Campaign Finance Reform and the Supreme Court
January 22, 2010 38 Comments
RALEIGH— Yesterday the Supreme Court voted to overturn existing laws and precedent barring businesses, corporations and unions from campaign contributions.
Listening to NPR on the way home yesterday I was able to hear two points of view on the matter. One from a concerned citizens “watch-dog” group headed by a man I’d never heard of and the other from concerned citizens “watch-dog” group headed by Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich’s first reaction was to praise the court’s decision for finally standing up for the constitution. The other group’s reaction was to blast the court for allowing millions and perhaps billions of corporate dollars flow into politics. Mr. Gingrich argued that before incumbent politicians held a monopoly, so to speak, on campaign finance making it incredibly hard for a “middle class” figure to run for office and finance his campaign. The other group continued bashing the decision and claimed the results would be large donations would be poured into the coffers of incumbents thus negating any gains by the “middle class” candidates. Essentially he was arguing that politicians are now up for sale to the highest bidder.
Campaign finance reform is a tough topic to tackle. The goal I believe on all sides is to “level the playing field.” But it seems to be a fine line to walk between leveling that field and violating constitutional rights to free speech, peaceably assemble and petition the government.
To bar lobbying and campaign contributions is to restrict these rights in some fashion. And while this freedom can and is often abused it should not be removed completely. Prohibiting people from assembling a group and hiring a full time representative to petition the government would be a violation of the constitution, hence banning lobbying outright is not possible. Likewise with campaign finance. One thing is for certain, even with the laws in place corruption still persisted.
What are your thoughts on a beneficial way to move forward? Was the supreme court correct in its decision? Apart from any want to restrain corruption in politics, is the supreme courts constitutional argument correct?
About TennesseePaul
McCain/Feingold campaign reform legislation has proved to be an absolute farce and any group who complains about anyone else “buying” elections is hypocritical to the extreme. Case in point: the massive financial contributions by unions to the Obama campaign (and the resulting special privileges and access to the White House now enjoyed by such Andrew Stern of SEIU).
McCain/Feingold was indeed an intrusion on freedom of speech and a blatant attempt to bolster the already tremendous advantage now enjoyed by any incumbent.
So I would say that the Supreme Court was certainly correct in ruling on the Constitutional Rights argument, in this particular instance.
How to move forward? For one thing, make records of all donations (no matter how great or small) to any candidate obtainable instantly and with a minimum of effort. This would truly be a valuable service that our government could provide.
main: I tend to agree with your sentiments. I never really got too deep into McCain/Feingold one way or the other, but I am hesitant when it comes to general statements of restricting lobbying or campaign finance based on the constitutional rights to do just that.
It’s exceedingly easy to become very frustrated with the way lobbiests and political action groups work and/or misrepresent the parties they were intended to represent. But such is politics in general. Mr. Obama has failed to represent a post-partisan presidency and many other promises he made. The best one can do when this happens is “fire” the representative (be it a lobbiest, politician, or what have you) and move on.
Interesting you listed full disclosure as a means forward. This was Mr. Gingrich’s response as well when asked on NPR. He stated a requirement that all contributions regardless of size or source should be required to be listed on a website within 24 hours. It seems like a good idea, but also an idea that has only become feasible within the last ten to 15 years. And Mr. Gingrich has been railing against the campaign finance laws for much longer.
But, with such full disclosure I could see a secondary election business popping up. The full-disclosure news letter sent out to all registered voters listing all the campaign contributions for all the candidates… And then the TV ad buying… not a single space of politics free air left in the land during election… thank heavens for Netflix and DVRs.
Tennessee,
I too believe that this was a good decision. I am not a constitutional attorney, but in my mind, limiting donations unfairly levels the playing field.
Corporations are directly impacted by political decisions and regulation, often on a much greater scale than private citizens. Denying their right to invest in our system unfairly limits their ability to protect their interests.
I am with Maine. This was a good day for free speech and all Americans.
It bothers me greatly that the younger generation, some of whom are so strongly influenced by liberal academia, have been so easily persuaded that corporations are the epitome of evil and are therefore to be suspect in all of the problems facing our society. They seem unaware that corporations are not merely executive boards and moguls such as Bill Gates, but are organisms made up of millions of workers whose efforts effect our economy and well-being in countless interrelated ways.
For some reason, they are eager to buy into the concept that freedom is only obtainable through the largess of a benevolent government, not realizing that only through free choice and enterprise can shackles be avoided. Hopefully, some quality time in real life and abstinence from the rants of Noam Chomsky and his ilk will dissipate the veil of ignorance.
It is easy to be an idealist in college. Thankfully, many find that their politics “mature” once they start paying on a mortgage and donating 40% of their hard earned income to the beast.
