Quote :

"Supreme Court rules 5-4 to ease restrictions on spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns."

This could will be epic in terms of financing campaigns. It probably won't snowball into a changing of individual limitations, but will certainly change how "hard money" plays in campaigns.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns. The court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns and threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html


[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

1/21/2010 10:22:21 AM

More speech instead of less. Take that.. McCain-FeinGold!

1/21/2010 10:44:13 AM

Corporate personhood is ridiculous.

1/21/2010 11:25:10 AM

You missed the best part:

Quote :

" Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. "

Corporations now have the same rights as individuals.

1/21/2010 11:26:57 AM

Yes, well, Boone personhood is rediculous!

j/k, corporate personhood is as natural as Power of Attorney.

1/21/2010 12:06:15 PM

Quote :

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less. "

POTUS statement

1/21/2010 1:36:42 PM

Quote :

"Corporate personhood is ridiculous"

i dont see how its different than any other group of people dontating to a campaign.

I mean right now companies are going to donate what they can, and then shell out private "compensation" to individuals who then donate that themselves. Atleast this way its all out in the open.

If a group of people deserves the rights of the individuals of that group, then a corporation shouldn't be treated differently from any other group.

1/21/2010 2:17:59 PM

I don't agree with the implications of this decision.

Therefore,

ACTIVIST JUDGES!!

1/21/2010 2:24:31 PM

I don't like how much leverage lobbyists/corporate donors have, but I don't think McCain-Feingold was the right solution. The problem isn't that corporations donate a ton of money, but that the politicians then feel beholden to those corporations, and vote or write legislation in such a way.

1/21/2010 2:24:52 PM

I support this ruling.
That being said, shouldn't corporations only gain limited liability through actual flesh-and-blood private money, rather than by government fiat? That way, they'd just be [fully] private groups with the same rights of the individuals that make them up -- and that would silence much of the corporate personhood debate, right?



^
Well put. But how do we fix that?

1/21/2010 2:44:15 PM

there's no way to fix that.

it's a scratch my back i'll scratch yours mentality. if corporations spend a shitton of money for you for your campaign - they're going to expect something in return.

1/21/2010 2:45:44 PM

Quote :

"The problem isn't that corporations donate a ton of money, but that the politicians then feel beholden to those corporations, and vote or write legislation in such a way."

You can't separate these two things. That's like saying attempts at bribery are "ok", but taking bribes in exchange for services is not.

1/21/2010 2:54:47 PM

Quote :

"If a group of people deserves the rights of the individuals of that group, then a corporation shouldn't be treated differently from any other group."

There was no disparity in "rights". Everyone has the right to make a private donation to their candidate of choice.

1/21/2010 2:58:47 PM

Quote :

"But how do we fix that?"

There's no law that could be passed that would fix that. Politicians are also not just going to "become good people" on their own. If the federal government were actually limited to its constitutional powers, this wouldn't be an issue. The only way we can "turn back" is to begin electing people that do respect the constitution, and are going to actively try to repeal the unconstitutional laws on the books. I mean, imagine Congress passing a law that said, "Alright, we're going to actually respect the constitution. For real, this time." They'd just ignore that, too.

The only solution is to educate the people and unseat the politicians that have been taking a shit on the law of the land for years. I'm not hopeful that it's going to happen, though. I think we'll most likely continue down the path we're on as if nothing is wrong.

Quote :

"can't separate these two things. That's like saying attempts at bribery are "ok", but taking bribes in exchange for services is not."

You can separate them. It is conceivable that a corporation could donate millions of dollars to a politician, but the politician would not perform special "favors" for that corporation.

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 3:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2010 3:00:14 PM

I think the solution is to entirely ban non-private donations and severely limit private donations. Only individuals should have the right to leverage their government representatives, and that leverage should remain relatively equal among all individuals.

1/21/2010 3:04:11 PM

^ obviously, given the SCOTUS ruling, that'd be an infringement of freedom of speech

1/21/2010 3:12:18 PM

If an individual is donating money to a politician because they want special favors, that's just as bad as the corporation doing it. You should be donating money because you support the candidate, and believe that person will make good decisions for the country as a whole. When you donate money, you should not expect anything in return. We have corrupt politicians that do reward large donations, and those people should be exposed and not re-elected.

