Quote :

"There are some legislative attempts to deal with this such as having shareholders vote on political involvement if they really want it to be the people that make up the corporation speaking, or having the CEO get on any ads they make and say "and I approved this message" and other attempts. "

Thats entirely reasonable. An ammendment to ban a specific type of group, is not.

2/3/2010 10:03:25 AM

^then you agree, more or less, with Representative Price (who represents part of Wake, Durham, & Orange & a small piece of Chatham county):

Quote :

" Washington, DC – On Thursday, Reps. David Price (D-NC) and Mike Castle (R-DE) announced their plans to introduce the Stand By Every Ad Act, a bipartisan bill to hold corporations, unions and associations accountable for their political advertisements. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturned significant portions of federal campaign finance law, these entities are now empowered to spend unlimited funds to directly influence the outcome of an election by advocating for or against a candidate. Rep. Price was the lead sponsor of the original “Stand By Your Ad” legislation, enacted as a part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which forces candidates to appear in and claim responsibility for their ads. “Stand By Every Ad” would build upon existing law by forcing corporations, labor unions and associations to abide by the same standards as candidates and political parties. “Failure to apply ‘Stand By Your Ad’ to these entities may lead to a regression to the days when disparaging or deliberately misleading ads could be run without voters ever knowing who was behind them,” Rep. Price said. “If candidates and political parties have to take responsibility for the ads they run, corporations and labor unions should have to do the same.” "Unfortunately, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC will now allow special interests to spend limitless dollars in campaign advertisements in effort to persuade an election," Rep Castle said. "This bill would simply extend the same transparent disclosures requirement to special interest groups that candidates are currently required to provide in their campaign advertisements." The Stand By Every Ad Act would also expand accountability to the next generation of political advertising by applying “Stand By Your Ad” requirements to ads conveyed via the internet or email. This provision would apply only to paid audio and video ads and would not affect the unpaid activities of bloggers and other online political activists, consistent with existing Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulations. In addition, the bill would require pre-recorded robocalls, which have been used in efforts to deceive voters in recent elections, to include the “Stand By Your Ad” tagline at the beginning of the call. Price and Castle introduced similar versions of this legislation in the 109th and 110th Congresses. “The internet and new media have transformed the political landscape, but our legislation to ensure responsible advertising hasn’t kept pace,” Rep. Price said. “Treating a campaign video broadcast online the same as an identical video broadcast on TV will help preserve our electoral process by holding candidates and organizations accountable for all of their ads, regardless of how they are conveyed.” "The 'Stand By Your Ad' standard must be applied consistently across the board, including the pre-recorded robocalls that flood our answering machines during the campaign season," Rep Castle said. "Americans have a right to know the information about the source of contact to ensure transparency and fairness in elections." “Stand By Your Ad” has been credited with improving voters’ understanding of the choices they face on Election Day and was explicitly upheld as constitutional in the Supreme Court’s 2003 McConnell v. FEC decision. The introduction of the Stand By Every Ad Act comes as the 111th Congress is actively considering legislative responses to Citizens United v. FEC. Rep. Price is a member of the taskforce of Democrats considering legislative solutions to the decision."

2/4/2010 4:20:58 PM

Yea i think thats fine. I think any kind of political advertisment should have a clear message of where it came from. The only change I'd make is to outright ban robocalls of any type.

2/4/2010 4:44:16 PM

Quote :

"“The internet and new media have transformed the political landscape, but our legislation to ensure responsible advertising hasn’t kept pace,” Rep. Price said."

See, any time congressmen reach out to tweak speech, I get nervous. They're not going to dedicate time and political capital unless it benefits them, so what is their motivation?

2/4/2010 4:57:20 PM

Maybe because it looks good to fight corporate influence, I mean it is being done as a bipartisan bill with one Dem & 1 Rep introducing it together. And it looks good to be bipartisan. They could be doing the right thing somewhat for the right reasons but also because it makes them look shiny.

[Edited on February 4, 2010 at 5:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2010 5:49:16 PM

Quote :

"There are those that are saying easy and direct corporate spending in elections drowns out the speech of citizens"

Exactly, because one group of people can talk louder than others, we must silence their speech. That is not what you said, being pro free speech. That is being pro fair speech, which as usual, is the opposite of free speech.