Dreams make people liberal, while life demands conservatism.
I think it’s alarming to hear so many folks bashing academics. Don’t you realize that your democracy is being sold off, bit by bit, to corporations that have no civil obligation or social conscience? We’re well on our way to full-fledged plutocracy, our public schools are slowly being converted into mere training camps, and the under-educated can’t discern fact from fiction as they sit, transfixed, in front of the tube. If you want to bash academics you should consider getting an education first so you might know what you’re talking about. And what’s wrong with idealistic thinking based on substantial study of politics, economics, and history? Why would we strive for less than the ideal? As far as the Supreme Court ruling this week goes, I think we’ll see even more of a departure from true representative democracy. Free speech is for you and me. Free speech isn’t for large, faceless, business entities that attempt to manipulate our thoughts and desires each time we plug in.
Thanks,
Thor
Thor,
Thanks for dropping by the blog and commenting. I hope you return.
I am curious about your point of view. If our public schools are being converted into mere training camps, producing under-educated individuals who can’t discern fact from fiction, how is one able to trust the education they should seek prior to bashing an academic taught in the very system that is a mere training camp for under-educated individuals?
While I agree that there are some serious concerns regarding campaign financing, lobbying, and politics in general, I try my best to return to the US constitution for the answer. From what I have read, that document does not specify that “large, faceless, business entitites” have no rights. I am very interested in learning about how this disctinction is made within the US constitution.
Well, Paul, public school systems are where most kids have the best opportunity to develop an understanding of what education is all about. Ideally kids are introduced to literature, history, science, etc. as they begin to develop the critical thinking skills with which they can begin to place these various disciplines and studies into some sort of context that helps them better understand our culture and the world in which we live. Unfortunately, kids today are attending public schools that are sorely under funded and forced, by way of state and federal legislation, to place emphasis on standardized tests and various forms of literacy and competency. And that’s where it seems to stop. Thinking skills aren’t emphasized as much as media skills are. Kids are expected to synthesize information, but not to develop new ideas or critical arguments that might make them the best possible participants in a democratic society. Instead, the most important thing is for them to be able to regurgitate information at test time. Thankfully some kids are able, through substantial investment by parents or by taking on significant debt, to continue their educations beyond K-12 programs; assuming, of course, that they’ve managed to develop an understanding of why education is important in the first place.
I don’t think your other posters will have much to worry about in the future. Academia is dying a slow death because education itself is becoming less valued in our society. Instead, training is now deemed the most important thing. In my state, politicians talk about preparing students to enter the work force through public education by teaching them skills. This is much different than thinking about public education as a way to develop responsible voters, good citizens, and educated people. There’s a deeper level of understanding to be had through intensive study that isn’t being appreciated by populist voters, those that would talk politics by simply repeating things they’ve heard someone on TV say, or that would belittle academics for being too idealistic.
As far as the constitution goes, I don’t think business entities are considered to be the same as individual citizens that have the right to free speech. Corporations, through their massive wealth, have the power to sway the public through huge investments in media. I don’t believe corporations are evil, like one of your posters suggested. Only people can manage evil. However, corporations are entities that may have interests that may be in direct opposition to the interests of our democracy and our country. Since the legislation that was countered by the Supreme Court also included restrictions on unions, I wonder what your posters would say if a trade union started buying massive amounts of media time in order to spread misinformation days before an election. Would they call that free speech?
Thor;
I agree we’ve got serious problems with our education system. I agree directly along the lines of the issue being one of teaching skills and test taking not thinking.
However, I don’t see it as being a funding issue which you mention. We spend close to $600 billion annually on K-12, that’s a lot of money.
As for this issue, it was about censorship, the constitution and corporations being individuals. The issue was a corporation that produced a movie about Hillary Clinton that was negative! The government banned the movie! What the supreme court pointed out was that the government can’t do that.
The government can’t ban movies about politicians during a political season, they can’t ban books exposing politicians or hyping politicians during elections, etc., this is what this legislation is about!
As Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion,
Personally, I agree with him when he says,
So, if we incorporated American Missive for tax reasons suddenly our BLOG should be illegal (during election season)? That’s quite a strong opinion! Thankfully, the Supreme Court overturned Section 441b and allows associations of citizens in whatever form the right to freedom of speech.
Interestingly enough, a single union contributed over $60 million to Obama’s campaign fund and I saw many ads on television during the last election that stated that funding came from PAC’s that benefit from large union contributions (made, in many instances, without the majority consent of their members). Plenty of free speech there, it appears. With the new Court ruling, corporations now have equal rights.
My wife works for a company that is part of a large corporation and her CEO stated that the company would match times two the amount anyone wanted to contribute to Haitian relief (just to provide a little counterpoint to the “large, faceless business entities” image – corporations are made up of individuals, as are unions).
