supreme court considers loosening limits on corporate money in politics - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 09-08-2009, 08:07 AM

i feel like i should provide some introductory teaser for this, but it's better if you just read it.

Quote:

Campaign cash case could boost GOP
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
September 7, 2009 06:48 PM EST

Imagine power companies spending millions of dollars on ads in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections accusing congressmen who supported climate change legislation of trying to increase electric rates and urging votes against them, or unions buying airtime to support primary challenges to conservative Democratic senators who opposed the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act. Or even healthcare companies saturating the airwaves with messages urging voters to deny President Obama a second term.

All those ads would be illegal under current election law. But the Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that challenges decades of restrictions on corporations and unions spending unlimited cash on just those sorts of ads. Even more broadly, the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, gives the court’s conservative majority a chance to fundamentally redefine the role of corp[[o]]rations and unions in American politics.

Campaign finance experts predict the court, which has demonstrated an inclination towards incremental loosening of rules restricting the flow of money into politics, will expand the types of ads corporations and unions can pay for. Their only question is just how much the justices will open the floodgates.

Depending on the contours of the decision, sources familiar with the political and legal strategies of unions, major Washington advocacy groups and trade associations expect a deluge of new spending in the 2010 and 2012 elections that likely would most benefit Republicans, since for-profit corporations and their non-profit advocacy groups tend to lean right and have more money at their disposals than unions, which typically support Democrats.

Though few corporations or unions would speak publicly about what they’d do if the court allows them to buy ads supporting or opposing candidates, some of the biggest-spending and most powerful special interest groups in national politics – the AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others – filed briefs in Wednesday’s case supporting Citizens United, the obscure conservative non-profit group challenging the ad restrictions. The group argued its free speech rights were violated when the FEC moved to block it from paying to promote and air "Hillary: The Movie," a feature-length movie harshly critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Democratic National Committee’s top lawyer, Bob Bauer, who also personally represents President Obama, argues that opening the door to more corporate spending in elections would discourage what Bauer contends is the rising power of the type of small donors who helped power Obama to victory in last years’ presidential campaign, and who “are now enlisting to volunteer in their political causes, forming a new online corps of freshly empowered average citizens of varying party affiliations and political commitments.”

“A sudden change in the law, to the advantage of corporate wealth amassed in commercial transactions, would cause a violent disruption in this process,” Bauer asserts in a DNC brief filed with the court opposing the new spending.

“If the Supreme Court goes all the way, it will be major sea change and there will be a lot more corporate money and a lot more labor union money coming into the process,” said Robert Kelner, a lawyer at Covington and Burling who advises major corporations, trade associations and advocacy groups on campaign finance law.

Later this month the firm is holding a seminar to advise clients seeking to set up issue advertising campaigns for the 2010 congressional midterm elections. Kelner said there will likely be plenty of discussion about the potential avenues that could be opened by the court’s decision, though it won’t be issued for months.

Ultimately, though, he predicted most of the groups potentially affected by the case would shy away from funneling big money into ads directly backing or opposing candidates, primarily because such ads are politically riskier – and can be less effective – than spending money on issue advocacy campaigns or lobbying.

But Kelner asserted that if the court expands political ad spending opportunities, “it would free up the handful (of corporations and unions) that are interested in spending a lot of money to spend that money with greater abandon and with fewer restrictions.”

In a 2003 Supreme Court case that will be revisited Wednesday, Kelner represented the Republican National Committee and the California Democratic Party, who were part of an unlikely coalition that also included the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO and NRA, that backed lead plaintiff Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky’s challenge of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul.

McConnell, now the Senate minority leader, opposed the law as an infringement on First Amendment rights, partly because it prohibited corporations and unions from spending unlimited funds on broadcast, cable and satellite ads that even mentioned federal candidates in the run-up to elections, let alone explicitly supported or opposed their election.

But the court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the McCain-Feingold prohibition, determining that the restriction on free speech was minimal, and was offset by a compelling government interest in preventing corporations, in particular, from having an inordinate influence in the political process.

Citing Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 case in which the court ruled that corporations could be barred from spending general treasury funds on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat, the justices noted that they had “repeatedly sustained legislation aimed at the ‘corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.’”

Since 2003, however, the court has become more hostile to campaign finance regulations, a philosophy unlikely to be affected by the arrival of Sonia Sotomayor, who has expressed support for the idea of limiting the role of money in politics and will be hearing her first case Wednesday.

In 2007, for instance, the Court loosened McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on corporate and union ads. That decision riled advocates for limiting the role of money in politics and, according to FEC data, it paved the way for corporations and unions in the months before Election Day 2008 to spend $108.5 million on ads that would have been illegal before the decision.