2/4/2010 11:23:39 PM

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/

Quote :

"Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress By CATHERINE RAMPELL Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be “democracy’s next step”: It is running for Congress."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA


Well, there you have it, folks.

2/9/2010 7:07:46 PM

^ Exactly. Eric Hensal is running for Congress. Should it be illegal for Eric Hensal to run for Congress based solely upon his association with other fellow citizens? Just because that association is named Murray Hill Inc.? How the fuck can these people not understand this simple concept? Murray Hill Inc is not running for Congress, because a corporation is an intangible idea and therefore cannot do anything, only Eric Hensal exists to run for Congress.

Well, Murray Hill Inc does not engage in speech either, being an intangible idea. Only Eric Hensal can speak. Well, should Eric Hensal be fined and imprisoned for engaging in free speech based solely upon his association with Murray Hill Inc. owners and employees?

2/9/2010 10:39:22 PM

Quote :

"Eric Hensal is running for Congress"

No, the corporation is.

Eric Hensel may die midway through his term, but Murray Hill Inc will still live, and will remain in office.

2/15/2010 10:48:20 AM

If Eric Hensal dies then in accordance with the state laws there will either be a special election or an appointment by the governor.

More importantly: Eric Hensal once elected will be a congressmen, he can do whatever he wants. He can pass laws against Murray Hill's interests all day long and all they can do is stop paying him. They cannot replace him, because Eric Hensal would have won the friggin' election, not them.

So, once again, why should Eric Hensal be prevented from running for office? Or, more to the point, why would Eric Hensal lose his right to free speech just because some corporate execs pay him a salary? The 1st Amendment guarantees Eric Hensal the right to freedom of speech, it does not provide for any exceptions, especially something as irrelevant as who signs his paycheck.

2/15/2010 2:17:19 PM

Are you refusing to acknowledge that the corporation is running, and not the CEO, for rhetorical purposes? I don't get it.

2/15/2010 5:33:22 PM

We all get the point. People have rights, groups of people have rights, therefore people and groups of people are the same thing. Unfortunately, that argument is fucking retarded. A corporation is a concept. A corporation cannot collectively sit in a congressional seat. Only an individual can do that.

2/15/2010 5:40:00 PM

Quote :

"because a corporation is an intangible idea and therefore cannot do anything"

au contraire, it has the same rights as a human per the supreme court.

2/15/2010 5:44:54 PM

If you cant fathom the difference between a group of people campaigning for an individual vs. a group of people trying to get collectively elected to office, you're either a goddamned moron or being intentionally obtuse.

Either way its fucking retarded. We get it. You dont like the idea of big evil corporations spending money on campaigns. We get that you're ok with them laundering the money through non-profits to do the same. We get that you're ok with unions spending freely. We get that as long as the money is coming from a source that you peronally approve of its a-ok.

This bullshit about "OH< HEH I KNOW LETS DO SOMETHING REALLY FUCKING STUPID TO DRAMATIZE OUR RETARDED POINT!!" is seriously awful and you need to some up with some actual rational behind your opinions.

A group of people of like mind pooling their resources to support a candidate is nothing at all like that group of people running for a single office.

2/15/2010 5:51:11 PM

Quote :

"Are you refusing to acknowledge that the corporation is running, and not the CEO, for rhetorical purposes? I don't get it."

No, I am telling you that both legally and literally the corporation is not running, Eric Hensal is running. This is because a corporation cannot run for office for physical reasons: a corporation cannot sit in a chair. It's representatives can hire someone to sit in a chair. They can try to hire Eric Hensal to run for congress and vote in accordance with their wishes. But, that is all they are doing. The Congressmen will be Eric Hensal, all Murray Hill will be is his secondary employer, with any influence that brings. If Eric Hensal tells them to take a hike, all they can do is fire him, he will keep his seat in congress and there would be nothing they could do.

Quote :

"au contraire, it has the same rights as a human per the supreme court."

No, the supreme court ruled that humans retain their rights even when they work for a corporation. A bit different from what you said. Especially since I have never seen a corporation walk down the street, give a speech, testify before congress, vote, have children, paint a painting, get angry, etc. etc. Only human beings do these things, and it is unconstitutional to deprive a human being of their rights just because they have a corporate job title.

[Edited on February 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/15/2010 6:18:32 PM

Quote :

"No, I am telling you that both legally and literally the corporation is not running, Eric Hensal is running."