My personal education was provided by both public schools and private colleges. I do not agree that learning is limited to standardized tests and students blocked from expressing “new ideas or critical arguments”, but I suppose that may depend in part upon what schools one has attended.
I tend to place more confidence on arguments based on verifiable information obtained through disciplined, orderly processes (rather than, for instance, “facts” gained from Wikipedia) and in my opinion there are programs taught today in some schools that ignore these traditional paths to learning methods to the detriment of their students.
It is also unfortunate that so many members of academia are so thoroughly politicized that they present only one point of view to their students and often reject opposing views.
Still, all of this activity – including Supreme Court rulings – can be construed as “free speech”, whether or not everyone agrees with what is expressed.
Isn’t it nice to have these options?
thor: There are several points in your post that I am trying to resolve… I hope you return to the blog to continue this discussion.
You seem to paint with a rather large brush the discription of a coproration. Not all coporations are large or excessively “wealthy.” Corporations can be of all sizes, from only 25 people working together on a single plan just barely turning a profit, to the rather large businesses that gain all the disdain from populist politics. But even here it is a matter of discrimination as some of the largest corporations are given a pass, like Google and Apple, while others are not.
“corporations are entities that may have interests that may be in direct opposition to the interests of our democracy and our country”
This is interesting but again I believe a large brush has been unfairly applied to only one segment of “entities.” Perhaps you could clairfy. Are not individuals entitities? Isn’t it possible that individuals may have interests in direct opposition to the country and democracy. For instance, I disagree with a large portion of Mr. Obama’s agenda and find it in direct opposition to the interests of our democracy and our country, should Mr. Obama have been prevented from running for office, voicing his opinion, ideas, and agenda, and assembling a group of like minded entities?
This assertion alone begs a question, who determines which interests are not favorable? Who ever this person or persons are would be the arbitor determining which entities should retain rights afforded under the consitution. And at this point a violation of the consititution appears to have occured in effort to restrain entities from voicing and/or supporting their interests, thoughts, and ideas through assembly, speech and petitioning the government. While I may not agree with their ideas or oppinions I am afforded the same freedoms which I can use to offer a different opinion.
Thor,
Corporations also employ people, provide them healthcare insurance, disability insurance, retirement pensions, savings plans, and long-term stability. They invest billions annually in research and development that improve our quality of life, and actively compete for our business by keeping their products and services viable and affordable.
Why should their political interests not count when politics dramatically shapes their business environment?
As a senior partner of an LLC which pays the mortgages and college tuitions of about 20 families, I am growing tired of this notion held by some that corporations are somehow anti-American. If making a profit is greed, then maybe we are greedy, but it is also useful to point out that those profits are passed to stock holders and investors as part of their IRA’s, Mutual Funds, and 401Ks.
The government, on the other hand, works contrary to this business model. It over legislates, over regulates, and over politicizes almost everything. It also knowingly uses corporations to launder hidden taxes on American citizens. In the end, they prove more incompetent than even the most inefficient corporation. Just look at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, Medicare, and our public school system. The state of these government institutions would have actually made Global Crossing look like a good investment. The simple truth that many fight so viscerally, is that corporations create wealth while governments take it away.
Certainly corporations must operate within the law, and conduct their affairs ethically. Other than that, their primary goal is to provide a profit to their stockholders. It is from this free market based distribution of wealth that our ability to do social good emerges. Not the reverse. Maslow figured this out a long time ago.
As for our schools, I agree. They are becoming giant Rube-Goldberg machines consuming taxpayer funding and producing an illiterate unthinking underclass of people that forces the US to import much of its workforce. But then again, they are government run. Our teachers and academic unions also share much of the blame for the sorry state of our schools because, for years, they have put tenure before literacy. As a college instructor for 5 years, I found that before I could teach my students how to think, I had to teach them how to read and write. It is shameful and it is most certainly not Corporate America’s fault. The NEA should stand for No Education Allowed.
I wholly reject the argument that free enterprise is damaging this country, and that good only comes from government. It is utterly absurd and history simply does not support it. That is my “educated” opinion by the way.
To All,
I have really enjoyed reading some of the pragmatic and thoughtful responses to my posts. Here are some points I’d like to add to the discussion in an effort to stick to some of the issues and expressed ideas that prompted my initial response to the thread.
