Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Back in the 1950's, I believe, there was a Supreme Court ruling on what non-people, i.e. organizations, specifically corporations, can donate to political campaign spending.  After the ruling, the a justice was asked, officially off the record, about the ruling, and dropped a line that was equated as "corporations are individuals, with the same free speech rights as other citizens, and spending ad money is free speech".

That spurious anecdote is certainly an inauspicious way to start an explanation, but I honestly can't remember the details.  I really should have it written down.  I can't find the story again right now, because Google is absolutely overwhelmed with results for any combination of "corporation" "supreme court" "free speech" and "campaign spending".  Why, you ask?

The Supreme Court Ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - There is no limit on the amount of money that may be spent on unorganized political advertising, by corporations or any other people.

If you go and look it up, you'll find hundreds of blogs and minor news sites crying about the sky falling, and a handful of other sites calling the rest ninnies.  I'm not exactly of either camp, but I can try to explain both.  For non-Americans this is largely meaningless, but when you have to seal yourselves underground in twenty years, this might help explain why.  The first thing to understand is that federal campaign financing laws are a cthonic mess of regulations and stipulations, the remnant of a hundreds years of bloody battles between extraordinarily brave politicians trying to limit where and how campaign money can be spent, and essentially the entire rest of government.  I could never possibly explain the entire system even if I knew it, but in a nutshell - if you want to donate money out of pocket directly to a campaign, every individual American citizen over 18 can donate up to $2300 to each specific politician's campaign account and each specific party account.  For example, if you wanted to donate as much as you can to (hypothetically) get Ralph Nader elected, you could give $2300 to Ralph Nader for President and $2300 to the Green Party, and that's it.

However, (you knew that was coming,) there are these things called "Political Action Committees", essentially just formalized clubs (they do have an actual legal registration, but there's no real limit on who can make one and how they can operate) who can take donations as from people, and then spend it on political campaign advertising.  The trick is that no matter how strongly they declare their allegiance to a party or politician, and they all do, as long as they're not directly run by the campaign itself, they can spend whatever money they want, as per the money=speech idea.

This has been the de facto way for corporations (who, remember, supposedly hold the same legal status as people) to spend unlimited money on political campaigning.  I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention the same applies to unions and other special interest groups, but let's not fucking kid ourselves on who has what kind of money to spend.  What this ruling basically does is formalize the idea that non-humans can spend as much money "out of pocket" as they can afford just like humans, and removes the necessity of an extra step of bureaucratic transparency.  Whether or not that will actually make it harder to see where and who campaign money comes from and when and how it's spent, we'll just have to wait and see.  So, it's meaningless in terms of the practical effects of financing law, but it does signal an incredible change of tone, that the harsh political campaigning laws of the 1950s have finally been rolled and defanged back to the free reign of the 19th century, with my spurious anecdote finally enshrined in common law.

The ruling is also a chilling if completely expected window into the mind of the Supreme Court.  Bush-appointed Chief Justice John "Leave It To Beaver" Roberts, who has the responsibility of decided what appeals the Court will hear, and is the currently youngest member of a lifetime appointment, defined himself along with Samuel Alito with "legal precedent always takes precedent no matter what".  They've now both signaled that, just as anyone could have guessed, they're perfectly willing to overturn any precedent they don't happen to like.  How far that will extend to other matters, only time can tell.

You can read all the briefs and analysis you ever wanted at ScotusWiki, the semi-official wiki of the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Jreengus]

Hmmm, so basically corporations can now spend us much money as they want on adds saying "Politian X eats babies"?

Democracy should be scrapped and replaced by a system whereby the fastest person to do implicit differentiation in their head decides policy. This would result in some interesting decisions made by someone autistic.

[Nilocy]

I don't like this one bit.

It's basically just forcing people with no money into the dark about who actually runs the country. Its a serious flaw with the American democracy system IMHO (its no better here, but theres a lot more coverage of it happenin in the US) where the leader of the country effectively goes into presidency with a lot of people wanting their backs scratched. And this law seems to be one of the last nails in the coffin for a completely corporation owned society.

Also, seems like the health reform bill won't go through now.

[Cthulhu]

I was wondering when this thread would come up.  I'm not sure what the huge deal is.  Corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money endorsing candidates because they have lots of it to spend?

Contrary to popular belief, most corporate officials aren't fat guys in suits with cigars and evil grins (Boss Tweed aside, but he probably factors into this quite a bit, so whatever)  I know the word "corporation" seems to have developed a stigma, but corporate does not imply corruption and evil.

[DJ]

It gives corporations way too much influence over the politicians.

[Aqizzar]

Corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money endorsing candidates because they have lots of it to spend?