Then it's sophistry. Right.

Quote :

"No, the supreme court ruled that humans retain their rights even when they work for a corporation."

They always have. That wasn't the issue being decided in the SC case.

Quote :

"Especially since I have never seen a corporation walk down the street, give a speech, testify before congress, vote, have children, paint a painting, get angry, etc. etc."

I have seen a corporation earn and spend money, though. And that's what the issue at hand was.

2/15/2010 6:51:07 PM

Quote :

"They always have. That wasn't the issue being decided in the SC case. "

They've been restricted in the past. The ruling confirmed that individuals dont lose their rights when they form a group and in addition, that any restrictions on free speech of the group are essentially restrictions on the individuals.

The ruling was not, as you try to make it out, that groups are individuals.

2/15/2010 6:55:46 PM

Boone, do you find it an equal tragedy of justice that the government can't reject a contractor because they hire and employ minorities? If not, why do you feel the case is different? In both instances, an action is being taken against a corporation, which we all know can't have civil rights. The only way this could be a problem is if the action in question against the corporation infringes upon the civil rights of the individuals that make up the corporation.

2/15/2010 7:53:34 PM

Quote :

"The ruling was not, as you try to make it out, that groups are individuals."

The majority opinion worked on the premise that money equals speech in politics.

Corporations can spend its money as an entity independent from any individual shareholder or executive. Therefore corporations, and not their owners or leaders, were given the freedom of speech.

Quote :

"The only way this could be a problem is if the action in question against the corporation infringes upon the civil rights of the individuals that make up the corporation."

Which is why executives and shareholders have never been denied the freedom of speech or the ability to donate towards campaigns.

But do you disagree with the two premises I listed above?

1. Money = speech
2. Corporations can spend money independently of individuals

If you can't refute this, then there's no argument to be had.

2/16/2010 11:02:36 AM

Quote :

"Which is why executives and shareholders have never been denied the freedom of speech or the ability to donate towards campaigns. "

And the minorities in the company in questions are not denied the freedom to work individually for the government. Yet it's still wrong to deny a contract on the basis that the contractor hires minorities.

Quote :

"But do you disagree with the two premises I listed above? 1. Money = speech 2. Corporations can spend money independently of individuals If you can't refute this, then there's no argument to be had."

Yes I do disagree.

1) Money is not speech, the act of spending money on certain activities is speech.
2) I would love for you to find an example of a corporation spending money independently of an individual. Said individual may not have had authorization to spend that money, but that is significantly different from the entity that is Microsoft spontaneously sending money to Obama without some individual somewhere with access to the company money deciding to send that money.

2/16/2010 11:36:22 AM

1) My point stands.

2) Sure, an individual ultimately must sign off on an expenditure, but how many degrees of separation separate the stock holders from that person? There's no way that regulating what an executive can use shareholder money on is perfectly equivalent to regulating what an executive can spend his or her own money on.

2/16/2010 12:35:22 PM

It's not perfectly equivalent, nor has anyone suggested it is. In fact, if you read the thread (I know, reading instead of assuming, not something TSB is known for) you will find that a number of people who agree with the decision in question (myself included) have suggested if the concern is shareholder interests not being represented, that such actions should be subject to a shareholder vote.

2/16/2010 12:39:40 PM

Quote :

"Sure, an individual ultimately must sign off on an expenditure, but how many degrees of separation separate the stock holders from that person? There's no way that regulating what an executive can use shareholder money on is perfectly equivalent to regulating what an executive can spend his or her own money on."

What stops an executive from engaging in exactly the same level of separation with his own money? He hires someone knowledgeable in the business, such as a PR agent, to get his political message out. That PR agent decides a TV spot would be effective and hires a friend to make it, that friend hires casting agents to find actors that will do the actual talking in the commercial. Then a TV station is paid to edit the TV spot and play it. This is basic division of labor, it rules the modern world. Because of it, the people who want the speech and those actually speaking have most likely never met, regardless of whether the political effort is coming from Citizens United or Bill Gates.

2/16/2010 4:05:13 PM

5/1/2010 4:24:01 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/13/bp.release.connection/index.html

Quote :

"Senators question if BP played role in Pan Am bomber's release STORY HIGHLIGHTS * Lawmakers want to know if BP lobbied for Megrahi's release * Senators want an investigation on whether BP did so to secure Libyan oil contract * Megrahi serves 8 years of life sentence before his release in August * He was convicted for the 1988 Pan Am bombing that killed 270 people"

See, this is what happens if you give corporate person-hood to foreign companies like British Petroleum, and allow them unlimited financial influence over elections which gives them massive lobbying powers... the brits will take over. It's been there plan ever since we insurgented their butts out of our territory, and their secret plot to take back over is through corporate conspiracies. Remember, you heard it here first.

7/13/2010 1:58:18 PM

actually, this is more a matter of what happens when you have a massive federal gov't to which massive corporations can send armies of lobbyists...

7/13/2010 8:15:08 PM

if it was smaller the lobbying would be... more difficult?

7/13/2010 8:22:10 PM

no. if the federal gov't didn't have such the massive scope that it does today, there would be no point in lobbying it as hard.

7/13/2010 8:26:53 PM

^ ... because then it'd be easier to "lobby" directly to the people...

7/13/2010 8:27:55 PM

when you consider the purpose of lobbying, which is to gain special favours for your company or industry at the expense of others, it hardly seems likely that there would be any "lobbying" of the people.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 8:29:40 PM

there's a ken burns documentary on pbs-ex right now (twc 173) about the history of congress

DAMN YOU BIG RAILROAD, WE'RE GONNA TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO THE PEOPLE

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 8:49 PM. Reason : DOWN WITH THE BOSSES]

7/13/2010 8:48:51 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/campaign-finance-disclosure-legislation-stalls-in-senate/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"Republicans block campaign finance disclosure bill Washington (CNN) - Senate Republicans narrowly blocked Democratic campaign finance disclosure legislation in the Senate Tuesday after raising concerns the bill would curb freedom of speech and tilt campaign spending in favor of the Democrats. A 57-41 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed for the Senate to cut off debate on the measure. Republicans unanimously opposed the measure while Democrats solidly backed it. Democrats said the legislation - known as the DISCLOSE Act - would bring greater transparency to campaign contributions from corporations, labor unions, and other special interests, which were able to ramp up political spending in the wake of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission earlier this year. The bill would require organizations paying for political advertising to disclose the names of their top donors in the ads, similar to what now is required of political candidates for federal office."

I like stand by your ad requirement, I like reducing the impact of money & corporate influence on elections, and I think the Citizens United conservative SCOTUS ruling definitely warranted some new campaign finance law to replace the now mostly discarded McCain-Feingold, but I'm not happy about the lesser restrictions placed on organizations of a certain size and age including the National Rifle Association, unions, and the like. That said, a line in the sand needs to be drawn, and hopefully it can be moved deeper in the future. Wonder if they'll be able to break this filibuster, and if so how long? I'm kind of annoyed that all media sources now report 60 votes as what has always been needed to pass a bill.

7/27/2010 6:04:59 PM

No one would pay attention if they did report their contributors.

7/27/2010 6:08:04 PM

^Some of the ad designers might. Currently an ad from Energy Citizens sounds nice and grassrootsy in their opposition to oil regulation, but if the add had to end with brought to you by Haliburton or BP then maybe they'd forgo the add altogether, or at least strive for accuracy a little harder.

7/27/2010 6:59:57 PM

If the ad was funded by the oil industry, why don't you go on TV and tell everyone? I'm sure it'd be news. You could get on TV for free!

7/27/2010 7:12:12 PM

I posted a thread on this earlier: message_topic.aspx?topic=597730

This bill was pretty much rotten from the start. Any time congress starts to legislate how to pay for elections it is time to pay excruciatingly close attention. Sadly, since DISCLOSE couldn't be boiled down into a 60s segment so not many major news outlets said anything about it. That being said, fuck this bill, there is a reason the ACLU opposed it and, only through some creative lobbying and legislative language did the NRA and AARP decide to stay out of the fight.

Quote :

""I hope it chills out all—not one side, all sides!" said Capuano. "I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would.""

-- Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.)

