all founders supported them, just a thought.
I just don’t consider a corporation to be a person, and I don’t think that’s what long-hairs had in mind.
If people are concerned that politicians are bought and paid for now, what do you think is going to happen when there are no limits? People always bitch that there is too much money in the process and it’s not about the people, so we fix it by calling corporations people and letting them throw as much money at candidates as they want? I don’t see how this makes America better.
Perhaps you’re worried because if corporations had been able to express their view on the business/economy side of things and contribute accordingly, Mr. Obama would not be our president. Companies should be able to voice their opinions and let the people know exactly what a candidate’s agenda will do for their business from a profits/jobs standpoint. Good call by the Supreme Court.
Yeah, because God knows they have the best interest of American citizens in mind. If only Enron could have donated as much as they wanted.
The thing is, if the government makes life miserable for the big, evil corporations, those corporations will send jobs to countries that are easier to deal with. In the end we need the corporations to create jobs (because the government can’t, period). Without the jobs we have no tax revenue and then all of your little welfare projects are without funding. I know, this isn’t an issue, the democrats don’t believe in a debt limit, but they should.
Adam, your argument seems to be that our elected officials lack the discipline and integrity to avoid being purchased. I love that idea that they need a law to keep themselves from being bought or bribed by corporations. How about a bit of personal ethics being employed and simply rise above it. I agree that they rarely illustrate this ethic, otherwise you’d have not seent he bribes employed by the senate against its own democratic members on healthcare. But, this is not about who has the purer motive. Its about free speech. Again, i would rather live where a dishonest person can spend his money and lie about a polictical topic rather than live in a country where the government decides what and when I can consume any piece of information; no matter its quality. That is freedom and I choose to give none of mine up.
How is not considering them a person making life miserable? They already send their jobs overseas, so should we reward that? You’re acting like a corporation needs to have the ability to create negative ads in order to function, Ray, and that is just silly.
Wow, for someone that has always seemed cynical you are suddenly quite an idealist, Alice. Whenever controversial votes come up, don’t we look at who donated how much money to politicians? Don’t you?
There is one problem with your free speech argument. You say you’d rather live where a dishonest PERSON can spend money and lie. I’m not talking about a person.
Fine, I amend my statement. I prefer dishonest statements from any source to censorship of any kind.
Adam, can you be fooled by corporate ads regarding political posturing. I suspect we both can. I, however choose to determine for myself rather than have the government determine these things for me.
By the way, you did not comment on the corporations engaged in the media and their exclusions. Why is Viacom, Fox, ABC, et al allowed to voice their opinions, by my small corporation is not?
You should also check out the arguments made last March when this was in front of the court. The attorney on the FEC side is truly scary. Suggested he could ban books under this law. Wow, indeed. Defending the publishing of political books as free speach is hardly the position of some idealistic neophyte.
Politicians don’t create jobs Adam, companies do. A company should have the right to voice openly and loudly what a politician’s agenda will do to their business and ability to expand/hire. It’s common sense, Washington is not going to fix the economy. We need the Reagan economic mentality back, make the businesses want to expand in America.
I’m not saying that we should reward them for moving jobs out of the country, but your logic suggests that we should punish them and in doing so make them want to move more jobs out of the country, good call.
And your thing about a corporation not being a person, good observation. But who runs the corporation Adam? Do you think that it’s some machine they invented to come up with ideas for them? The CEO and board of any company should be allowed to defend the interests of their company because bad policy and put a business under, and then who loses jobs Adam? People do.
Ray, this isn’t punishing them. This has been on the books for some time. Corporations can function without throwing money at politicians.
That reminds me, are you now proponents of judicial activism, because this is a clear case of it.
I didn’t realize the media could make unlimited contributions or run as many ads as it likes.
Ray and Alice, there are valid arguments all around (though “the CEO is a person” isn’t one of them). I don’t want to go point for point over and over because we simply disagree. But don’t you worry at all about politicians being bought? Perhaps that won’t happen, but what about votes? How are the people supposed to compete. Their interests don’t always line up.
Perhaps this won’t be a big deal, but I worry that it will be. Why are you both supporters of this? Do you really worry about free speech for corporations? McCain is one of the authors of this regulation. Did you agree with his logic for doing it?
The media has far more power than ads and contributions can provide. They can use their air time to say and do whatever they want with whatever bias they want and they end up being more effective than most ads.