Still, advocates for stricter campaign finance rules were shocked when the justices, who initially heard the Citizens United case in March, asked the parties to return for a rare re-argument of the case – with a much broader focus. Instead of merely arguing whether federal election laws requiring donor disclosure and limiting content and airing dates should have applied to “Hillary: The Movie,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked the parties to argue whether the court should reverse its rulings in the 2003 McConnell case and the 1990 Austin case.

“Citizens United wasn’t even asking for this,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, which lobbies for stricter campaign finance rules. “The court on its own initiative decided that it was going to look at a 100 years of precedent in restricting corporate money in politics altogether. That is judicial activism at its worst,” said Holman, invoking a charge more commonly leveled by conservatives against judges seen as advancing liberal social causes.

To be sure, the law barring corporations from directly funding candidates’ campaigns – the 1907 Tillman Act, which President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law after being signed by a scandal surrounding his own acceptance of corporate contributions for his 1904 election– is unlikely to be directly affected by the court’s decision in Citizens United. But Holman and others predict that if Citizens United wins a sweeping victory, opponents of campaign finance rules likely would target it.

Those opponents, though, contend that supporters are exaggerating the significance of the Citizens United case.

“This doomsday rhetoric that millions and millions of dollars will just wash over the system is just scare tactics,” said Brad Smith, formerly a Republican appointee to the Federal Election Commission who founded the Center for Competitive Politics, a non-profit that fights for the deregulation of campaign finance. In its brief supporting Citizens United, the Center pointed out that 26 states allow unlimited corporate advertising in state races without rampant corruption of their political system.

“In fact,” Smith said, “the opposite is true – corporate and union political speech can enrich debates and increase voter knowledge, and often theirs are unique voices that voters ought to hear.”

SCOTUS campaign case could boost GOP - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

so basically there is a case before the supreme court that could overturn most existing campaign finance law and open the gates for corporations to use money from their own reserves directly within the american political process.

how could this possibly be good?

i see no upside to it at all. it'd squeeze out the role of smaller donors, skew an already skewed-to-entirely-dysfunctional political process even further in the direction of corporate power.

what do you think of this case?
what do you expect the outcome will be?
how will it play out?

more broadly, what do you think of a potential ruling that would increase the role of coporations in shaping the american political process?

rahl · 09-08-2009, 08:14 AM

I'm not sure I understand how this is different than the way it is now.

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 08:55 AM

Roachboy,

I completely agree. Corporations should not be allowed to give one penny to any candidate, lobbyist, PAC, etc. However, (and here's where we differ) - that means government has to stay out of business (within reason). One can't have it both ways. As long as politicians can forge the rules of the corporations, why wouldn't the corporations place candidates that will be friendly to them? If you get rid of one (funding) you HAVE to get rid of the other (meddling).

"Within reason" means that I acknowledge the need to set standards in innerstate commerce, communication, and in general safety.

girldetective · 09-08-2009, 09:03 AM

what do you think of a potential ruling that would increase the role of coporations in shaping the american political process?

There will be few more chances for us, you and I, to get it right.

samcol · 09-08-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I'm not sure I understand how this is different than the way it is now.

Likewise, I can hardly imagine government and corporations working any closer together than they already do.

Have current campaign finance laws even done anything to hinder this close relationship?

blktour · 09-08-2009, 10:10 AM

isnt that called "fascism"?

the corporate take over of our government?

We can say that this is how it is now, it is just under the radar. Now if this passes it would be done right in our faces.

Rekna · 09-09-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktour

isnt that called "fascism"?

the corporate take over of our government?

We can say that this is how it is now, it is just under the radar. Now if this passes it would be done right in our faces.

That is what I was thinking when reading this. If this is overturned we are just another step closer to fascism.

braisler · 09-09-2009, 09:38 AM

I really can't imagine that the case is even being considered. From what I gathered of the arguments, the opposition to the current law is putting forward the notion that corporations are individuals, the same as you or I, and as such should be granted the freedom to express their viewpoints.

Pardon me, but what a load of steaming crap!

As other posters have noted, corporations already do run our government, they just do it through loopholes and PAC fronts. Reversing campaign finance regulation would just bring it into the open and the floodgates would be wide.

There is absolutely no upside to this case even being given consideration. As it is now, I would venture that 90% of the laws that are passed are to the benefit of corporations, directly or indirectly.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who noticed how partisan this issue is! The right is vying hard for this reversal because they know it will bring them more money, and in turn, they'll loosen regulation, allow their corporate sponsors to make more profits, which will bring in even more money. All to the detriment of our country, the environment, and the people at the lower 98% of the income strata. Boy, that GOP has really outdone itself! Long live corporate welfare!

roachboy · 09-09-2009, 09:42 AM

it is interesting that you have this case and another challenging the idea of corporate personhood happening at the same time, more or less. so one way of looking at this is that the supreme court is in fact taking this question on be it in a single ruling or in a short series of them.

i have more to say about this case, but no time at the moment.

dksuddeth · 09-09-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

That is what I was thinking when reading this. If this is overturned we are just another step closer to fascism.

and that will take us one step closer to an internal violent conflict, unfortunately.