7/28/2010 6:22:45 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/20/scotus.conflict.allegation/index.html

"Group says 2 justices may have conflict of interest in election case"

Quote :

"Washington-based Common Cause filed a petition Thursday with the Obama administration, urging that a controversial campaign finance reform decision be vacated because, the group says, the justices attended closed-door political gatherings sponsored by two top Republican donors and industrialists. The request for a government probe comes exactly a year after the Supreme Court's key ruling giving corporations -- businesses, unions, and advocacy groups -- more power to spend freely in federal elections, overturning long-standing congressional restrictions."

Quote :

"All federal judges are required to list on annual financial disclosure forms any out-of-town travel paid by private groups for speeches and other appearances. Both justices listed separate trips in 2007 and 2008 for gatherings they said were sponsored by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group with reported ties to David and Charles Koch, who head their family-run energy company based in Wichita, Kansas. Koch Industries is one of the largest privately held firms in the United States. Media reports in the past have mentioned Scalia's and Thomas's ties to the Kochs. "We believe it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court judge to be 'featured' at or attend closed-door strategy meetings with political donors, corporate CEOs, candidates and political officials, and thereby lend the prestige of their position to the political goals of that event," Common Cause argues in its petition. "A reasonable person would question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Citizens United case based on their attendance at political strategy meetings sponsored by a corporation that raises and spends millions to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans.""

Quote :

"But a year earlier Scalia did recuse himself in a court case over having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The 74-year-old justice had made general remarks on separation of church and state at a Religious Freedom Day rally some months before."

Quote :

"Common Cause also noted Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia, is a leading conservative political activist who in 2009 formed an advocacy group active in a range of hot-button issue"

I can kind of see there point... if speaking at a Religious Freedom Day event gets you to recuse yourself from related cases, then why not Koch related corporate events for this, but as they basically admitted, this petition to undue what has already been decided will fail.

1/20/2011 4:26:15 PM

http://www.voterrollcall.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ce694372-aa8e-48c2-83c1-e093151c0906

Quote :

"Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more? (statements rotated) One: Corporate election spending is an attempt to bribe politicians. Two: Corporate election spending is a form of free speech, so there should be no limit on how much corporations can spend to influence elections. Attempt To Bribe 77% Form Of Free Speech 19% Not Sure 4%"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/26/house-passes-bill-eliminating-public-financing/

Quote :

"The House bill, sponsored by Oklahoma Republican Rep Tom Cole, would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This voluntary public financing system was created in 1976, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, to lessen the influence of corporate money on campaigns. Taxpayers can check off a box on their tax returns directing $3 in federal money to the program. Candidates who apply for public financing must adhere to overall spending limits."

1) Corporate person-hood 2) unlimited political donations that individuals can't out compete 3) voter ID laws that will cost millions & discourage more legitimate voters than it prevents any problems 4) eliminate publicly financed campaigns that gives non-wealthy candidates a chance to run for elections without being beholden to wealthy special interests. 5) abandoning all calls for independent redistricting in favor of GOP controlled redistricting.

The GOP is seriously stacking the deck against the average citizen.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 3:23 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2011 3:16:55 AM

Quote :

"urging that a controversial campaign finance reform decision be vacated because, the group says, the justices attended closed-door political gatherings sponsored by two top Republican donors and industrialists."

Irrelevant. The Kochs had nothing to do with Citizens United. For this to be a conflict of interest, then all nine justices would have had to recuse themselves because they all at some point in their lives have attended some political rally of some sort.

1) A corporation is a person only in the sense that the people working there are people. ]
2) Then I suggest we eliminate the restrictions on individuals. They violate the first amendment, after-all.
3) I agree with you.
4) This past election, spending seemed to go against candidates. The ebay lady in California spent ten times more than her opponent, and was soundly defeated. The HoR now has quite a few Reps that spent less than a million dollars and won.
5) I agree, redistricting is a scam. But what can be done?

1/27/2011 9:21:33 AM

Quote :

"Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more? (statements rotated) One: Corporate election spending is an attempt to bribe politicians. Two: Corporate election spending is a form of free speech, so there should be no limit on how much corporations can spend to influence elections. "

hey, that's a nice false dilemma. note, though, how it doesn't include union donations. lol, wonder why

1/28/2011 3:46:27 PM

Very interesting insight into campaign finance imo - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/591/get-your-moneys-worth

8/1/2016 12:28:48 PM

How about instead of worrying about who is buying the politicians, we change the government such that there's no incentive to buy the politicians? Quit letting them pick the winners and losers.

8/1/2016 1:53:45 PM