1/21/2010 3:30:23 PM

while i agree with you in theory - why do you think that labor unions bank roll democratic campaigns? it's because the democrats usually will vote in their favor when push comes to shove. or when CEO of major corporations bundle funds for republicans and hand it over.

it's really the same thing as giving money to a candidate because you expect something in return.

1/21/2010 3:32:59 PM

Quote :

"You should be donating money because you support the candidate, and believe that person will make good decisions for the country as a whole. When you donate money, you should not expect anything in return. We have corrupt politicians that do reward large donations, and those people should be exposed and not re-elected."

I'd have the private donation limit be comparatively small, so that the incentive of giving one person special treatment is negligible.

In any case, regardless of motive, serving the interests of individuals is a politicians job; serving the interest of a business isnt.

1/21/2010 3:58:49 PM

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics."

He left out labor unions...oh....wait...

1/21/2010 4:01:33 PM

Business as usual in Washington; claim the moral high ground no matter what.

1/21/2010 4:19:48 PM

Quote :

"In any case, regardless of motive, serving the interests of individuals is a politicians job; serving the interest of a business isnt."

I think there has to be a distinction made between serving an individual's personal interests, and serving the interests of all individuals. The same goes for businesses. A politician should absolutely have the interests of all his/her constituents in mind, and he/she should also have the interests of all businesses in mind. Private enterprise is the backbone of the economy. Without thriving businesses, you have unemployment. Screwing over corporations helps no one, but it does hurt a lot of people that would have been employed in a free market, but are instead unemployed.

Business and corporations are often partners in crime. A corporation, for instance, will lobby to have competition banned. A corporation wants government to pass legislation that establishes them as a monopoly. However, when a government does that, it neglects the interests of every other business. The law should apply equally to everyone, yet it usually doesn't in our current system. If "bribing" politicians with donations wasn't so effective, I doubt corporations would do it, and I think a better solution than capping donations is to strip the federal government of the power to make laws that blatantly benefit one individual/corporation over another.

1/21/2010 4:21:38 PM

I don't really see how the SC had any claim to decide this in the first place. What exactly does the Constitution say about corporations? Hell, let's have them decide whether college football should have a tournament, too. They're both equally related to the Constitution.

Given that, the question is: "is corporate personhood a good idea?"

And the answer is no. My retirement money -> mutual fund -> Corporation X -> Sarah Palin 2012. Screw that.

1/21/2010 4:31:09 PM

I'd like to see it go back to when legislators wrote laws rather than letting lobbyists for various groups and corporations write our laws. Legislation and regulation are a great way to kill smaller competitors, probably wouldn't happen as much if, for example, Mattell hadn't written the bill mandating how toys are tested.

1/21/2010 4:31:23 PM

Quote :

"A politician should absolutely have the interests of all his/her constituents in mind, and he/she should also have the interests of all businesses in mind. Private enterprise is the backbone of the economy. Without thriving businesses, you have unemployment. Screwing over corporations helps no one, but it does hurt a lot of people that would have been employed in a free market, but are instead unemployed."

Absolutely not. A business should be represented only vicariously through the interests of its owners and/or employees (as individual citizens). The constitution does not grant any rights to a business.

Obviously, I don't advocate "screwing over" corproations. Businesses still have rights via the owner's right to own and operate a business. However, a business should not have direct representation in government.

1/21/2010 4:32:51 PM

Those of you who are advocating corporate personhood are failing to acknowledge multinational corporations and the influence they can now wield freely.

China won't need to wage war when they can officially sponsor all of our politicians.

1/21/2010 4:41:18 PM

Quote :

"Business as usual in Washington; claim the moral high ground no matter what."

Exactly. I guess people dont remember we bought the UAW some car companies. I doubt that question was brought up though.

1/21/2010 4:47:20 PM

Quote :

"I mean right now companies are going to donate what they can, and then shell out private "compensation" to individuals who then donate that themselves. Atleast this way its all out in the open. "

I agree with this, I doubt much will change; Big business/Unions already own most of Congress.

What could be interesting is if voters change their vote based on what group donated to a candidate (assuming whom donations are from is reported). For instance voters may not vote for a candidate b/c that candidate received a large donation from corporate banks (and there is plenty of populist anger toward banks right now)

1/21/2010 4:50:12 PM

Here are a few more articles on the topic:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Quote :

""As long as they do it independently, they can spend whatever they want," notes NPR's Nina Totenberg. "It will undoubtedly help Republican candidates since corporations have generally supported Republican candidates more.""

