President Obama Advocates No Corporate Takeover of Democracy
August 22nd, 2010The President calls out Republicans for blocking campaign finance reforms that would address last year’s Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate money into elections.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Tags: President Obama Advocates No Corporate Takeover of Democracy
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
As a libertarian (albeit a leftwing one), I fully support the most expansive interpretation possible of the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press and conscience.
Protecting political speech was the main reason for proposal and adoption of the 1st amendment, according to contemporary proponents of the measure. Limitations on how much money a person (and corporations, unions, etc., are legally defined as “persons”) can spend promoting their views is necessarily a limitation on freedom of speech.
That the limitation may be on a class of persons with whom we have little if any sympathy or agreement does not matter. If their right to freedom of speech is limited today, then ours may well be tomorrow.
If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court decision left in place the restrictions on contributions to candidates and political parties, but held that “persons” could not be limited in spending money independently to promote their own views or advocate for or against a political candidate.
Yes, there are hundreds of millions of dollars out there that corporations (and unions, lest we forget they were freed by this ruling as well) will likely spend promoting their views and backing the candidates they like.
But also yes, the Obama campaign demonstrated that, with the Internet, it is possible to quickly raise comparable amounts of money for far different positions and for candidates not to the liking of large corporations.
This has become a political issue when it should have remained a rights issue. On this issue I disagree with the president and those who would restrict, even if they have good intentions, this fundamental right. It sets a really bad precendent, on several levels, and no good will come of it if an end-around run is done on the Court ruling.
Corporations and unions taking advantage of this ruling will do so in the full light of day. Who is spending how much to promote what and whom will be instantly known. I cannot imagine, for instance, that a majority of Americans would be disposed toward a candidate whose backing by, let’s say, BP became known. And so forth.
Fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have to apply to all, or ultimately they apply to none. The unbridled reign of large corporations is over, anyway. So much has been revealed in recent years about their cyncism and greed that very few people are going to trust them, or any large institutional player for that matter, for a long time.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Yana, the problem I see is the amount of money corporations have compared to the people. The people do not have a chance to compete. Also corporations are not persons and should not be defined as such. I see this as unfair and will result in more of a corporate takeover.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Yana, The Supreme Court Decision considers corporations as persons which is wrong. This in itself is not, or should not be legal. Also, the people cannot compete financially as corporations can. This would be grossly unfair. The people in my opinion would not have a chance in supporting their candidate.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I don’t understand where you’re coming from with your argument.You’re defending this dreadful ruling? Individual donations can match what a Monsano or a Shell Oil can give? Why do we have to be nickled and dimed to death trying to collectively raise money for a desired candidate that stands for our ideals of democracy and the corporations just write out a check, unrestrained by what shackles the average Joe Smith: paying the rent and feeding the kids.
Lumping unions in with corporations is ludicrous. What unions can donate is like spitting in the ocean when compared to what corporations can give.
Your argument lacks any merit whatsoever.
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Esther is wrong on two points: (1) Individual donations to a presidential campaign can equal or exceed corporate donations, as it attested to by President Obama’s 2008 campaign. (2) Unions have the same corporate status as “real corporations” (and in fact, many nonprofits) and can raise many, many millions of dollars for advocacy.
Also please consider that Montsano, Exxon, etc., cannot just dip into the corporate till and spend tens of millions without accounting to their stockholders for it. At some point, there would be a stockholder revolt. Who owns the most stock in big corporations? It’s not, as might be commonly thought, rich Republicans but institutional investors that include pension funds (many state and other public funds), etc. Bottom line, all stockholders of all big corporations are not necessarily rightwingers nor necessarily willing to see their dividends diverted for political advocacy.
As to definition of corporations as persons. This was not done by Supreme Court ruling, but by the 50 state laws which allow various kinds of business and other organizations to incorporate. And in the case of business, it was in fact done to protect stockholders from personal liability for corporate debt and tort. Change it? You have 50 state legislatures, and Congress, to lobby on that one and your opposition will include not only business but many nonprofits, labor unions, etc.
Libertarians agree corporate status for business and others is an unfair gimmick and should be changed. But it would be a massive, and long undertaking, unless done in one fell swoop by federal constitutional amendment. It likely could not be done by congressional statute.
Finally, remember that this Supreme Court decision stated that corporations and unions can spend as much of their own money as their owners or members will allow to independently advocate issues or candidates. It does not permit them to give a dime more to candidates or political parties than they already do. And, as noted, the Obama Internet-based fundraising campaign of 2008 shows that large donation funded campaigns can be matched or exceeded by small donation campaigns.
“The people” were not “overwhelmed” in 2008, despite most corporate money going to the Republicans, and will not be in the future. Corporations are already pumping many millions into advocacy and have been for decades. A lot of that has been under the radar. When they spend their own money directly, it will be in the full light of day.
Again, this is a rights issue, which demonizing corporations ignores. Even if corporations are as evil as the most leftwing of us can imagine, if their 1st amendment rights are restricted, the precedent is set for our 1st amendment rights to be restricted in the future.
I am reminded of the German Lutheran pastor, explaining why there was no effective resistence to Hitler and the Nazis within Germany in the 30s. He stated, “First they came for the Communists, but I said nothing because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I said nothing because I was not a Jew. Finally, they came for me and there was no one to say anything left.”
Precedents set under Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were later used to opposite and chilling effect by Reagan and Bush, among others, as just one example. What sounds really good on paper — i.e., getting corporate money out of politics — may have devastating effects in another direction if subsumed into a restriction on a fundamental liberty.
Restrictions on 1st amendment rights are a bad idea, anytime, anywhere and for any purpose, no matter how supposedly noble. Ask Mother Jones, who spent many days in jail for exercising hers in several states. Ask her friend, Socialist party leader Eugene Debs, who Woodrow Wilson sent to jail for simply opposing World War I in public. Ask the students at Kent State shot down for opposing the Vietnam War, exercising their 1st amendment rights.
This is a power we cannot allow government to have, and my argument is not only defensible but logical. We have to protect the rights of those with whom we do not agree in order to continue enjoying those same rights ourselves.
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
See the Sunday column and comment on public financing of elections.
On that I seem to recall we agree:
You Can Lead A Horse to Water…
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
- English proverb
A person who won’t read has no advantage over one who can’t read.
- Mark Twain
The Big Picture
by Glynn Wilson
http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/08/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water/