Democracy - Fun while it lasted

[Glaucus]

Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law

• The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The decision could drastically alter who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in this year's crucial midterm elections.

An earth moving judgment ensuring that the US Government is of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, and shall not perish from the Earth. Mr Lincoln must be rolling in his grave.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

An earth moving judgment ensuring that the US Government is of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, and shall not perish from the Earth. Mr Lincoln must be rolling in his grave.

It was somewhat of a foregone conclusion. That's pretty much how I figured it would fall out.
Of course, this means that the brakes are off for everyone. In theory this means that other organized groups like labour can do limitless campaigning. Realistically, the media won't carry messages from labour or any other middle class group that might lead to an impact on corporate profits.

It will certainly lead to a tighter lock on power for those who can afford to buy it, for sure, because while this could be an opportunity to vote against power by making sure that the guy with the most ads loses, people aren't smart or disciplined enough to pull this off and they tend (to a near majority) to do what television tells them. The terrain remains split roughly 50:50 D to R and the advertising only needs to slosh a few percent back and forth to switch results from blue to red and back.

The system died in 1886 with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Despite that win the government was still able to break up Standard Oil in 1911, and AT&T in 1982. The total destruction of WWI, the Great Depression and WWII brought about a rise in the power of the working classes who suffered enough that they weren't going to take it anymore but then everyone got comfy. The 60s saw plenty of activism but the activists were derided as radicals and hippies for the most part and the comfy masses sat the whole thing out and once the draft was gone the one great concern of the youth and their parents was gone - everyone went to sleep and we woke up in the ditch with the the fuel line leaking and the engine on fire.

 

[redrumloa]

Obama is at least pretending to be on the right side of this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-bla ... et=&ccode=

President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.

In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.

Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.

Let's see how he follows through.

 

[faethor]

Long ago Republicans were bought by big corporate interests. At least the Dems were toying with the idea. The toying time is over. Dems will be selling out too.

People call for term limits? Spending limits is the right answer.

 

[Fade]

faethor surmised
"People call for term limits? Spending limits is the right answer."
----------------------------

Yeah, we all remember your complaints when Obama broke his very first campaign promise of only accepting govt. campaign funds, and then bolting straight to the internet to beg the largest campaign donations in the history of worldwide politics.

Well I think I remembe.....
Wait a minute

 

[faethor]

Summary Fade --- There are too many ways around funding systems and too many funding systems. Should 1 candidate be limited to lesser funding while another can work the angle from another direction and get more funding? $ represent freedom of speech and both should be able to use the same courses of action to try and get the same money.

So no it didn't frickin' matter that Obama used a method that his opponet was.

 

[ltstanfo]

Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law

• The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The decision could drastically alter who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in this year's crucial midterm elections.

An earth moving judgment ensuring that the US Government is of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, and shall not perish from the Earth. Mr Lincoln must be rolling in his grave.

As a follow-up to this topic, Justice Clarence Thomas recently discussed this ruling at a speech to a law school in Florida. The New York Times was kind enough to print the speech for us.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

Clarance Thomas made himself look like an amateur with this comment:

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

The key difference here is that the group of 10 pay for things out of their own personal after-income-tax pockets, and the corporation pays for things with the corporation's after-corporate-tax pocket, which is far deeper and has access to way more leverage then any individual. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that everyone working at that corporation would want to fund the same candidate - yes, there are people who work in the medical insurance and the military industrial complex that would vote Democrat. This also doesn't address the fact that foreign corporations are now free to influence US politics. So Thomas' little analogy falls flat on it's face, which is the sort of thing I wouldn't expect from a United States Supreme Court Judge. Talk about amateur hour. :roll:

 

[ltstanfo]

The key difference here is that the group of 10 pay for things out of their own personal after-income-tax pockets, and the corporation pays for things with the corporation's after-corporate-tax pocket, which is far deeper and has access to way more leverage then any individual. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that everyone working at that corporation would want to fund the same candidate - yes, there are people who work in the medical insurance and the military industrial complex that would vote Democrat. This also doesn't address the fact that foreign corporations are now free to influence US politics. So Thomas' little analogy falls flat on it's face, which is the sort of thing I wouldn't expect from a United States Supreme Court Judge. Talk about amateur hour. :roll:

I'm neither defending nor admonishing Justice Thomas but I'm not sure I follow you (in this case). Using your example of "military industrial complex" (since I am part of that):

Most companies have PACs (political action committees), including mine. Donations to those PACs are voluntary (yes, there are some Democrats at my company but they are in the minority.. at least here). Those PACs decide which candidates will receive campaign donations / contributions on behalf of the company. Presuming that the employee Democrats don't donate to said PACs because they do not wish to fund candidate "X", why should the PACs be denied the ability to contribute as long as they disclose who the money comes from (company)? In the case of "military industrial complex" companies (especially those with clearances), those that are foreign owned (such as mine - recently acquired by UK firm Cobham) have to be "firewalled" (isolated from the "mothership" - very specific and limited contact, including funds - routinely monitored and audited by a DoD / government designated panel) to maintain DoD contracts status.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[redrumloa]

Clarance Thomas made himself look like an amateur with this comment:

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

That quote is frightening.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not aware of PAC's, but considering they've existed before this ruling, they obviously didn't fall into corporate spending. By the sounds of it, they're not corporate spending as it was employee money that just happened to be organized by fellow employees. Does that sounds right? This ruling affects corporate money. Lockheed Martin can now drop a large chunk of corporate change into the next Republican campaign without any input from it's employees - even if they were all card carrying Democrats. This is a key flaw to Thomas' analogy because he said that it's perfectly alright for 10 like minded individuals to pool their resources, but that's clearly not the case with corporate spending.