Baraka_Guru · 09-09-2009, 10:13 AM

The only thing more important than the separation of church and state is the separation of corporation and state.

roachboy · 09-09-2009, 10:22 AM

think of the concentration of wealth in the hands of corporations in the united states.
think of the extent to which unleashing more of that money would gut the debris field that is the american political process.
it seems to be assumed that the republicans would benefit disproportionately from this--and perhaps that's right in certain sectors, which comprise the republican corporate patronage system---but it's clear that not all corporate types see neoliberalism as a coherent ideology or it's correlates in how bidness operates as rational in purely self-interested terms. so what this ruling would do is skew the entirety of the process, transferring basic political power away from both the state and the people and into the hands of corporate entities.
relative to which there is little in the way of redress.

i don't think this would represent a change in kind from the system that's already in place--but it would bring about a definite change--for the worse--in political processes.

Cimarron29414 · 09-10-2009, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The only thing more important than the separation of church and state is the separation of corporation and state.

I find it interesting that, when you talk about separation of corporation and state, you only want to eliminate the influence from one direction. (From your previous posts), you have no problem with the state being involved in corporations, you just don't want corporations involved in the state.

Baraka_Guru · 09-10-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I find it interesting that, when you talk about separation of corporation and state, you only want to eliminate the influence from one direction. (From your previous posts), you have no problem with the state being involved in corporations, you just don't want corporations involved in the state.

Well, yes...and this is an excellent point.

The state is a governing entity empowered by its people. Its role is to mind the well-being of the people. It is accountable to the people.

If this includes governing entities such as corporations, then so be it. Corporations have rules and regulations to abide by for one main reason: for the well-being of the people.

This is why the state governs corporations, and corporations should not govern the state. I'm against the idea that corporations should have personhood. They should not be able to vote.

People, on the other hand, collectively should have power and influence over the state via democratic means. But this goes both ways, the state also has power over people in that there are laws in place for the general well-being of everyone.

dksuddeth · 09-10-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, yes...and this is an excellent point.

The state is a governing entity empowered by its people. Its role is to mind the well-being of the people.

what does that part mean?

Baraka_Guru · 09-10-2009, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what does that part mean?

It means that governments do things to ensure and secure the well being of the public. Sorry...it was worded a bit awkwardly.

To expand: governments use law as a means of promoting and securing the well being of the public. For example: labour laws (safe working environments, limits on work hours, minimum wages, fair practices, etc.) and consumer laws (safe products, fair advertising, adequate product information, etc.).

This is the influence governments have over corporations (well, businesses in general). I don't expect corporations to have much influence over government in return. The only extent I see in this regard is working with government on business laws and regulations where they need to be refined. But what needs to be at the fore is the well being of the public.

Cimarron29414 · 09-10-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It means that governments do things to ensure and secure the well being of the public. Sorry...it was worded a bit awkwardly.

To expand: governments use law as a means of promoting and securing the well being of the public. For example: labour laws (safe working environments, limits on work hours, minimum wages, fair practices, etc.) and consumer laws (safe products, fair advertising, adequate product information, etc.).

This is the influence governments have over corporations (well, businesses in general). I don't expect corporations to have much influence over government in return. The only extent I see in this regard is working with government on business laws and regulations where they need to be refined. But what needs to be at the fore is the well being of the public.

So, just to be clear, you believe the state should control the behavior of corporations and those corporations should have no say-so in "who" the "state" is?

Hmmm, what's that word? Ah, there it is: tyranny.

Baraka_Guru · 09-10-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

So, just to be clear, you believe the state should control the behavior of corporations and those corporations should have no say-so in "who" the "state" is?

Hmmm, what's that word? Ah, there it is: tyranny.

Now you're jumping to conclusions. If this were the case, then we've all been living under tyrannical power for well over 100 years.

Corporations do have a say. They have lobbyists. There are protocols they can follow if they have grievances. There are courts, there are constitutions.

But to think that the state should not be able to control the behaviour of corporations at all is to think along the same lines as proponents of laissez-faire economics—you know, that failed and miserable experiment of the 19th century....and a direct cause of the introduction of labour and consumer laws of which we are familiar today.

Corporations have a say, but they cannot do away with legislation that has the general support of the public. If the past has ever been a teacher, we have learned that corporations need to be kept on a leash.

They have a say, but they should not have very much say in who has power within the state. They would have too much influence, and they are not people. Governments are supposed to be empowered by people, not corporations.

loquitur · 09-10-2009, 10:31 AM

guys, look at substance, not form.
And the law we have now is a bloody mess as it is.

More later when I have time to compose something somewhat comprehensible.

dippin · 09-10-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

So, just to be clear, you believe the state should control the behavior of corporations and those corporations should have no say-so in "who" the "state" is?

Hmmm, what's that word? Ah, there it is: tyranny.