Quote :

"House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the decision "a big win for the First Amendment""

Quote :

"Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said lawmakers have to use the decision to help voters understand how broken the system is. "This has got to be a wakeup call to every citizen that they cannot allow the big corporations to call the shots on these elections," he said."

Quote :

"In a powerfully worded, lengthy dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority "profoundly misguided." He said, "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews

Quote :

"The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority. The decision upends the court's precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago."

Quote :

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who co-wrote the 2002 campaign reform law with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said he was "disappointed" by the decision. But Feingold went further, calling it "a terrible mistake" and saying it ignored "important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent." "Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president," Feingold added "

Quote :

"President Obama sharply criticized the decision, saying it gives "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics" and represents "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." In a statement released by the White House, Obama said the ruling "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." He said he was instructing his administration "to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue" and coordinate with Democratic and Republican leaders on a "forceful response." "

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2010 4:52:42 PM

Quote :

" I think a better solution than capping donations is to strip the federal government of the power to make laws that blatantly benefit one individual/corporation over another."

This happens all the time. Disguising said corporate connection is hardly difficult.

1/21/2010 4:55:18 PM

And so the calls for a constitutional amendment to stop this begins:

Quote :

""The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority. The decision upends the court's precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago.""

Oh, those conservative activist judges, going about changing precedent to favor corporations. When will the conservative activist judges be stopped?

1/21/2010 4:58:04 PM

Quote :

""a terrible mistake" and saying it ignored "important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent.""

Yeah, really.

They rejected precedent and legislation on an issue where the Constitution is silent. From where did they pull this ruling?

Quote :

"I don't agree with the implications of this decision. Therefore, ACTIVIST JUDGES!!"

Here's the thing--

Gay marriage = 14th Amendment; prayer in school = 1st Amendment; all other examples of "judicial activism" = some part of the Constitution

This ruling = ???

1/21/2010 4:59:57 PM

Air America just announced their closing shop at the start of next week.

The left can't do anything in the legislature because of the threat of filibuster, and now that republicans are salivating over this increased corporate influence, combined with one of the leading progressive media voices collapsing, I think in this one week the 2010 elections just went from democrats losing a few seats, to republicans getting majorities.

1/21/2010 7:01:46 PM

The issue is not "is it bad that corporations can give alot of money to politicians?" its "do groups of people have the same rights as the individuals that compose them?"

I dont understand why people are getting their panties in a twist over this since it just changes the funneling mechanism from individuals to corporations. I mean do you honestly think that before this corps and unions weren't sending the same money through their members? We've already bailed the shit out of some of the worst companies and their unions. They got rid of provisions in the healthcare bill that affected unions bottom lines. Is this ruling going to make the fed even more beholden to these groups? I dont think thats possible.

If you want to decrease the ammount of power these groups have over the american people you need to decrease the power the fed has over the american people.

1/21/2010 7:23:29 PM

I'm still mulling this one over. On one hand, I understand the Corporate personhood argument, and this ruling makes sense in that respect. On the other, I don't like the notion that a corporation has any say in elections. If a corporation is a person, why doesn't it get an actual vote?

This rubs me the wrong way. I am of the opinion that corporations should have no direct influence in elections at all, as they are not citizens. I don't even really like the notion that they are considered "people." But, I see the arguments to the other direction.

Like I said, I still have to mull this thing over.

1/21/2010 8:02:34 PM

Quote :

"I mean do you honestly think that before this corps and unions weren't sending the same money through their members?"

Corporations, (to a certain extent) yes. Unions, no.

What they were doing we're those 527 issue ads predominantly, or funneling money into IEs or groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Now they don't have to do the issue ads and can pretty much run ads on whatever they want. What I'm pretty sure this ruling doesn't say is that corporations and groups like labor unions can donate as much as they want to federal campaigns.

(Right now, corporations, labor groups, etc can only donate $5k per election to federal campaigns through a federal multi-candidate PAC-which i'm pretty sure will still be the case even with this ruling - but obviously new language will have to be written)

1/21/2010 8:10:58 PM

^^ This.

The real sticking point here (and for Boone, the constitutional argument) is whether groups of people have the right to pool their money for political campaigns? I mean, if the local pot smokers all get together and form People Opposed to Oppressive Politicians, do they have a right to take the money their pool and raise and donate to a politician they support? What about PETA? If these do, what makes a corporation fundamentally different?