I’m just saying that a corporation should be able to let the public know what policies and regulations help grow business, and which ones hurt business. It’s in all of our interests. We know what the politicians think, they have a voice. We know what voters think, they have a voice. We know what the media thinks, they have a voice. Why not know what the corporations think?
Mc Cain got it wrong. Thune got it wrong when he voted for it and Bush signed the law and it is one of the things that made him marginal president in my mind. No child left behind as an intrusion in state’s rights and local control being another.
Media has long left news and reporting behind and are little more than advocates. You point about Olberman being a great example. But how about Stewart himself. Clearly he’s an advocate within a media corporation. Is he to be censored as well.
I’v eheard the judicial activism point passed around and that’s simply foolishness. It nothing more than anothe point to toss onto the table for the uninitiated to repeat. It has no substance. C’mon Adam, when the attorney representing the government advocates banning book contianing political speech within the function of an election, surely you must know that this is terribly wrongheaded.
the best way to reform campaign spending would be to limit the amount a candidate could raise and spend for the position they are running for to the amount of the salary of the position. Requiring any candidate to use public broadcasting as the main forum for campaigning.
The logic for this comes from how would you be treated by any financial institution if you asked to borrow 6 million dollars to run a business for 4 years, but you were only going to show a $200,000.00 a year return on the funds you borrowed? you’d be turned down flat! Yet, this is what we currently do as taxpayers and consumers for public servants asking for our vote.
In South Dakota today the leading republican cadidate for Governor has over 6 million dollars in his war chest at the ready to spend for a position that pays less than $200,000.00 a year. As taxpayers we should be totally pissed off about such disregard for fiscal responsibility from our puplic servants. Politicians have been trained to do this because it is a proven fact that the one with the most funding wins. As voters we to need hold the political candidates more fiscally responisble as they are running for election. After all who do you think ends up paying for all the corporate contributions in the long run anyway? you and me as consumers that’s who?
enough for now!
pres
Advocating is different than throwing money at someone.
What does that argument have to do with judicial activism? Overturning precedent is judicial activism. It’s pretty simple.
I like your idea, pres. That would make for some awesome campaigns. And I mean that sincerely.
Good call pres. If there were caps then it wouldn’t matter where the money came from, there would be at least a more level playing field.
Ray, if you support Pres’s idea how can you support this ruling, which allows unlimited money to come from unknown places?
I support the right of a corporation to contribute, but I would also support a cap on total contributions.
With a cap, it wouldn’t matter where the money came from, it would be a more balanced fight in the end.
Where does the constitution limit my free speech rights to some arbitrary abstract of “fair fight” Should I be limited to the inability of my adversary to win an argument? Of course not. The trouble with the law that was overturned was not how it placed limits on candidates, but rather how it placed limits on me to advocate independantly for the candidate of my choice. Read the damned thing. If I want ot have a campaign for Nelson to beat princess stephanie and pour a million dallars of my onw money itno it, where does the constitution limit my ability to exercise my free speech rights and do so? No where. Simple. Can it possibly change the outcome? Sure. But, it is much better than having the government create arbitrary barriers to my speech.
And Adam, it is a small step from what you advocate to you, as a sponsor of this blog, to having the same linitations placed upon your rights to advocate for BHO or anyone else. You must see this, don’t you?
http://www.slate.com/id/2242210/pagenum/all/#p2
This also concerns me: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/22/should-foreign-corporations-spend-money-on-u-s-political-candidates.aspx
And no I don’t see that. That is a huge jump, not a small step. That hasn’t happened and we’ve had laws like this for a long time. Why is that argument suddenly valid?
Powerful interest groups will now have more influence than ever; another blow to the working man. It looks like GWB’s legacy is still around to haunt us. He appointed right wing extremists to the court and this is what we get. I guess if you like oil companies raking in the money and pouring billions into lobbying so they don’t have to make changes to encourage new energy sources you’re for this ruling. If you’re a fan of how insurance companies have taken over and we pay more and more for health insurance while receiving less, you’re probably for this ruling. And it will get worse.
And to make the statement that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights is just simply wrong. Corporations are not individual and corporations receive special privileges including different tax rates.