This is a false dichotomy. First, because corporations already have a number of ways to influence government that go beyond campaign donations. Courts, lobbyists, advertising, etc. etc. all mean that the idea that barring corporations from making campaign donations somehow takes away their power to influence the polity is false.

In fact, what is at stake is the fact that corporations are already far more powerful than any other organizations in society.

Corporations from the start had rights and powers that individuals don't have. To also grant them the rights of individuals is a travesty.

flstf · 09-10-2009, 01:43 PM

It just seems weird to me that a corporation should be given the same rights as an individual citizen. Aren't foreign investors and even some countries major stock holders in some of our corporations?

Martian · 09-10-2009, 02:28 PM

I've always thought the concept of corporate personhood to be particularly bizarre.

And to expand on what Baraka_Guru has been saying (and perhaps depart from it entirely), no I don't think corporations should have any direct influence on the state. They require means to redress greivances and contend unfair laws or practices -- such means can and do exist in the form of the court system and governing entities such as the FCC or FDA (CRTC would be a Canadian example). If the people believe that these controlling bodies are insufficient or are acting in bad faith, the people can take action to address that. That's where the power belongs -- with the people.

A democratic government exists to protect the good of the people. A corporation exists to make profit. These two ends don't have to conflict necessarily, but they often do. This is why it's important that a government be answerable to the people, and only to the people, and also that a government be able to exert control over corporate bodies. It's the only way to ensure that corporations continue to act in good faith.

You call this a dictatorship. That's a bit alarmist, I think. A dictatorship is a government that is not answerable to anyone. Removing corporate influence from government activities hardly causes that to be the case.

Cimarron29414 · 09-11-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

I've always thought the concept of corporate personhood to be particularly bizarre.

And to expand on what Baraka_Guru has been saying (and perhaps depart from it entirely), no I don't think corporations should have any direct influence on the state. They require means to redress greivances and contend unfair laws or practices -- such means can and do exist in the form of the court system and governing entities such as the FCC or FDA (CRTC would be a Canadian example). If the people believe that these controlling bodies are insufficient or are acting in bad faith, the people can take action to address that. That's where the power belongs -- with the people.

A democratic government exists to protect the good of the people. A corporation exists to make profit. These two ends don't have to conflict necessarily, but they often do. This is why it's important that a government be answerable to the people, and only to the people, and also that a government be able to exert control over corporate bodies. It's the only way to ensure that corporations continue to act in good faith.

You call this a dictatorship. That's a bit alarmist, I think. A dictatorship is a government that is not answerable to anyone. Removing corporate influence from government activities hardly causes that to be the case.

I do not think that corporations should be able to donate money to anything in politics. I do not believe corporations should be granted "person" status. I believe that setting term limits on congress to two terms would dramatically curtail the influence of lobbyists on the government. I support government oversight to standardize interstate commerce, set safety standards, etc.

My point is that you guys will easily support dramatic government control over private industry and then scream when there's a hint of private industry control in government. This brings us to our basic ideologies: you guys think the government is a good thing, and I view it as a necessary evil. I will grant it no more power than is absolutely necessary. I want to place that power as close to the "people" as possible. Instead, you place the power as far from the people as possible: i.e. a "wage czar" to POTUS in the Washington, D.C. It seems you trying to argue that the "people" have better control over that person than they do a CEO in a publicly traded company. I disagree.

I did not call it a "dictatorship", I called the actions of this government (for decades) tyranny. Tyranny which is ramping up drastically under the current government.

roachboy · 09-11-2009, 06:37 AM

i dont think you understand what the state does, cimmaron, and on that basis you try to reduce "questions" concerning it and its actions to pretty simplisitic polarities (good/bad). maybe this follows from one's understanding of the history of capitalism itself, which is quite different from the fantasies about capitalism that have been outlined in political economy texts over the past couple hundred years. on that basis, you seem not to understand how to look at the state: when baraka guru says that the state is in a basic way a democratizing force, the way to look at that is that at the running of the state is determined by elections (whatever you may think of them, and i am personally pretty cynical about them in the present american context) which introduces at least at the level of principle a form of accountability to the electorate. neoliberal arguments attempt to parallel corporation to shareholder relations, but that's only superficially accurate---shareholders may hold corporations accountable, but who gets to be a shareholder is a matter of class position. this has fuck all to do with basic citizenship rights and everything to do with economic class. some notion of laissez faire capitalism amounts to an evacuation of political control or accountability, a flight from the public (in the sense of the electorate, the citizenry) and it's replacement with the private, which is not accountable to the citizenry. what liberal political economy tries to do to obscure this fact is basically to equate economic demand and political freedom---but they're basically different.

this is a philosophical difference.
the more pragmatic differences between your position and, say, mine, follow from the extent to which one introduces the history of actually existing capitalism into one's understanding of what the state has been, how it's changed, what it's functions are and whose interests it serves. in a nutshell (god how i hate that cliche)...without the modern state propping it up, capitalism would have collapsed long ago. it is not a socially or politically functional system. it generates continual instability while it's own functions presuppose continual stability, or at least a minimal stability, enough so that there are people willing to produce goods and people able to consume them. the state has developed through a sequence of stages primarily as an elaborate mechanism that mediates this basic tendency toward instability. to see this, all you have to do is look at the history of capitalism as a social system since, say, the 1870s, so since the introduction of public stock trading. which is the point that you start to see very large scale mass-production oriented corporations as the dominant form of capitalist production--so the point at which the viewpoints of hayek, von mises and the tradition of liberal political economists they stand in for become quaint.