First, the argument was made that removing campaign finance restrictions on corporations and trade unions was a victory for free speech. I strongly disagree with this and would continue to argue that the constitution does not assume a business entity or trade union to be the same as a private citizen that is afforded a right to free speech. Further, I think we can all think of reasons to limit campaign contributions from business entities that would make such contributions in the hope of seeing a return on their investments in the form of legislation that supports or benefits a given business or union interest. If this trend continues, only the ultra-wealthy or those that have made deals with the corporate world will be able to compete in open elections. I can’t afford to finance the campaign of my local mayor, even if he does promise to give me special permission to run a business out of my garage, make infrastructure improvements that will benefit my business, or provide me with a “no bid” contract that will gaurantee me success in the future. If I can’t afford it, why should a large company with deep pockets be allowed to finance the campaign if they too have been talking to the mayor? I know this is a simplistic example, but hopefully it will suffice to explain my point.
Secondly, I know that there are many business entities that value their employees, compensate them fairly, and live up to their civic obligations in communities throughout the country. However, how do you feel about corporations that receive massive handouts from the government and then argue for less government restriction? What about large banks that accept our government’s money in the form of bailouts that would then stick it to the consumer, just because they can? Noticed any hikes in your credit card rates lately?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070103868.html
What about the behavior of Diebold in Ohio back in 2003? There, Diebold was actively involved in supporting the Republican Party while simultaneously attempting to sell voting machines to the Ohio Board of Elections that was, at that time, being run by none other than the Chairman of the Republican Party.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm
Now, I know that this example would tend to cast a cloud over the behavior of a specific political party that many of you might support. However, I can assure you that I make no significant distinction between Democrats and Republicans. I believe them to be essentially the same. They’re all making deals that do not favor their constituents. This includes our current President that has failed to follow through on most of his campaign promises and has instead merely continued to support policies favored by the previous administration.
With respect to the argument that public schools receive ample funding, I strongly disagree. I have actually worked in public education and have seen countless instances where teachers can’t even get a stipend for attending professional development sessions on their own time, just to site one example. Not all schools are poor, but in order to achieve massive educational reform that equates to greater student achievement in a technology-enabled environment, schools are going to need more funding, better planning, more professional development, etc. I’m not in favor of privatizing public education because I think it’s a way to avoid fixing the system, but if the end result of charter school funding and privatization is increased student achievement, then I’m onboard. Unfortunately, the data would seem to indicate that not all charter schools are successful or effective.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902356.html
Finally, there was an expressed sentiment that academics are somehow polluting the political environment with biased subject matter that is supported in collegiate classrooms. I would strongly urge everyone to avoid demonizing academics and, instead, focus on actual ideas and issues as they arise. If a college professor stands on the left or right of any given issue because of conclusions that he or she has come to as a result extensive study, why not allow them to present their informed opinions? As a person that has spent significant periods of time in college classrooms, I can assure you that I have rarely allowed a professor to make an unqualified statement on a controversial issue. Again, building a better k-12 system will ensure that critical thinkers don’t let their future professors get away with leftist rabble-rousing, or neo-conservative rabble-rousing for that matter. Most times, my left-leaning teachers welcomed Socratic dialog and were able to remain pragmatic about opposing views when those views were informed and scholarly. Further, isn’t attacking the university system and educators something that has traditionally been done by Communists? Why would we vilify the most informed people in our country? Couldn’t it be that some concepts, not embraced by the masses, still might have credence and importance in the national dialog?
Thanks,
Thor
“that the constitution does not assume a business entity or trade union to be the same as a private citizen that is afforded a right to free speech”
I’ve read this before however I have yet to find any such distinction in the bill of rights or the constitution. I would be very appreciative if you could point out where the bill of rights distinguishes between and designates the right to free speech only to individuals and no other entities.
Paul,
The distinction between persons and corporations does not occur in the constitution where the first amendment is concerned. While free speech is generally considered to be a “human right,” years of case law have addressed this issue of corporations having humanlike rights such as the ones we’re discussing. It is likely that this is going to remain a point of contention for a long time to come. While I believe that the first amendment was intended to address the rights of real people, it is clear that our Supreme Court would disagree with me. This, however, is strange considering the history of the court’s attempts to block the free speech of corporations in the past. Given these latest events, I will expect to see tobacco ads back on television soon. Also, alcohol ads will again be able to show people actually drinking. And finally, media companies will no longer be censored by the FCC, allowing profanity and pornography to be featured on broadcast television and radio. It’s funny how people are generally in favor of restricting the rights of corporations in instances where they’re willing to take the moral high ground. I wonder why we don’t take the same moral stances when it comes to protecting a democracy that is already polluted with special interest dollars.
Thanks,
Thor
While I believe that the first amendment was intended to address the rights of real people
Interesting, however, the amendments are written as limitations on the power of the federal government…. “Congress shall pass no law…” and as such the rights remain to all entities.