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
Abraham Lincoln–Republican President
(IThe present GOP party could learn a lot from their past presidents)
No where have I said that freedom of speech does not come with its own set of troubles. However, with freedom comes two things at least that you seem to ignore. You have a responsibility to sort the truth out on you own without the filter of the government lifting the load for you. You will be a better citizen for this. Second, with freedom of speech, I and others can, without concern for goverment recourse, point out the errors and untruths as we see them. Without interference.
So you have a problem with government dictating to you, but no problem with corporations doing the exact same thing, having control over every facet of your life. Interesting.
Corporations can’t dictate to you. You can boycott a corporation, but you can’t just quit paying taxes.
Corporations can’t abbreviate my freedom of speech, own a weapon, right to a trial or interfere with property and contract rights. The government can and does. Have you thought, even for a moment, what you’d do if the conservatives exercised the authority you’d give to this government regarding your free speech? You are one regime change away from mumbling to yourself.
Skye. . .Lincoln was free to offer any opinion he chose. I believe that extreme concentrations of wealth can be dangerous as well. I don’t believe that the government is any solution to the percieved problem. Lincoln also suspended the writ of habeas corpus for those encouraging the south’s insurection. This is a right found in the constitution. Bush did this as well. Truth is, Bush probably got it more right than Lincoln. So, are we to conclude then that the government should be trusted regardless of actions they take? Naive. When you allow the government to be the sole body to determine what constitutes political truth, either by cencorship or by limiting my access to opinion base upon content or time to the next election, you are abdicating your personal responsibility to be informed. I shoose to keep mine. The big bad corporations are not the villans. Any group that restricts the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution, are.
Corporations aren’t people and shouldn’t have the same rights as people. And no one has addressed the issue of many corporations being largely foreign-owned. I disagree that this is an argument about censorship or first amendment rights. I remain unconvinced that speech is money or that a corporation is a person.
How is limiting corporate contributions making the government the sole body to determine political truth? That makes no sense. How is your responsibility to be informed affected by limiting their contribution? Has your responsibility not existed in all the years where it was limited?
And let’s not forget that undecideds constitute the most important portion of the electorate and they also tend to have the lowest political awareness.
Do you really believe that foreign people aren’t contributing to campaigns right now Adam? And how can you oppose that anyway? Aren’t you in favor of giving foreign terrorists civil trials? We can extend rights to those who try and kill us, but we can’t risk letting foreign people who have a business investment in this country donate money to a candidate whose policies will help them grow their business? I don’t understand what difference that makes.
This last election there were a lot of people in the corporate world who were very worried about both candidates and what their polices would do to business. Perhaps if they had been able to contribute their money and voice would have left us with 2 different candidates, who knows. I believe that in a recession it would be good to know from the corporations what will revive the economy. Washington obviously doesn’t know.
Where did I say, Alice, that the government should be always trusted? I think I was saying the opposite. You’re the one who is naive if you believe this is a good thing. Again, corporations are not people, they are property. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that corporations/property should have rights that people have. Also, I shoose to keep informed, I’m not sure what you are shoosing.
Another thing, this is just another opportunity for corporations to take over our government. They will be our government and it will be the end of the middle class.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/icitizens-unitedi-a-week_b_436164.html:
Benito Mussolini created the word “fascism.” He defined it as “the merging of the state and the corporation.” He also said a more accurate word would be “corporatism.” This was the definition in Webster’s up until 1987 when a corporation bought Webster’s and changed it to exclude any mention of corporations.
I’m curious. Who pays for the serivce to run this blog. Not trying to be a smartass or trap anyone. Just want to know.
Wordpress is a free service.
I jsut learned that there is a federal statute that bans foriegn contributions in federal elections. Obama had to return money that he recieved during his campaign due to this statute. It remains intact; un effected by the SC decision. Next trouble?
I don’t think you’ve cleared the last trouble up. How do you define the nationality of a corporation?
All corporations are created onder various statutes promulgated under state and federal code. Amoung the requirements are residency statements. Those that are not domestically registered are classed as foreign. This does not mean that both domestic and foreign can have stockholders that may be citizens of various countries, but it is a relatively simple task to identify the corporation’s state of creation. Keep in mind, this does not prohibit them from taking out advertising regarding the campaign, simply keeps them contributing directly to the campaign as was attempted using the credit card method that Obama’s candidacy failed to oversee in the last election; thus. the violation and the return of contributions.
I can’t believe this doesn’t concern you in the least.