In a word, yes.  The simple fact is, the more advertising you have, the more likely you are to win an election.  Ergo, whichever candidate has the backing of more money is the more likely to win.  You don't have to take my or other any random jackass' word for it.  The fact that the $2300 direct donation limit exists makes limiting how much any particular actor can spend in a campaign already part of the logic of law.  If I can't spend as much money as I want by handing it to the candidate directly, why is it acceptable to spend it on their behalf instead?

I'm not one to say, "the corporatocracy's out to get ya man".  The simple fact is, the whole point of running a business is to make money.  The whole point of a government is to say what people can and can't do, including when it comes to making money.  Environmental restrictions, employee rights, trade and pricing controls, and the taxes to pay for their enforcement, all cut that much more into profitability.  All are necessary to protect the public at large.  Of course we live in a word of particulars and not absolutes, but I think we can all agree there have to be some kind of restrictions on how you can make a buck and run a business, and some way of making them count.

And when policy ultimately originates with elected representatives, who have to campaign for their office by advertising, you get policy decided by he with the most money behind him.  And businesses, especially individuals-as-corporations, have vastly more money than any actual human.  I really shouldn't have to explain this, and I probably don't need to.  But I wanted to answer your question as wordily as possible.

In summation, yes, corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money endorsing candidates because they have lots (more) of it to spend.  Also-

Contrary to popular belief, most corporate officials aren't fat guys in suits with cigars and evil grins

Spoiler: Roger Ailes (click to show/hide)

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

[Neonivek]

Though there is only soo much money can do for a campaign.

In Canada the Conservative party has oodles of money (Ignoring how they got this money for the flow of this post) to the point where the could have an election every year and even have the advantage of being the only conservative party worth voting for. While many of the Liberal parties are constantly going bankrupt.

Yet the most they mustered is a minority party so far.

Though perhaps I am speaking too soon.

[mainiac]

We are so fucked.  The American people are cynical so they elect cynical politicians.  The cynical politicians mismanage the government because they have no faith in the government.  Then the American people become more cynical and elect even more cynical politicians.  Then the Supreme Court does everything in it's power to undermine people's faith in democracy and speed up the process.

Last time this was happening, more'n a hundred years back, people turned to socialism and scared Washington to get it's shit together.  But the people who turned to socialism those days, small town voters, hate socialism more then glass shard enemas.

[Idiom]

What I remember from the last government class I took is something my teacher wanted us to take from that class if anything:
The politician with the significant campaign money advantage WINS, hands down.

I never quite believed it until the last presidential election. Not that I leaned very strongly towards one candidate or the other.  I don't want to derail, but I do want to mention, the degree of suspect of where much of the democratic campaign funds came from with a good bulk of it being anonymous donations.

the $2300 direct donation limit

Which, as the Democratic party found out, can be exceeded in repeated small donations (from anonymous sources under false names. Some totaled over 17k for each false name).

Anyway, elections will always be bought regardless of laws I think. But I want more transparency. WAY more transparency, and less electronic money. Not-transparent money in government makes me paranoid, especially around elections.

[Neonivek]

Couldn't a Corperation just send as many 2000 dollar donations as it wants by sending donations in its employee's names?

Walmart did something similar to get Tax credits.

Then again that COULD violate the "Freedom of Association"

[mainiac]

People make a big fuss about election fraud of various sorts, including illegal donations happening.  However the fact of the matter is that few people are willing to commit felonies in order to influence elections in such a small way.  But people still believe in election fraud because of the whole cynicism cycle.

[Duke 2.0]

Couldn't a Corperation just send as many 2000 dollar donations as it wants by sending donations in its employee's names?

Walmart did something similar to get Tax credits.

Then again that COULD violate the "Freedom of Association"

I'm sure the company would need the consent of every employee they do that with. And there are only so many people in upper-management that you can be assured would go along with it. The business could pressure the employees to sign whatever forums necessary to get the money out, but why go through that every election(Not only presidential, I assume) when you can just have it sent in one large bundle?

 Generally I'm for people who make money having the ability to use that money as they see fit, but I can see how this could cause problems. Mainly problems with dealing with ones own party. It takes a good deal of money to do the events and conferences where you speak with other leaders to support you, and having the funds to get the endorsement of every celebrity available can be a major turnover.
 Generally I would say "If the guy doesn't have money then they need to be a better candidate to overcome that", but in the one instance of speaking like this I'll say why this is a problem: Voters are ignorant. They don't know what each person is standing for other than what everybody around them tells them. It doesn't matter how good you are if you have no means of telling people what you are about.

[Neonivek]

I personally don't think money makes that much of a difference

However all evidence points that I am very very wrong.

Goodness what is it called when you believe something despite the fact that you know your wrong?

[Realmfighter]

Hope.

[Neonivek]

Maybe I am not wrong but different though.

Maybe its not TONS AND TONS of money that makes a difference

Maybe it is not having a TON of money that makes the difference.

It stops corperations from basically making their own candidates with sheer amounts of money.