It comes back to the idea that if for example we as American Missive (an association of individuals) decided to incorporate (perhaps for tax purposes) then we are no longer allowed to have a political say? I don’t see a difference how can one discriminate because this corporation is richer, this is a not-for-profit, this is a mom and pop. Does the mom and pop store on the corner not have a right to lobby politicians to look at for the best interests of the store and their workers? While and individual that perhaps doesn’t like the store or maybe plans to one day go into competition can lobby against the store? I don’t see this as working and continue to agree with the supreme courts interpretation.
Paul,
Very well. I would be happy to have the constitution interpreted in a manner that would only limit the federal government and would protect the rights of business groups as well as social groups, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in the case of “vice advertisement.” I hope that I can count on you to insist on the same interpretation the next time the issue of a potential gay rights amendment comes up.
This has been fun.
Thanks,
Thor
Sorry about that. I meant “gay marriage” amendment. It is my hope that the constitution is interpreted more consistently in the future.
Thanks again,
Thor
Ah, the gay marriage issue… Interestingly enough the constitution of the US doesn’t give powers of marriage to the federal government. This is and should remain a state issue. And the states may define marriage as they see fit. I will continue to hope they define marriage as it has always been defined, one man, one woman as this definition does not restrict the rights of any man or woman from entering into marriage.
in the case of “vice advertisement”.
I believe there is a difference between banning a particular group from participation or expression of a right vs the regulation of vulgarities. “vice advertisement” is again a very broad term. Prostitution is a vice. The government does have the ability to outlaw activities such as prostitution, murder, theft and so forth. It would then be within the power of the government to prohibit individuals/entities from publicly promoting, encouraging, inciting, selling, or otherwise engaging in these activities.
Also, as I understand it, and perhaps this is incorrect, the federal government, through the commerce clause, retains the power to regulate advertisements of commerce… My phrasing could be inept, but I believe that is along the lines of the justification for the government to regulate the airwaves and content of public content. Many “vices” are still available and have not been banned, but I believe the advertisement of such is regulated through the powers granted to the government in the commerce clause. As such this is different than the right to free speech, which is guaranteed through the first amendment restriction of the government… “Congress shall pass no law…”
Thor,
Since you seem to be against corporations gaining an unfair advantage through massive campaign contributions, how do you feel about labor unions using the same tactic?
While campaign contributions can certainly support intensive efforts to sway voter opinion, I cannot see how they actually prevent voters from forming their own opinion and voting accordingly. Or do you consider the voters to be incapable of making their own decisions after being bombarded with television advertising?
Maine,
I am in favor of imposing the same restrictions on labor unions as are imposed on corporations. Additionally, I feel that more restrictions should be placed on political action committees and corporate media outlets that would attempt to misinform the public. It is my sincere hope that voters can base decisions on fact and that they know where they can get the facts. I am not confident, however, that all voters will take the time to seek out reliable information on important issues. The “infotainment” that passes for news on network television is generally over-simplified and devoid of the sort of depth required to address many complex issues. I believe that many voters are susceptible to the “sway” you mentioned that becomes possible when campaigns are financed by private entities with an agenda.
Thor
I’m not opposed to restrictions on labor unions. I don’t see the point of labor unions I’m fully capable of negotiating on my own behalf at no additional costs. But people should be allowed to join labor unions, churches, or whatever groups they want to join and those groups should be allowed to lobby government, share political information, and communicate that information in whatever medium they like.
I agree that the “infotainment” of today is dumbed down and over-simplified and devoid of depth. I agree that many voters are susceptible to the “sway” as well. But that is an individual issue it’s not the governments job to protect us from our own ignorance. Or the influence of others whether individuals or entities. I think it’s dangerous to the extreme when associations of individuals are no longer allowed to join together to influence government or the masses.
I feel that more restrictions should be placed on political action committees and corporate media outlets that would attempt to misinform the public
Would you mind clarifying this? As it sounds like it could mean you wish for more restrictions on only entities that attempt to misinform. Or are you meaning that, because there are some rotten apples in the barrel, ban the entire barrel?
Either way, individuals can attempt to “misinform.” Wealthy individuals, such as George Soros, are just as financially capable as a “major corporation” or PAC, and he certainly is not immune to the ability to attempt to misinform. Should he too have his rights banned or restricted?
However, with this current ruling, isn’t it possible that third party candidates could increase their own fund raising abilities now, and thus be capable of presenting themselves more prominently?
Paul;
You’ve been asking about the constitution and where it separates individuals and corporations I assume you know the answer to this. As Thor has continued to side step the answer let me answer. As corporations are associations of individuals the issue your looking for that isn’t being addressed is the “right of association”. Thor is claiming that we as individuals do not have the “right of association”.
