User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 118

  1. #1
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default Campaign finance - Another source of America's doom?

    Yes, yes, dramatic title. But seriously, the trends of campaign financing in this country often has me seriously concerned about our democracy, or the degree to which we have any at all.

    This comes to mind now because of this [warning: article]:

    Corporations are pitching a bizarre product -- a radical vision of the 1st Amendment. It would give corporations rather than voters a central role in our electoral process by treating corporate political spending as protected speech. If this vision becomes reality, businesses and other big-money players will spend billions either hyping their preferred candidates or running attack ads against elected officials who don't support their preferred agenda. Voters will be forced into a couch-potato role, mere viewers of the electoral spectacle bought and paid for by wealthy companies.

    The Supreme Court's decision in the hotly anticipated campaign finance reform case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission -- which may be announced as early as Tuesday -- will show whether a majority of the Roberts court is buying their argument.

    The case may be the turning point in a concerted, decades-long ideological campaign -- the "corporate free speech movement," as Robert L. Kerr and other scholars have chronicled. As far back as 1971, Lewis F. Powell Jr. (whom President Nixon would shortly nominate to the Supreme Court) sent a confidential memorandum to his friend Eugene Sydnor Jr. at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing that corporate interests needed to take advantage of a "neglected opportunity in the courts." Because "the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change," the memo said, the chamber and other corporate interests should develop a cadre of constitutional lawyers to file lawsuits and amicus briefs to push a corporate-friendly legal agenda in the Supreme Court.

    Corporations heeded this call to arms, generously funding the chamber's litigation arm and founding other think tanks. In hundreds of lawsuits and briefs, the chamber and corporations such as Exxon-Mobil and Nike have drilled in the pro-business party line that 1st Amendment protection should extend to corporate political spending -- such as the corporate-funded movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton that is at issue in Citizens United. The case, which began on narrow grounds (did restrictions on corporate campaign ads apply to this film?) has become a test of whether restrictions on political speech by corporations should be ended altogether.

    Only five years after Powell sent his memo, the Supreme Court in Buckley vs. Valeo struck down campaign spending limits on 1st Amendment grounds, with the rationale that such limits "impose direct and substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech." Two years later, in First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, the court held -- for the first time -- that the 1st Amendment extends to corporate political spending, striking down a law that had prevented business corporations from spending shareholder funds to influence the outcome of state ballot measures. By then Powell was on the court, and he wrote the controlling opinion in Bellotti and was in the majority in both cases.

    As 1st Amendment expert Linda Berger has pointed out, the Buckley and Bellotti cases planted the seeds of three new metaphors in election law: that money is speech; that corporations are people; and that elections are marketplaces. To equate corporate campaign spending with 1st Amendment-protected speech, you must accept all three. Each, however, is problematic.

    First, although spending money may, in some circumstances, have some expressive value (such as clicking a web link to give $10 to a candidate), it does not follow that money is speech or that the 1st Amendment should shield such spending from regulation. After all, I can drive my car in a way that conveys a message -- disapproval of a tailgating fellow driver, for example -- but that doesn't mean that driving is speech, nor that the 1st Amendment renders traffic laws unconstitutional. When corporations and other monied interests spend vast sums to influence the outcome of an election, they're not trying to communicate an idea but simply to wield economic power and to bid for influence.

    Second, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out at the Citizens United oral argument, a corporation "is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights." After all, corporations are legal entities created for doing business and given special advantages that aren't available to individuals or even other business entities, including limited liability and favorable tax treatment.

    Thus, although corporations have certain economic rights -- to enable them to conduct business -- a corporation has no claim to the fundamental constitutional rights held by "We the People." Corporations already have ample means to express their "viewpoints" -- by lobbying, testifying in Congress and conducting public education on issues -- and those corporate employees who wish to advance the corporation's political agenda can contribute to the corporation's political action committee.

    Third, and finally, one should not simply import economic free-market principles wholesale into the "free market of ideas." The operating assumption of free-market theory is that, in the long term, buyers' preferences will steer money to the best outcomes, so that those firms that offer the best goods and services will be rewarded with the greatest market success. However, this "invisible hand" assumption -- that money follows or represents merit -- has no application to elections, especially when corporations are involved. The amount of money a corporation can spend lacks even a theoretical connection to the intrinsic worth -- or popular support -- of its political agenda.

    For decades, the Supreme Court stopped short of fully endorsing any of the three metaphors, heeding former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's warning that to treat corporate spending as the 1st Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality." Instead, as campaign finance law developed, the court struck a balance between the rights of campaigners -- candidates, parties, PACs and corporations -- on the one hand and the rights of the electorate to a representative, participatory and accountable government on the other.

    But since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito have replaced Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, concern for the 1st Amendment interests of the electorate seems to have been jettisoned. Since they joined the court, it has struck down campaign finance regulations in each of the three relevant cases it has heard, championing a 1st Amendment right to spend money freely in political campaigns without regard to the voter's right to a meaningful role in the electoral process.