Cimarron29414 · 09-11-2009, 10:34 AM

roachboy,

I see what you are saying and agree that I am no economist. My question, which is rhetorical in nature, is: how can we judge capitalism as a failure or success when it has never been allowed to exist without political meddling. Could it succeed in a ~truly~ laissez faire version? I can say that a decline in our moral code makes it highly unlikely that it could. Pure capitalism depends on natural law to remain successful. In the absence of natural law (society solving the problem), greed will overtake the system and government steps in (which they have). The question is whether the government stepping in is done for the welfare of the people or for the greed and corruption which exists within the government. I say it's the latter.

My vision of a capitalist system would involve the people boycotting and bankrupting corrupt/inept companies. Is that realistic? Would it be as rapid a control mechanism as a government sanction? Probably not. However, our government has increasingly stepped in long before the economic system could work it out on it's own. This meddling is used as indictments against capitalism - as examples of it having failed and needing to be propped up. The system isn't given the time it needs to naturally sort itself out (which is admittedly a slower pace.)

roachboy · 09-11-2009, 10:50 AM

thanks for this, cimmaron. it actually helps me understand where you come from in your posts.

i have to say, though, that i don't know what natural law is.
how do you see it?

Cimarron29414 · 09-11-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

thanks for this, cimmaron. it actually helps me understand where you come from in your posts.

i have to say, though, that i don't know what natural law is.
how do you see it?

It's earliest recordings are pre-Christian but Christian doctrine says it most succinctly: "Love your God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Cicero wrote about natural law around 53 BC. Jesus spoke of it when challenged in the temple. Jefferson wrote about it in his views on god. Most feel, as do I, that Jefferson believed in a creator, but was not a Christian. One can certainly follow natural law without following a religious dogma. The latter part of it, to love your neighbor, is the key for societal harmony.

If all people follow natural law, society sorts out most issues. Those issues unresolved should be placed in the hands of government. We as a people must place our government in check from the temptations of stepping in too early, because that is where liberty is lost. <- Upon rereading that, it waxed poetic, which was not the intent. I don't mean to grandstand.

SecretMethod70 · 09-11-2009, 11:51 AM

The problem with natural law is that it is not natural at all.

Troublebot · 09-11-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

The problem with natural law is that it is not natural at all.

That's just what I was thinking. I try and live by the natural law, but I've lived long enough to know that not everyone does. If the government (or someone else) isn't there to assist me with those that don't want to love their neighbor as themselves, what's my recourse?

While I understand wanting less government, I don't see others doing things that would allow us to have less goverment.

And there's my first-ever post in TFP Politics!

Cimarron29414 · 09-11-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

The problem with natural law is that it is not natural at all.

I disagree. Freud discussed the three elements of consciousness. Id, Ego, and Super Ego. We are the only species with a super ego. It allows us to recognize "right" from "wrong". Very few people do not possess this recognition. All others, could choose to follow it (natural law).

To note what Troublebot said, "I can follow natural law, but I don't think others will and thats why we need the government to do all of this" is naive. I don't mean this in a critical way, but I would say that a fundamental tenet of modern political liberalism is the belief that people will not do nice things for others unless the government forces them to. That really is another way of saying, "I don't believe others will follow natural law so I want my government to step in."

Obviously, I don't believe that to be true.

flstf · 09-11-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

If all people follow natural law, society sorts out most issues. Those issues unresolved should be placed in the hands of government. We as a people must place our government in check from the temptations of stepping in too early, because that is where liberty is lost. <- Upon rereading that, it waxed poetic, which was not the intent. I don't mean to grandstand.

My wife and I discuss this sort of thing quite frequently. I believe that basically most people are good and genuinely try to do the right thing as they see it. She says that I am naive. From the vitriol being displayed in the political realm recently she seems to be winning the debate.

I am hard pressed to try and explain the amount of corruption found in our leaders both private and public. It's almost as if most corporate and political leaders whose affairs are looked into will uncover unethical if not illegal activity. I wonder if this isn't the real natural order of things.