While our constitution doesn’t give an express “right of association” which Thor would be correct on there must exist an implied “right of association”. If their wasn’t a right to associate much of what Martin Luther King Jr. worked for in the Civil Rights movement would have not have succeeded. The NAACP (regardless of what it has become today) had to fight very hard for this right in the 1950′s. To take away corporate and other associations of individuals would take away the “right of association”. You can look at the landmark 1958 case of NAACP vs. The state of Alabama for more information. The right to associate and the right of “expressive association” such as for the purposes of freedom of speech, religion, addressing government grievances, press, assembly, etc must exist. If not how can a human ever hope to protect themselves from a government existing of a huge bureaucratic association.
A claim that corporations cannot lobby government or to restrict their lobbying of government or swaying of individuals is a direct reduction of an individuals rights to associate as it limits the freedom of that association. If the association is effectively nullified in value what is the value of the right to associate. Zero. Therefore, the right to associate is taken away.
I am not certain how you came to conclude that I was contending that people have no right of association, but that is certainly not the case. One point I was initially trying to make was that a corporation is not a person. What I did say is that the argument for and against corporations having first amendment rights is an old one. I gave some examples in which the courts have ruled that corporations have no right to free speech. But the court has also ruled that corporations do have some rights that are also afforded citizens with respect to the 14th amendment. There is no clear answer to the question. In short, I would ask why it is ok to censor corporations in some instances but not in others. When is corporate censorship to be permitted, and when is it not? And, I am willing to acknowledge that if I am to contend that corporate censorship is ok with respect to campaign contributions, then we should also be looking at PACs and other special interest groups.
I also never claimed that corporations could not lobby congress. That would be ludicrous since corporate lobbying is such an enormous part of how our government runs.
And, as far as side-stepping goes, I think I’ve made an effort to address everyone’s comments and questions pertaining to the issues that I’ve raised in response to Paul’s original post. I know that most of the posters here are biased, to some degree, by party favoritism, yet I’ve continued to respond without casting aspersions or misrepresenting what others say. Perhaps I could get the same consideration from you, “Freedom Thinker.”
I’m surprised that no one is willing to even discuss the possibility that the Supreme Court is wrong here. Do you all take such a hard stance because Obama didn’t like the ruling and said so publicly? Campaign finance is an issue that has major significance in the way we move this democracy ahead. Do you think it’s a good thing that most elections are won by those who can raise the most money? And further, what does a person that can raise that much money have to promise away to the special interests before he or she can even reach their elected seat? Do you think our democracy will always be democratic if we continue to allow our elected officials to buy elections and special interest groups to buy legislative favor?
I’m not trying to be rude. I just don’t get what you are saying is wrong with the ruling? Is it based solely on the fact that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to raise money? Or limiting what they can raise? Money buys a larger podium. If we want our politicians as individuals or associations of individuals to have a larger voice we want them to buy a larger podium this strengthens our voice. Why you want those freedom limited?
The supreme court ruling was that it was ok to make movies about politicians (good or bad) during an election season. I didn’t know Obama was against the decision. I don’t really see under what argument anybody could be against that freedom. Again, if we were incorporated (i.e. the American Missive) then we couldn’t blog during an election season this is not cool
Corporate censorship shouldn’t be allowed at all with the exception of harmful things like cigarette adds, pornography, or violence that can harm children.
No, but I don’t think the solution is in limiting freedom of speech and association. The solution is in changing how bills are passed, federal transparency, and specifically TAX CODE.
Do you all take such a hard stance because Obama didn’t like the ruling and said so publicly?
without casting aspersions or misrepresenting what others say….
I obviously cannot speak for everyone, but I know that from my own position, my opinion of this matter is not biased by Mr. Obama’s opinion of the matter.
I have not entirely made up my mind as to whether this ruling is ultimately positive or negative. What I do believe is that the Supreme Court has stated that, at the least, the previous law prohibiting freedom of speech by corporations, the McCain-Fiengold act, was unconstitutional. But, I am not clear that this means Congress has now been stripped entirely of its power to regulate campaign finances or reform campaign finances… only that the previous attempt over stepped the bounds.
Do you think our democracy will always be democratic if we continue to allow our elected officials to buy elections and special interest groups to buy legislative favor?
I believe it is errant to suggest that just because the money is there the office has been purchased. From my understanding Scott Brown had a smaller campaign fund than Martha Coakley, yet Brown won. Likewise Mr. Lieberman was booted out of his own party, ran as an independent and won… and during that election I learned that Connecticut has a history of “write-in” cadidates winning… which I thought was rather interesting.
I would like to see if this ruling impacts third party candidates. If it is as awful as some suggest, that corporations and massive donors will just dump all their resources into a single man’s campaign there is no reason that man must be affiliated with any particular party. Hence 3rd party candidates could actually become viable.