    With Citizens United due to be decided as campaigns for this year's elections get off the ground, political players are keenly aware that the court could open the floodgates to corporate cash. "We the People" can only hope the court steps back from the brink and instead recognizes that in a democracy, voters, not corporations, should be at the center of the political process.

    Monica Youn directs the Money in Politics Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.
    [Linke to article here.]

    I'm tense about this decision, and I'm disgusted with the trend so far. I agree with the three points the writer of the article makes about the absurdity of the constitutional interpretation in question and its implications.

    I am a big fan of representative democracy, and as such I'm brought down by an anxiety that our government (already antiquated and lagging behind other developed democracies) is becoming less and less of one and more and more of a corporatocracy.

    Is there any way off of this path, or will the USA ride down it to the bitter end?
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 01-12-2010 at 02:39 PM. Reason: Why do I care?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #2
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    The biggest concern in American politics today. When you have Citibank talking about how the franchise of the American people is a problem, then you know something's severely screwed up.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    I disagree with some of my libertarian brethren over the idea that money is speech. The resulting inequalities that can result from that concept are astounding. I wish there was a way to remove money from the political game. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a workable solution.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #4
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I disagree with some of my libertarian brethren over the idea that money is speech. The resulting inequalities that can result from that concept are astounding. I wish there was a way to remove money from the political game. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a workable solution.
    Socialism.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  5. #5
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I disagree with some of my libertarian brethren over the idea that money is speech. The resulting inequalities that can result from that concept are astounding. I wish there was a way to remove money from the political game. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a workable solution.

    The best way to remove corruption from the system is to remove the power that causes it. Corporations wouldn't waste their money trying to influence Washington if they didn't feel Washington could game the system on their behalf. I would be interested in defining a ruling for this, though. I don't see how ending corporate contributions could be constitutional UNLESS all political donations had to be given by individuals. So if corporations AND unions AND "Concerned Wheelbarrow Salesmen of America" or any group were banned, maybe that flies. Personally, I believe that political donations are protected speech, so I wouldn't want anything to have a chilling effect there. Also, the entire "free-market theory" paragraph there was complete bullshit.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #6
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The best way to remove corruption from the system is to remove the power that causes it. Corporations wouldn't waste their money trying to influence Washington if they didn't feel Washington could game the system on their behalf. I would be interested in defining a ruling for this, though. I don't see how ending corporate contributions could be constitutional UNLESS all political donations had to be given by individuals. So if corporations AND unions AND "Concerned Wheelbarrow Salesmen of America" or any group were banned, maybe that flies. Personally, I believe that political donations are protected speech, so I wouldn't want anything to have a chilling effect there. Also, the entire "free-market theory" paragraph there was complete bullshit.
    I believe corporate personhood was a terrible idea, so it follows that I don't believe corporations should have the same rights as individuals, this includes the right to contribute to political campaigns.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #7

    Default

    I've always thought campaign finance was one the biggest threats to a true representative democracy. But I usually don't think of it from the macro perspective of corporate policymaking. I always think of how it limits the number of candidates for office. Unless you are extremely wealthy, it's very difficult to mount a viable campaign for a state or national office. And if you aren't wealthy, it's likely that you've had to sell yourself off in pieces to get in the game. It makes for a climate where lots of bright people with good ideas and an earnest desire to govern can't compete.

    On the other hand, the wealth requirement winnows the field. It's impractical to have tens or hundreds of candidates for senator or president. Maybe the solution is a different method of choosing party nominees. I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I know the way we do things now is the wrong answer.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  8. #8
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I believe corporate personhood was a terrible idea, so it follows that I don't believe corporations should have the same rights as individuals, this includes the right to contribute to political campaigns.
    What's your opinion of the Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, professional associations, and various other forms of interests aggregation contributing to political campaigns?

  9. #9
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Completely agree, and I find myself somewhat agreeing with Pure Merc in that corporations wouldn't wield this kind of power if there wasn't a reason to do so.

    IMO, the whole process needs to be redone. I don't know where you'd start though. I had thought of changing term length and limits to remove incentive to vote for the continuation of your own position, but then you tend to lose some stability in terms of what ideas are present in the lawmaking structure. If you're only allowed one term of 6-8 years, you're less concerned with staying in power because you simply can't.

    Also, I think the government needs to be far less involved in financial policy, but more of a reactionary police force in regards to abuse instead of setting financial agenda.



  10. #10
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    What's your opinion of the Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, professional associations, and various other forms of interests aggregation contributing to political campaigns?
    Those are organizations, not individuals, so my opinion is the same. Some of those organizations are often organized as corporations. I don't even like the idea of groups like MADD contributing to political campaigns.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. What is the source of class distinction?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 11:04 AM
  2. Is the brain the source of faith?
    By JAVO in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
  3. Bank of America getting bail out money AGAIN
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 08:08 PM
  4. Another one of those crazy INFPs
    By BrendenTheMendicant in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 09:54 PM
  5. Evaluating sources of science facts and what is the current scientific viewpoint
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 08:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO