Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 21, 2010
Politics / News America's Corporations: Free At Last
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:38 AM
Free at last:
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. By a 5-4 vote, 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 their own campaign ads.
Thanks to the Supreme Court our corporations are finally going to be able to wield some influence over our political process. Gee, I don't see any potential downside here.
6
Despite being a moderate in most things who would love to nothing more than stricter regulations on party membership based on agreement of core principals (on both left and right wings), this sounds suspiciously like the emergence of another popular political movement from the early 20th Century:
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cit…
Because, you know, history has proven that fascism is clearly a viable and sustainable option.
Excuse me while I pound my head into my desk repeatedly.
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cit…
Because, you know, history has proven that fascism is clearly a viable and sustainable option.
Excuse me while I pound my head into my desk repeatedly.
8
#2 It's only called free speech if you don't have to pay for it. Otherwise it's called plutocracy.
Every day we become less free in the name of freedom. Thanks conservatives!
Every day we become less free in the name of freedom. Thanks conservatives!
10
@9 funny but true...
@8 Thanks for pointing that out. If an aspiring candidate can't be endorsed and promoted by a multi-million/billion corporation then they can't be candidates now (if they couldn't already)....it's kind of like the music industry-lol.
There's not too much that's free about that.
@8 Thanks for pointing that out. If an aspiring candidate can't be endorsed and promoted by a multi-million/billion corporation then they can't be candidates now (if they couldn't already)....it's kind of like the music industry-lol.
There's not too much that's free about that.
12
Flowers, Candy, and a Big Wet Kiss to all the Y2K Nader voters in Florida and other states, for giving us those two Dubbya Supreme Court Justices.
Love,
Corporate America
Love,
Corporate America
13
@2 Free speech is for people. Corporations are only "people" in the sense of a legal fiction that has depressingly calcified into legal fact. It's strange to recall the intense debates that took place in the 19th century about the dangers of corporations (including from some founding fathers! hello cognitive dissonance, conservatives!). Now, we live alongside these Voltron-like entities made up of suits and secretaries that will live forever, can molt assets and liabilities like snakes, and carry around our politicians in their pockets like beloved dolls. Ah, Dystopiamerica.
15
Dear #12,
Rent "An Unreasonable Man" and learn that other alternative candidates besides Nader got MORE votes in Florida than he did. Or, you know, do some other kind of research.
Love,
Me
Rent "An Unreasonable Man" and learn that other alternative candidates besides Nader got MORE votes in Florida than he did. Or, you know, do some other kind of research.
Love,
Me
16
I'm strongly opposed to this decision.
That said, it's kind of dishonest to neglect to mention that the decision also applies to labor unions, which will have conservatives up in arms. As precedent, it seems fairly even handed and not wildly pro-corporate.
And there's even a liberal upside: if corporate speech is protected by the First Amendment, what does this mean for FCC censorship of radio and TV?
That said, it's kind of dishonest to neglect to mention that the decision also applies to labor unions, which will have conservatives up in arms. As precedent, it seems fairly even handed and not wildly pro-corporate.
And there's even a liberal upside: if corporate speech is protected by the First Amendment, what does this mean for FCC censorship of radio and TV?
17
There's something that would help a lot here - it's called public financing. It would mean that our candidates would have a more level playing field, even if big corps spend spend spend:
http://youstreet.org/about
Their bill has a bunch of cosponsors - actually appears to have a chance - don't just get angry - do something!
http://youstreet.org/about
Their bill has a bunch of cosponsors - actually appears to have a chance - don't just get angry - do something!
18
It's not SCOTUS's job to consider the "potential downside" or to "level the playing field" or to decide for the little guy. It's their job to consider whether the constitution allows specific laws, regardless of whether those laws are, on balance, good or bad.
The majority thought that the first amendment forbid this law. That's really the prima faciae intrepretation of the first amendment. You have to kind of bend over backwards to say that groups of people may cooperate to spread a message, except when their group's name end in INC.
The majority's decision did not rest on the corporate personhood doctrine, Ahnon @ 13. It simply rests on the idea that corporations are groups of people, which presumably even the libertarians and leftists for whom corporate personhood is such a bugaboo won't deny.
The majority thought that the first amendment forbid this law. That's really the prima faciae intrepretation of the first amendment. You have to kind of bend over backwards to say that groups of people may cooperate to spread a message, except when their group's name end in INC.
The majority's decision did not rest on the corporate personhood doctrine, Ahnon @ 13. It simply rests on the idea that corporations are groups of people, which presumably even the libertarians and leftists for whom corporate personhood is such a bugaboo won't deny.
19
As a constitutional matter, the decision is indefensible; as the late Chief Justice Renquist never tired of pointing out, a corporation, even a non-profit, is a creature of law, a legal fiction. As a legal fiction, a corporation should have no rights, because constitutional rights are, by their nature, individual rights.
As a prudential matter, McCain-Feingold should have exempted non-profits from many of its electioneering provisions, provided that these non-profits were not merely fronts for for-profit corporations or the creatures of of a small number of large donors, or straw-donors.
By adopting a stupid, and patently non-conservative view of the First Amendment, the Court has now made it virtually impossible to delouse the political decision-making process in the United States.
As a prudential matter, McCain-Feingold should have exempted non-profits from many of its electioneering provisions, provided that these non-profits were not merely fronts for for-profit corporations or the creatures of of a small number of large donors, or straw-donors.
By adopting a stupid, and patently non-conservative view of the First Amendment, the Court has now made it virtually impossible to delouse the political decision-making process in the United States.
20
I love the Orwellian concept that spending money is an expression of free speech. It truly demonstrates that all are equal but some are more equal than others.
21
@18 Corporations are a group of people. ~95% of that group can lose their jobs at the whim of the other ~5%.
23
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck... i hate the conservatives on the US Supreme Court. this has not been a good week..fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
24
@ 18 - "You have to kind of bend over backwards to say that groups of people may cooperate to spread a message, except when their group's name end in INC."
Except that, in the Court's long-standing first amendment jurisprudence, money is not subject to the same kind of first amendment protections that speech is. There already WERE protections for commercial speech in place (see Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council). In short, money is not speech in the way that other expressive activity is, and can be subject to reasonable regulations. Moreover, the law overturned, which prohibited companies AND labor unions "from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads" was sufficiently narrow in scope not to act as a restraint on expressive activity. By framing the issue as one of first amendment rights rather than economic regulation, the Court is being intellectually and jurisprudentially dishonest.
For all the shrieking about "judicial activism" that comes from the Right, this is probably the single most "activist" decision to come out in years. Well done, Roberts Court.
Except that, in the Court's long-standing first amendment jurisprudence, money is not subject to the same kind of first amendment protections that speech is. There already WERE protections for commercial speech in place (see Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumer Council). In short, money is not speech in the way that other expressive activity is, and can be subject to reasonable regulations. Moreover, the law overturned, which prohibited companies AND labor unions "from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads" was sufficiently narrow in scope not to act as a restraint on expressive activity. By framing the issue as one of first amendment rights rather than economic regulation, the Court is being intellectually and jurisprudentially dishonest.
For all the shrieking about "judicial activism" that comes from the Right, this is probably the single most "activist" decision to come out in years. Well done, Roberts Court.
25
Our elections are about to become even more of a dog and pony show than they are now. We're fucked.
26
"The majority's decision did not rest on the corporate personhood doctrine, Ahnon @ 13."
That is exactly wrong. Read the decision. The discussion is not about the political speech rights of the members of a corporation (i.e. can employee X spend money in such and such a way) which was never at issue; the court explicitly focuses on the ramifications of "the First Amendment applie[d] to corporations" and this protection "extended to the context of political speech."
Contrary to popular belief, liberals prefer accuracy and facts. And as for the insulting myth that judges are impartial referees, my old con law professor (and one of the most intellectually rigorous people I've ever met) had a fantastic post on the subject recently: http://tiny.cc/Q1mrt
That is exactly wrong. Read the decision. The discussion is not about the political speech rights of the members of a corporation (i.e. can employee X spend money in such and such a way) which was never at issue; the court explicitly focuses on the ramifications of "the First Amendment applie[d] to corporations" and this protection "extended to the context of political speech."
Contrary to popular belief, liberals prefer accuracy and facts. And as for the insulting myth that judges are impartial referees, my old con law professor (and one of the most intellectually rigorous people I've ever met) had a fantastic post on the subject recently: http://tiny.cc/Q1mrt
28
Don't get mad, get in contact with your congressional rep and your senator, and tell them to pass public financing for elections NOW.
29
Ahnon @ 26: You entirely misunderstood my statement. I never claimed that the decision was about the rights of individuals to speak seperately. The decision is about the right of a group to speak as a group. That right does not rest on the "corporate personhood" doctrine, and the majority opinion, which I have looked at, does not reference that doctrine.
30
@15
Ah, the kind of stupidity that only Nader voters are capable of.
In Florida,
Nader 1.6%
All other non-major candidates 0.8%
In the US,
Nader 2.7%
All other non-major candidates 1.0%
Fuck, I hate it when people lie.
Ah, the kind of stupidity that only Nader voters are capable of.
In Florida,
Nader 1.6%
All other non-major candidates 0.8%
In the US,
Nader 2.7%
All other non-major candidates 1.0%
Fuck, I hate it when people lie.
32
And the dumbshits over in FoxNation think the Supreme Court has "leveled the playing field." For once, they're almost right: it's been leveled, as in completely destroyed.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/201…
http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/201…
33
If corporations are legally entitled to the same rights as persons (freedom of speech, etc.), then they should also be subject to the draft and jury duty.
35
@29
http://tiny.cc/JfNlE
Not to make this a flame war, but corporate personhood was clearly and specifically at issue. This is not like bundling or a PAC, where individual members could be assumed to share common electoral goals. If Starbucks gives to candidate A, no reasonable observer would conclude that the collective will of Starbucks employees was to support candidate A. Corporations walk among us now like the Nephilim.
http://tiny.cc/JfNlE
Not to make this a flame war, but corporate personhood was clearly and specifically at issue. This is not like bundling or a PAC, where individual members could be assumed to share common electoral goals. If Starbucks gives to candidate A, no reasonable observer would conclude that the collective will of Starbucks employees was to support candidate A. Corporations walk among us now like the Nephilim.
36
@35: Thanks for the link. So the minority opinion claims this issue at stake is corporate personhood. At least on the WSJ editorial page. That is not what the majority claims.
Corporate personhood, narrowly construed, is the the following U.S. code: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise ... the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals". That is legislation, not the Constitution. If that law were to be repealed, the Consitiution would still mean what the supreme court says it means. Which is that groups of people, incorporated or otherwise, have free speech rights.
Also, coprorations are not groups of employees. They are groups of shareholders. The employees are just the hired help.
Corporate personhood, narrowly construed, is the the following U.S. code: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise ... the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals". That is legislation, not the Constitution. If that law were to be repealed, the Consitiution would still mean what the supreme court says it means. Which is that groups of people, incorporated or otherwise, have free speech rights.
Also, coprorations are not groups of employees. They are groups of shareholders. The employees are just the hired help.
37
Wow. At least now I don't have to harbor lingering feelings of guilt when I don't vote.
And @12 - yeah, and rigid partisanship has really moved us forward. How bout you get over it.
And @12 - yeah, and rigid partisanship has really moved us forward. How bout you get over it.
38
I never understood why newspaper companies could spend their money telling people how to vote but widget companies couldn't.
39
In ideal circumstances, it makes sense to have no restrictions on political speech, press, whatever. All information, true, biased or otherwise, is valuable. Similarly, though, Affirmative Action is unnecessary (in fact, problematic) in an ideal economy where employees perfectly choose workers according to their working skills without being influenced by other factors (i.e. relationship or similarity to the employer).
As things are, we are human beings and suffer from the human condition. That is, large human populations (of average IQs) are influenced far more strongly by emotional marketing tactics than we are appeals to reason. As some of us on SLOG have oft demonstrated, critical thought is not one of our strong points, especially considering our positions about which we feel strongly.
Interestingly, when the idea arose in the fifties (and perpetuated through the early eighties) that common Americans could be influenced, even controlled through subliminal advertising, the nation as a whole panicked and banned the techniques (though they still were, and are, used in the advertising industry, even though they've never been proven to work).
These days, our marketing (and as it follows, campaigning) techniques are quite conscious and quite refined. Public opinion of Kerry was demolished by the Swift Boat campaign. We can expect every major candidate for a national position will swiftboat each other out of competitive necessity, which is to say our country will be run by those who best weathered smearing. Hardly the best determinant of the right person for the job.
Hang on, folks. Interesting times, ahead.
More...
As things are, we are human beings and suffer from the human condition. That is, large human populations (of average IQs) are influenced far more strongly by emotional marketing tactics than we are appeals to reason. As some of us on SLOG have oft demonstrated, critical thought is not one of our strong points, especially considering our positions about which we feel strongly.
Interestingly, when the idea arose in the fifties (and perpetuated through the early eighties) that common Americans could be influenced, even controlled through subliminal advertising, the nation as a whole panicked and banned the techniques (though they still were, and are, used in the advertising industry, even though they've never been proven to work).
These days, our marketing (and as it follows, campaigning) techniques are quite conscious and quite refined. Public opinion of Kerry was demolished by the Swift Boat campaign. We can expect every major candidate for a national position will swiftboat each other out of competitive necessity, which is to say our country will be run by those who best weathered smearing. Hardly the best determinant of the right person for the job.
Hang on, folks. Interesting times, ahead.
40
Oh, Uriel, what are we going to do with you? You occasionally contribute some valuable things to the discussion, but you're just as often full of shit (as with this post). Fortunately (for you), as long as you only posr late at night when no-one but us RSS-feed lurkers will ever read what you say, there's little chance of encountering confrontation about your ideas. I've come to the conclusion that you prefer it that way.
41
What shit is in his post, 5280? There doesn't seem to be anything overtly incorrect, and a lot of it is clearly right, such as the entire last paragraph.
42
Chris, I'm referring specifically to his reference to Kerry and "swiftboating." Kerry, if anything, "swiftboated" himself - he perjured himself under oath about his service in Vietnam, and that's just plain wrong.
If you're going to rely on a "meme" to make a point, you should at least make sure it's correct.
That said, it's late, and I'm going to bed. Which, as I said, seems to be Uriel's modus operandi. Pretty hard to get into much of an argument when anyone who disagrees with you is crashing.
See you tomorrow.
If you're going to rely on a "meme" to make a point, you should at least make sure it's correct.
That said, it's late, and I'm going to bed. Which, as I said, seems to be Uriel's modus operandi. Pretty hard to get into much of an argument when anyone who disagrees with you is crashing.
See you tomorrow.
43
Wow, Fifty-Two-Eighty. Full of shit, am I? How very precise a critique.
Perhaps you can be more specific about what I said that's fecal or not? Or, are you just dismissing me out of hand because you don't like my face? Is it because I once dared suggest the Columbine tragedy may have had some beneficial outcomes?
As for posting at night, I post when my life allows me the moment to do so, which is more often at night. On some days, I post in the afternoon when I'm procrastinating from work I should be doing. I'm not going to shift my schedule around so I can have more influence on SLOG; it's just not that important to me.
As to the insights and observations I contribute, I had the impression they were more regarded as contributory than detrimental to the SLOG experience, but if my posts are a blight to your rugged sensibilities, it's easy enough to block my posts from sight.
In the meantime, if you think I have it wrong, correct me, voice your own opinion or somesuch. Add to the dialog. I, for one, will actually consider the content of your words. But merely telling me I'm full of shit accomplishes nothing.
Perhaps you can be more specific about what I said that's fecal or not? Or, are you just dismissing me out of hand because you don't like my face? Is it because I once dared suggest the Columbine tragedy may have had some beneficial outcomes?
As for posting at night, I post when my life allows me the moment to do so, which is more often at night. On some days, I post in the afternoon when I'm procrastinating from work I should be doing. I'm not going to shift my schedule around so I can have more influence on SLOG; it's just not that important to me.
As to the insights and observations I contribute, I had the impression they were more regarded as contributory than detrimental to the SLOG experience, but if my posts are a blight to your rugged sensibilities, it's easy enough to block my posts from sight.
In the meantime, if you think I have it wrong, correct me, voice your own opinion or somesuch. Add to the dialog. I, for one, will actually consider the content of your words. But merely telling me I'm full of shit accomplishes nothing.
44
I'm not sure to which incident of perjury you refer, Fifty-Two-Eighty, but if Bush's two years AWOL was brought to the half level of light that the Swiftboat controversies were, we might have been spared four, maybe eight years of his administration. And Bush's AWOL period was actually true.
I tend to be able to hold onto a debate over days or even weeks, which is typical when they take place on the Internet. I didn't realize there was a time limit before SLOG threads are regarded as stale.
Meme, incidentally, is a real word, and doesn't require scare quotes.
I tend to be able to hold onto a debate over days or even weeks, which is typical when they take place on the Internet. I didn't realize there was a time limit before SLOG threads are regarded as stale.
Meme, incidentally, is a real word, and doesn't require scare quotes.
46
Look up the word fascism, folks. Then look up the term successive approximation (B.F. Skinner).
The antidote to this is obvious but probably less than 1 in 10,000 people actually have it figured out. Simply deprive these corporations of their campaign funds by not buying their products. It means you have to make do sometimes without luxuries or buy more expensive local products or even more expensive imported products but it works.
Your vote is worth nothing but your money is your voice. What you buy is a political and moral choice. Everything you buy. Every. Thing.
The antidote to this is obvious but probably less than 1 in 10,000 people actually have it figured out. Simply deprive these corporations of their campaign funds by not buying their products. It means you have to make do sometimes without luxuries or buy more expensive local products or even more expensive imported products but it works.
Your vote is worth nothing but your money is your voice. What you buy is a political and moral choice. Everything you buy. Every. Thing.
48
Because GOD knows there are never enough special interests interfering in politics. Who wants a 'democracy' where the most important voice is that of the people, instead of large corporations like the founding fathers intended. Hear hear. PS, f### you, Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Election Spending - WSJ.com
49
Well they already own most of our media, and create the advertising which is our modern visual landscape (and has replaced most other visible forms of art and culture), so now they can directly, without pretense, influence the results of our "free" elections. The nails in the coffin, in my opinion. The Final Coup.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (49) RSS