Yet simultaneously, if Congress requires a full-disclosure of campaign finances from all sources, (something which was not present under Mc-Fein and the 552? groups aka Swiftboaters) then the voter and public can learn about who is backing the candidate… which means his opponent can as well… which will result in political fodder in the campaign.
Thor,
First, my corporation is owned by 5 individuals, why on earth should our collective decision to support a political candidate that upholds the values and interests of our corporation be limited? It makes no sense whatsoever. Especially when politicians have far greater regulatory impact on corporations than they do individuals. For example – A simple vehicle registration hike of 30 dollars per vehicle, will only cost an individual 30 more dollars. It could, on the other hand, cost a company like UPS millions. This would come directly from their profit line, which would reduce earnings, dividends, and 401Ks of millions of investors. This very scenario is far from hypothetical and has played itself out many times in my home state of California.
It is also useful to note that, as a small corporation, we rely on larger corporate lobbying efforts to grow and sustain our business. We cannot afford a full time staff in DC to promote our interests, but Northrop Grumman can. So, they shape the markets and we sub-contract to them once they have business. There are millions of small businesses across the country that use this model. Limiting a large company’s ability to lobby in order to shape/protect their markets will impact this corporate symbiosis and put many small businesses at risk. Northrop Grumman can lose two or three markets and survive, I cannot.
You also have to look at the difference between a corporation and a group of individuals. A company like SAIC employs about 45 thousand people, and generates about 8 billion dollars a year in commerce (not counting secondary markets). It generates much more “value” per capita than 45 thousand randomly chosen voters. I believe that there is a good argument for giving companies like SAIC the ability to protect this value for the hundreds of thousand of people that rely on it. To limit them unduly would allow politically driven populist sentiments to undermine their ability to operate in a politically driven environment. This is a populist based, anti-business mentality and it is dangerous not only to corporations but the millions of people who work for them and invest in them.
You said:
“do you think our democracy will always be democratic if we continue to allow our elected officials to buy elections and special interest groups to buy legislative favor?”
What makes you think that limiting a corporation’s ability to lobby or contribute will change this? Politicians will still have to advertise, hire staffs, print bumper stickers, have fish fries, and rent offices. Campaigns will still need contributions to do this, and opponents will still compete for all the money that they can legally get their hands on. The candidate that raises the most money will still have the advantage. An unintended consequence could be that, because you have limited how much funding political candidates can take, you have also limited their ability to get their message out to as many people as possible. The result could be voters basing their opinions on ignorance vice over stimulation. Not sure how this would be any better.
Finally, you said:
“Further, isn’t attacking the university system and educators something that has traditionally been done by Communists?”
I think you are making an associative error here. What you are trying to imply (if I understand you) is:
“If Communists bash schools and Conservatives bash schools, then Conservatives must be Communists.”
The fact is, Communists bashed academic institutions because they knew that an educated population would undermine their authoritarian control.
Conversely, Conservatives bash our public school system and educational unions, because they actually make the communist schools look good. Our schools are creating the ignorant masses that someone like Pol Pot could only dream of. Oh and did I mention that they are government run?
Using correct associative logic, it would be more accurate to say:
“If Communists produces ignorance, and Liberals (who run our schools) produce ignorance, then Communists are Liberals.”
I would be happy to have a debate with you sometime on which of our two political schools of thought is closer to Communism.
Chuck,
A thorough response on corporate approaches to government…Good job.
Could you describe in a little more detail how large corporations shape and protect markets?
I did not state that I was anti-business. I think it is common for discussion about regulating business practices in the political arena to generate angry reactions from those that are entrenched in the corporate world. I think your assessment of the importance of corporations in supporting families and the economy is well done.
Also, I must point out that I at no time associated the term communist with conservative. In fact, I’ve not used the word conservative in any post. Before and during the Cultural Revolution in China after 1949, intellectuals were forced out of their homes and into the countryside because they were deemed to be part of an element that did not support the socialistic transformation that was occurring. This is what I was thinking of when I questioned this ongoing vilification of academics in this country.
I did find your contention that liberals are somehow “closer to communism” a bit alarming. I don’t think it’s true that liberals run our schools. Most public school administrators that I know are proud Republicans. I do think you can find significant pockets of liberal thinkers in classrooms, but I hesitate to use these terms “liberal” and “conservative” because of their overuse. Some so called “conservative” thinking is rather radical and, at least in today’s political arena, many so called “liberals” seem rather moderate to me. But regardless of how we label people, those terms serve to divide us and detract from meaningful debate on important issues.
Do you not agree that public education is fundamental to a strong democracy? I think despising a democratic government and its educational institutions is more radical than conservative, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. What exactly did you mean to imply when you said “Oh and did I mention that they are government run?”