 

[ltstanfo]

I'm not aware of PAC's, but considering they've existed before this ruling, they obviously didn't fall into corporate spending. By the sounds of it, they're not corporate spending as it was employee money that just happened to be organized by fellow employees. Does that sounds right? This ruling affects corporate money. Lockheed Martin can now drop a large chunk of corporate change into the next Republican campaign without any input from it's employees - even if they were all card carrying Democrats. This is a key flaw to Thomas' analogy because he said that it's perfectly alright for 10 like minded individuals to pool their resources, but that's clearly not the case with corporate spending.

Mike,

You are correct on the former (although just how much a company gets "officially" involved with a PAC can and does vary) and now I understand your example of the latter. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Clarance Thomas made himself look like an amateur with this comment:

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

The judge starts with a fallacy and then hopes no-one notices when he stretches it.

If 10 people got together to speak they would be 10 people and not 11, or 1. They still have the same right and ability to speak as 10 individual persons though they are all saying the same thing. if they then pool their resources to hire other people to also speak the same then they are abrogating the rights of those paid people to speak unless those paid people also happen to hold the same position. If they use the money and resources of people who don't agree with them then they are abrogating the rights of those people and also stealing from them.

If each person were to form their own corporation or any number of corporations they would still have the same right to speech as the one single individual that they are and not one right per corporation that they had incorporated plus their right as a natural person.

A corporation is an artificial person for the purposes of owning property and making contracts, a necessary legal fiction so that corporations can conduct business - a shorthand so that all the laws pertaining to the conducting of business can be applied to corporations without having to write a new body of law with corporations specifically in mind. It is a category error then to ascribe rights of a natural person to an artificial person.

Allowing a corporation to use the collective output of its employees to further its own ends is identical to allowing slave owners to use the money earned by the output of slave labour to elect leaders who are pro-slavery. It nullifies the rights of the slaves or employees by co-opting the wealth they create to use against them.

 

[faethor]

Most companies have PACs (political action committees), including mine.

I wonder if this is more regionally based? Minnesota, like the nation, is mostly small and medium sized companies. Here there are very few of those that have PAC. Now this isn't to say they don't exist here. I just take exception to the 'most' claim.

Donations to those PACs are voluntary (yes, there are some Democrats at my company but they are in the minority.. at least here).

I wonder how anonymous these are? Also, I'd be worried about favortism. We know companies have struck against liberal ideas such as Unions. Would they strike workers that don't contribute to conservative PACs?

Those PACs decide which candidates will receive campaign donations / contributions on behalf of the company. Presuming that the employee Democrats don't donate to said PACs because they do not wish to fund candidate "X", why should the PACs be denied the ability to contribute as long as they disclose who the money comes from (company)?

Companies are legal entities for contracts and concentrations of wealth. Your voting rights are limited by death. Corporations do die but rarely. They often hold wealth for longer than a person lives. Why this is wrong is because the Founding Fathers were clearly against the dynastic control of our nation through perputual wealth.

Companies don't vote. They control the process by PAC and other contributions controlling the 2 options we have. Once the candidate is in office they control the process with lobbiest funding and favoritism. Finally they can control the process by offering of nice jobs and payments after a term in office ends if the candidates votes in their favor.

 

[ltstanfo]

I wonder if this is more regionally based? Minnesota, like the nation, is mostly small and medium sized companies. Here there are very few of those that have PAC. Now this isn't to say they don't exist here. I just take exception to the 'most' claim.

You bring up an interesting question and one that I admit that I have not considered (to that extent). All the places I have traveled to (business) have PACs so I include Alabama, Utah, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Washington (DC) and Washington (state). At these locations I was at businesses including Boeing, Lockheed (all flavors), SPARTA (now part of Cobham), Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, Sun, Cray and IBM. Perhaps there is a law in Minn regarding PACs (asking as I do not know) However, given the spread of states I don't see "most" being unreasonable but if it makes you feel better, how about "many"?

I wonder how anonymous these are? Also, I'd be worried about favortism. We know companies have struck against liberal ideas such as Unions. Would they strike workers that don't contribute to conservative PACs?

That is a reasonable question and from my experience, I have seen neither favoritism nor "strike"(ing) workers who do not contribute. I cannot say that it cannot happen. My company has a few well voiced "liberals" and they are a bit careful of who they share their opinions with (in full) but none of them have ever complained of issues related to this topic.

Companies are legal entities for contracts and concentrations of wealth. Your voting rights are limited by death. Corporations do die but rarely. They often hold wealth for longer than a person lives. Why this is wrong is because the Founding Fathers were clearly against the dynastic control of our nation through perputual wealth.

An interesting statement and one on the face value that I do not disagree with but I do not know that I can regard corporations such as those listed above as "dynastic", let alone "dynastic control" with regards to the US government. Still, an interesting point.

You are correct that companies do not vote. If they have PACs and can make other legal contributions, I have no issue with that. I do have concerns about the lobbiests and how they operate, particularly in light of how may former senators / congressmen become lobbiests after leaving office. As for offering jobs, there is far more to it than that. It is not at all uncommon for companies to offer jobs to those they think may help them in the future because of past work or knowledge. That being said, in my field, a government employee cannot work for a company they used to oversee or write checks to for 5 years (military to civilian). If they had not direct association, there are no such limitations and in this case, I have no issue with that. Thinking that a former government type may help does not mean that they can and I have seen that as well.

Regardless, it is an interesting conversation and thanks.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[redrumloa]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

Not "everyone". Quite frankly, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents and 76% of Republicans don't actually run anything. Only 1% of anyone actually has any power. All of those other people? They are nobodys. What it should say up there is that "nobodys hate" the ruling.