SecretMethod70 · 09-11-2009, 02:22 PM

Freud was not a biologist. The idea that we're so exceptional as to be the only species with any moral direction is laughable. Freud was important in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't look to him as a singular authority any more than I'd say the study of evolution stops at Darwin. Freud's ideas were very clearly influenced by his own neuroses. Furthermore, you say people can choose to follow their superego, but Freud's whole point is that there is an internal battle between the id and the superego, and neither reigns supreme. We are more than just consciousness trapped in bodies.

That's not to say I think people are inherently bad. I don't think people are inherently anything. We are highly evolved creatures who have the capacity to create beauty and destroy said creation with impressive violence. That is the natural law, and the challenge - whether it is in government, the workforce, the culture, or our interpersonal relationships - is to do more creating than destroying.

Troublebot · 09-11-2009, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I disagree. Freud discussed the three elements of consciousness. Id, Ego, and Super Ego. We are the only species with a super ego. It allows us to recognize "right" from "wrong". Very few people do not possess this recognition. All others, could choose to follow it (natural law).

To note what Troublebot said, "I can follow natural law, but I don't think others will and thats why we need the government to do all of this" is naive. I don't mean this in a critical way, but I would say that a fundamental tenet of modern political liberalism is the belief that people will not do nice things for others unless the government forces them to. That really is another way of saying, "I don't believe others will follow natural law so I want my government to step in."

Obviously, I don't believe that to be true.

While you may not have meant it critically, it's hard not to take that way.

While "Love your neighbor as yourself" is well known, so is "Look out for number one." and that's got nothing to do with loving anyone but yourself. Sometimes it seems like a majority of people only care about them and theirs. We need rules, laws and people to enforce them. Maybe I was asleep that day in civics class, but isn't that something a government is suppose to do?

If the bad old government would just step out of the way, everyone would be nice to each other? Now who's being naive?

Cimarron29414 · 09-14-2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troublebot

While you may not have meant it critically, it's hard not to take that way.

While "Love your neighbor as yourself" is well known, so is "Look out for number one." and that's got nothing to do with loving anyone but yourself. Sometimes it seems like a majority of people only care about them and theirs. We need rules, laws and people to enforce them. Maybe I was asleep that day in civics class, but isn't that something a government is suppose to do?

If the bad old government would just step out of the way, everyone would be nice to each other? Now who's being naive?

Because you guys have jumped to so many conclusions so quickly, I'm going to opt out of this discussion. There's no point following up, you guys have it all figured out.

dc_dux · 09-14-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Because you guys have jumped to so many conclusions so quickly, I'm going to opt out of this discussion. There's no point following up, you guys have it all figured out.

You have a right to opt out.

I am just trying to understand the conservative/libertarian commitment to individual rights with the notion of expanding the frist amendment rights to corporations/unions.

As Justice Ginsberg raised in her questioning:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to know whether even mega-corporations with primarily foreign investors should have the same First Amendment rights as individuals: "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights" she said.

But then, I'm not an attorney.

ps....I also have a problem with financial donations (ie money) being treated as a first amendment right of speech or expression.

roachboy · 09-17-2009, 05:58 AM

this link

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

takes you to a summary of last night's colbert report segment on this case and it's implications.
it really is the first television program to touch on this case---which i think in itself gives you a pretty good idea of the way of things in the united states.
the ability to erase information is a fundamental aspect of the ability to control it.
i don't mean this to sound paranoid, but basically...well read the article.
and ask yourself: why aren't we being informed more of this case?
it's pretty important, don't you think?
there are some basic questions at stake in it concerning the nature of actually existing american pseudo-democracy, the processes themselves, don't you think?
but there's almost no press devoted to such an important matter.
why is that?
hmm.

Derwood · 09-17-2009, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and ask yourself: why aren't we being informed more of this case?
it's pretty important, don't you think?
there are some basic questions at stake in it concerning the nature of actually existing american pseudo-democracy, the processes themselves, don't you think?
but there's almost no press devoted to such an important matter.
why is that?
hmm.

because Kanye West disrespected Taylor Swift and Michael Jackson is still dead

dksuddeth · 09-17-2009, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this link

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

takes you to a summary of last night's colbert report segment on this case and it's implications.
it really is the first television program to touch on this case---which i think in itself gives you a pretty good idea of the way of things in the united states.
the ability to erase information is a fundamental aspect of the ability to control it.
i don't mean this to sound paranoid, but basically...well read the article.
and ask yourself: why aren't we being informed more of this case?
it's pretty important, don't you think?
there are some basic questions at stake in it concerning the nature of actually existing american pseudo-democracy, the processes themselves, don't you think?
but there's almost no press devoted to such an important matter.
why is that?
hmm.

i'm guessing that it's because these media outlets are corporations themselves and an adverse ruling against corporations limits their ability to donate.

roachboy · 09-17-2009, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. “In our country,” said one of them, “to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What’s the secret?”

quoted here:
New Statesman - In the freest press on earth, humanity is reported in terms of its usefulness to US power

Rekna · 09-17-2009, 06:58 AM

If these corporations want the same rights as people then we should limit their donations to $2500 just like individuals are. I still don't think corporations should be treated like people, they shouldn't be able to donate to political campaigns or run political commercials. They already have way to much power. You may not realize it but much of our beliefs are already shaped by these corporations.