Thanks,
Thor
public education is fundamental to a strong democracy
I’d agree that education is necessary for a strong economy. But emphasis on public seems to me sometimes overstated. As it is most all of our leaders were educated in a private system. Most of the “leaders” in academia are products of private education/institutions and/or are employed by private institutions.
“Public” education is quite a new phenomenon in historical context and I think very short lived aberration.
Thor,
I do not think that Liberals are Communists. I was actually trying to address your question. It carried with it the inference that people who question academia are themselves suspect. I disagree with this assumption, and used the Liberal/Conservative associations with Communism as a way to drive that point.
You said:
“Do you not agree that public education is fundamental to a strong democracy?”
I believe that “education” is fundamental to a strong democracy. I also believe that our “public” system of education is falling far short of the mark. I think that this is one point that we both agree on. The question then is “why is this so?”
My contention is that we have turned our schools into social engineering camps. We show our children how to put condoms on bananas, while failing to “teach” them to read and think.
Tragically, this is all happening at a time when our democracy needs an educated middle class more than ever. Over 65% of the Baby Boomers will retire from the workforce over the next three years. They will then rely on the social programs that the GI Generation set up for them. In order to sustain those programs, our nation will have to fill in the workforce gaps left by the Boomers. If we do not, our social system could well collapse under its own weight. The fact is, we rightfully focus on Homeland Defense and a strong military, but it may well be our under performing schools that ultimately destroy our culture and end our way of life.
We cannot blame this failure on Corporate America. They, more than anyone, need a steady stream of well educated “thinking” human resources. Certainly you need factory workers and gardeners as well, but you cannot sustain a first world economy on them alone.
The census-based statistics just do not lie:
- US is 19th out of 21 nations surveyed in Secondary Math scores
- US is 16th of 21 in Secondary Science scores
We rank 19th out of 21 nations in math scores, yet we spend about 135 hours a year (allegedly) teaching our kids math. This is well above the an international average of about 125 hours. This either means that we have dumb kids or ineffective teaching practices. I vote for the latter.
This poor performance also leads to problems in our Higher Education statistics:
- In 2004 the US ranked 15th out 26 nations in the percent of Bachelor Degrees awarded per 100 college age individuals. And the trend is downward.
Additionally, the US spends about 5.4% or so of our GNP on public education as compared to a global average of about 5.1%. Many of the countries who spend less, also beat our scholastic pants off in Math and Science. So, once again, one must decide whether we are under funding our students or under teaching them. I suggest that the evidence points to the latter.
This is no way to sustain the world’s greatest economic engine. We are headed for nothing short of an educational crisis in this country and we seem more focused on saving polar bears than our children’s future. It is, in my humble opinion, tragically perverted.
So, yes, I am very critical of our educational system. I also believe that the evidence (only a small portion provided here) points to inept teaching practices and, policies. We are headed for a real train wreck here and when the dust clears, my bet is that the NEA and other social special interest groups will be the ones responsible. Not corporations.
In fact, I would submit that a privately run national secondary school system would be far more effective. Instead of funding the current failed government bureaucracy, give parents tax credits or vouchers to send their kids to privately run schools with clearly defined academic achievement standards. We could also use government funding wisely and fund a national scholarship program for students who qualify for higher education. I would not mind my tax dollars going there one bit. This would, in my view, likely produce a much more educated middle class than our current sham of a school system, and perhaps save our nation from complete social collapse.
As Ronald Reagan so appropriately said: “Government is not the solution, it is the problem.” This “problem” is exemplified in our public school system.
I know you had other questions, but my fingers hurt from typing. …sorry.
This post has generated a tremendous response and a wealth of information to be shared.
Thor, I respect and appreciate your contributions and I believe that you have communicated and defended your concepts with skill. I hope that you will continue to contribute to discussions.
In reviewing all of these comments in context, I was most interested to discover what I believe are common threads that run through them. Intelligent conversation seems to frequently disclose that we often have more shared values than we first suspect.
Personally, I am pleased to see McCain/Feingold at least partially dismantled since to me that particular piece of legislation was structured more to ensure an advantage for incumbents than to provide any semblance of “fairness” to the election processes.
There will always be charges that an election was “bought”, but in most cases someone is elected because they were more effective in winning voters to their side by getting out their message and having it accepted. How that can be accomplished is the key.
The exception to this premise can be found in any and all “recounts” – a process that is notorious for winning elections through the manufacture of votes, “regulatory procedures” and other unsavory manipulations. Such shenanigans can be found at any level, unfortunately, and are not limited to any particular party.
It appears that Thor abandoned us.
Just moved to a different post. Still writing though and doing well.