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM. Reason : refgs]

1/21/2010 8:15:27 PM

I guess the fact that one is specifically formed for the purpose of making money and the other is not is what makes the difference to me. That and the fact that one was expressly formed for a political purpose and the other was not

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2010 8:19:15 PM

Quote :

"is whether groups of people have the right to pool their money for political campaigns?"

Of course they do, but this is not the purpose of a corporation. I don't invest in corporations to have my money funneled into a political campaign.

Look at the rift between investor sentiment and corporate action in the realm of executive compensation. Do you think political action will be any different?

1/21/2010 8:36:38 PM

This is just the free market at work, isn’t it?

I mean, anyone can amass millions or billions of dollars to influence the political process in their favor, if they just worked hard enough.

This would encourage all those lazy assholes to make something of their lives.

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2010 8:38:35 PM

Boone, I believe this is the first time you and I have ever agreed on something

1/21/2010 8:41:00 PM

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand you have people like Soros and the unions funding the crap out of campaigns while corporations hands are tied.

On the other hand, corporations are far more powerful than citizens and could completely overwhelm the discourse.

I like the idea of complete disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures.

1/21/2010 8:44:39 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with the implications of this decision. Therefore, ACTIVIST JUDGES!!"

the court went far outside the scope of the case itself. that's why the activist judge charge has some merit.

1/21/2010 9:35:28 PM

Quote :

"I like the idea of complete disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures."

there IS complete disclosure.

(okay, all contributions over the amount of $250 to a political campaign or organization is disclosed every quarter to the FEC and posted online)

All disbursements are itemized and disclosed as well. Think John Edwards' $400 haircut......

1/21/2010 10:04:42 PM

Quote :

"Of course they do, but this is not the purpose of a corporation. I don't invest in corporations to have my money funneled into a political campaign. "

But people do invest in corporations for political reasons. I mean, if you invest in Tesla because you think electric vehicles are the way of the future and necessary to save the planet, doesn't it make sense that among it's other investments the company should invest in getting a political climate conducive to those ends?

If you invest in google because they stopped censoring in china, why would you not also want them to help fund politicians who you feel will push for more hardline positions on china's human rights record?

Should a person have to choose between investing in a company for profit (or retirement) and investing in a political cause?

For what it's worth, I'm not sold on this idea but this is clearly not as cut and dry as just evil corps taking over the government.

1/21/2010 10:17:07 PM

Quote :

"Should a person have to choose between investing in a company for profit (or retirement) and investing in a political cause?"

Alternatively,

Shouldn't a person have be able to choose between investing in a company for profit (or retirement) and investing in a political cause?


Supporting clean energy =/= supporting Gore/Kucinich 2012.



[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2010 10:21:23 PM

Quote :

"The real problem here is that the gates are loosed for political spending. This means that the pittance you and I give is going to be dwarfed by corporations who think $500k bonuses are too small. However, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that now candidates can essentially have ads they aren't directly responsible for - and can thus disclaim if necessary. Expect the attack ads to get more frequent, and more potent; because now the candidates don't have to state that they paid for it. Imagine the next election, where Goldman Sachs puts out an ad stating that Barack Obama is secretly a communist, and Putin is his gay lover; all in the name of "informing voters". While Obama is dealing with that, whatever clown the Republicans come up with is free to spend their money on ads where they are kissing babies and cutting knots at a new highway or something. Ultimately, it means that only candidates who suck up to these companies will have any chance at all of winning an election. Get too far off track, like say, supporting financial reform; and you can kiss your career goodbye. Just like a race car driver who loses his sponsors, the politician that pisses off his corporate sugar daddies can hang it up. *THAT* is why this was such a lousy decision. "

This is what someone else ( a “conservative” no less) had to say elsewhere, that if true, highlights why this is so scary.

1/21/2010 11:22:57 PM

Quote :

"Think John Edwards' $400 haircut"

As ridiculous as it sounds, that's a justified expense.

I doubt John Edwards could have gotten nearly as far in politics if not for his hair.

1/21/2010 11:45:36 PM

^ hahaa okay, that made me laugh

but i was trying to show that they are disclosed - if they weren't you wouldn't have ever heard about his haircut

1/21/2010 11:52:04 PM

Here is the petition for the democratic legislative challenge to this:
http://www.savedemocracy.net

1/22/2010 1:26:52 AM