09-08-2009, 08:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	I'm not sure I understand how this is different than the way it is now. __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

09-08-2009, 08:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Roachboy, I completely agree. Corporations should not be allowed to give one penny to any candidate, lobbyist, PAC, etc. However, (and here's where we differ) - that means government has to stay out of business (within reason). One can't have it both ways. As long as politicians can forge the rules of the corporations, why wouldn't the corporations place candidates that will be friendly to them? If you get rid of one (funding) you HAVE to get rid of the other (meddling). "Within reason" means that I acknowledge the need to set standards in innerstate commerce, communication, and in general safety. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

09-08-2009, 09:03 AM	#4 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	what do you think of a potential ruling that would increase the role of coporations in shaping the american political process? There will be few more chances for us, you and I, to get it right. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

09-09-2009, 09:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is interesting that you have this case and another challenging the idea of corporate personhood happening at the same time, more or less. so one way of looking at this is that the supreme court is in fact taking this question on be it in a single ruling or in a short series of them. i have more to say about this case, but no time at the moment. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-09-2009, 10:13 AM	#11 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The only thing more important than the separation of church and state is the separation of corporation and state. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-08-2009, 10:10 AM	#6 (permalink)
blktour Psycho Location: Anchorage, AK	isnt that called "fascism"? the corporate take over of our government? We can say that this is how it is now, it is just under the radar. Now if this passes it would be done right in our faces.

09-09-2009, 09:38 AM	#8 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	I really can't imagine that the case is even being considered. From what I gathered of the arguments, the opposition to the current law is putting forward the notion that corporations are individuals, the same as you or I, and as such should be granted the freedom to express their viewpoints. Pardon me, but what a load of steaming crap! As other posters have noted, corporations already do run our government, they just do it through loopholes and PAC fronts. Reversing campaign finance regulation would just bring it into the open and the floodgates would be wide. There is absolutely no upside to this case even being given consideration. As it is now, I would venture that 90% of the laws that are passed are to the benefit of corporations, directly or indirectly. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who noticed how partisan this issue is! The right is vying hard for this reversal because they know it will bring them more money, and in turn, they'll loosen regulation, allow their corporate sponsors to make more profits, which will bring in even more money. All to the detriment of our country, the environment, and the people at the lower 98% of the income strata. Boy, that GOP has really outdone itself! Long live corporate welfare!

09-09-2009, 10:22 AM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	think of the concentration of wealth in the hands of corporations in the united states. think of the extent to which unleashing more of that money would gut the debris field that is the american political process. it seems to be assumed that the republicans would benefit disproportionately from this--and perhaps that's right in certain sectors, which comprise the republican corporate patronage system---but it's clear that not all corporate types see neoliberalism as a coherent ideology or it's correlates in how bidness operates as rational in purely self-interested terms. so what this ruling would do is skew the entirety of the process, transferring basic political power away from both the state and the people and into the hands of corporate entities. relative to which there is little in the way of redress. i don't think this would represent a change in kind from the system that's already in place--but it would bring about a definite change--for the worse--in political processes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-10-2009, 10:31 AM	#19 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	guys, look at substance, not form. And the law we have now is a bloody mess as it is. More later when I have time to compose something somewhat comprehensible.

09-10-2009, 01:43 PM	#21 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It just seems weird to me that a corporation should be given the same rights as an individual citizen. Aren't foreign investors and even some countries major stock holders in some of our corporations?

09-10-2009, 02:28 PM	#22 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I've always thought the concept of corporate personhood to be particularly bizarre. And to expand on what Baraka_Guru has been saying (and perhaps depart from it entirely), no I don't think corporations should have any direct influence on the state. They require means to redress greivances and contend unfair laws or practices -- such means can and do exist in the form of the court system and governing entities such as the FCC or FDA (CRTC would be a Canadian example). If the people believe that these controlling bodies are insufficient or are acting in bad faith, the people can take action to address that. That's where the power belongs -- with the people. A democratic government exists to protect the good of the people. A corporation exists to make profit. These two ends don't have to conflict necessarily, but they often do. This is why it's important that a government be answerable to the people, and only to the people, and also that a government be able to exert control over corporate bodies. It's the only way to ensure that corporations continue to act in good faith. You call this a dictatorship. That's a bit alarmist, I think. A dictatorship is a government that is not answerable to anyone. Removing corporate influence from government activities hardly causes that to be the case. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

09-11-2009, 06:37 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont think you understand what the state does, cimmaron, and on that basis you try to reduce "questions" concerning it and its actions to pretty simplisitic polarities (good/bad). maybe this follows from one's understanding of the history of capitalism itself, which is quite different from the fantasies about capitalism that have been outlined in political economy texts over the past couple hundred years. on that basis, you seem not to understand how to look at the state: when baraka guru says that the state is in a basic way a democratizing force, the way to look at that is that at the running of the state is determined by elections (whatever you may think of them, and i am personally pretty cynical about them in the present american context) which introduces at least at the level of principle a form of accountability to the electorate. neoliberal arguments attempt to parallel corporation to shareholder relations, but that's only superficially accurate---shareholders may hold corporations accountable, but who gets to be a shareholder is a matter of class position. this has fuck all to do with basic citizenship rights and everything to do with economic class. some notion of laissez faire capitalism amounts to an evacuation of political control or accountability, a flight from the public (in the sense of the electorate, the citizenry) and it's replacement with the private, which is not accountable to the citizenry. what liberal political economy tries to do to obscure this fact is basically to equate economic demand and political freedom---but they're basically different. this is a philosophical difference. the more pragmatic differences between your position and, say, mine, follow from the extent to which one introduces the history of actually existing capitalism into one's understanding of what the state has been, how it's changed, what it's functions are and whose interests it serves. in a nutshell (god how i hate that cliche)...without the modern state propping it up, capitalism would have collapsed long ago. it is not a socially or politically functional system. it generates continual instability while it's own functions presuppose continual stability, or at least a minimal stability, enough so that there are people willing to produce goods and people able to consume them. the state has developed through a sequence of stages primarily as an elaborate mechanism that mediates this basic tendency toward instability. to see this, all you have to do is look at the history of capitalism as a social system since, say, the 1870s, so since the introduction of public stock trading. which is the point that you start to see very large scale mass-production oriented corporations as the dominant form of capitalist production--so the point at which the viewpoints of hayek, von mises and the tradition of liberal political economists they stand in for become quaint. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-11-2009, 10:34 AM	#25 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	roachboy, I see what you are saying and agree that I am no economist. My question, which is rhetorical in nature, is: how can we judge capitalism as a failure or success when it has never been allowed to exist without political meddling. Could it succeed in a ~truly~ laissez faire version? I can say that a decline in our moral code makes it highly unlikely that it could. Pure capitalism depends on natural law to remain successful. In the absence of natural law (society solving the problem), greed will overtake the system and government steps in (which they have). The question is whether the government stepping in is done for the welfare of the people or for the greed and corruption which exists within the government. I say it's the latter. My vision of a capitalist system would involve the people boycotting and bankrupting corrupt/inept companies. Is that realistic? Would it be as rapid a control mechanism as a government sanction? Probably not. However, our government has increasingly stepped in long before the economic system could work it out on it's own. This meddling is used as indictments against capitalism - as examples of it having failed and needing to be propped up. The system isn't given the time it needs to naturally sort itself out (which is admittedly a slower pace.) __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

09-11-2009, 10:50 AM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks for this, cimmaron. it actually helps me understand where you come from in your posts. i have to say, though, that i don't know what natural law is. how do you see it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-11-2009, 11:51 AM	#28 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	The problem with natural law is that it is not natural at all. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

09-11-2009, 02:22 PM	#32 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Freud was not a biologist. The idea that we're so exceptional as to be the only species with any moral direction is laughable. Freud was important in a lot of ways, but I wouldn't look to him as a singular authority any more than I'd say the study of evolution stops at Darwin. Freud's ideas were very clearly influenced by his own neuroses. Furthermore, you say people can choose to follow their superego, but Freud's whole point is that there is an internal battle between the id and the superego, and neither reigns supreme. We are more than just consciousness trapped in bodies. That's not to say I think people are inherently bad. I don't think people are inherently anything. We are highly evolved creatures who have the capacity to create beauty and destroy said creation with impressive violence. That is the natural law, and the challenge - whether it is in government, the workforce, the culture, or our interpersonal relationships - is to do more creating than destroying. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 09-11-2009 at 02:25 PM..

09-17-2009, 05:58 AM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this link Daily Kos: State of the Nation takes you to a summary of last night's colbert report segment on this case and it's implications. it really is the first television program to touch on this case---which i think in itself gives you a pretty good idea of the way of things in the united states. the ability to erase information is a fundamental aspect of the ability to control it. i don't mean this to sound paranoid, but basically...well read the article. and ask yourself: why aren't we being informed more of this case? it's pretty important, don't you think? there are some basic questions at stake in it concerning the nature of actually existing american pseudo-democracy, the processes themselves, don't you think? but there's almost no press devoted to such an important matter. why is that? hmm. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-17-2009, 06:58 AM	#40 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If these corporations want the same rights as people then we should limit their donations to $2500 just like individuals are. I still don't think corporations should be treated like people, they shouldn't be able to donate to political campaigns or run political commercials. They already have way to much power. You may not realize it but much of our beliefs are already shaped by these corporations.