by russell
So, this proposal has been making the rounds on Facebook. It consists of three parts:
- Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
- Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
- Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
What's not to like?
But, to me, it's unnecessarily complicated. There are about nineteen different concepts floating around in there, which for my simple mind are about eighteen too many.
Here's my counterproposal. It is exactly one sentence long:
- The terms 'person', 'persons', or 'people' as used in the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments shall be considered to refer only to natural human persons
How simple is that?
Two-thirds of both houses are needed to put it into play. I guess we could go with two-thirds of the States demanding a Constitutional Convention, but IMVHO the alternate title for that movie is "Pandora's Box". So, two-thirds of both houses is what it would take.
I put the odds somewhere south of 'slim', with a more or less asymptotic convergence on 'none'. But since the zeitgeist seems to be open to bold ventures, there is mine.
A fella can dream.
It doesn’t solve the problem. To the best of my limited understanding, the Citizens United decision doesn’t hinge on corporate personhood; it hinges on a definition of speech. The phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” makes no reference to people whatsoever; religion, speech, and the press are protected regardless of their source.
Indeed, for religion and the press, it would be ludicrous to exempt organizations (ie; “you can say anything you like, but corporations can only report news that the government approves of” or: “you can believe whatever you like, but organized churches must be licensed by the state in order to preach”)
I agree about the negigible chance of any of that passing.
As far as Anthony’s concerns go, I see an amendment as only the first step, as the base of a legal solution. The way it is now, SCOTUS will, with its corporatist majority, annull any challenges to the status quo by lawmakers. The 1st may not say anything about persons (natural or not) but SCOTUS has interpreted it as such using
1. Money is Speech
2. Corporations are persons
——————————
=> corporations can buy congress and courts legally and even stay anonymous doing it.
I’d be fully open for a money =/= speech amendment too.
Also high on my list is an amendment restricting presidential pardons for crimes committed by government or on its behalf, an outright ban of blanc pardons (i.e. pardons would have to be specific and limited to crimes explicitly stated) and also making prosecution of crimes by government or on its behalf mandatory. I would go so far as to put any administration on trial at the end of its term automatically.
Right, Anthony Damiani. The problem isn’t corporate personhood – Well, it is A problem, but it’s not the main problem.
The main problem is that money gives you better access to political power. This has always been true, in all societies and ages, to some degree. But the degree matters. What doesn’t matter is whether “political power through money” is wielded by Koch Industries or David Koch personally, it’s still a threat to democracy (democracy is just another word for political equality).
In the US, and in many other countries, the few checks that were on economic power have been systematically eroded by the ones who benefit from it, in the name of free speech. It’s no coincidence that Adbusters took the initiative to OWS – they’ve been shouting in the desert about the threat from paid speech for a long time.
What needs to be set into law and printed into the thick heads of high court judges, is that while expressing an opinion is a protected activity, taking money for it should not be.
This may be oversensitivity on my part, but I object to “natural human persons.” What’s wrong with “human persons?”
One day someone is going to succeed at cloning a human being. We already have various fertilization schemes that allow human beings who could not possibly exist using only natural methods to be born. Gene therapy is likely to eventually become widespread. Those people aren’t precisely natural, but they’re as human as anyone.
Bad idea.
First, as noted abvoe, the word “person” isn’t in the First Amendment. Thus, your proposed amendment wouldn’t fix the alleged problem that you want to fix.
Second, although I get where you and the folks behind the Facebook proposal are coming from, there would be a raft of unintended consequences from your proposal. “Persons” frequently band together into groups to make their voices heard — activist groups, unions, nonprofit corporations and for-profit corporations (e.g., media). Wouldn’t your/their proposed rule would strip these organized groups of people of their right to free speech simply because they are organized? In other words, you have a right to free speech unless and until you organize yourselves, at which point the group no longer has those free speech rights — group speech can be prohibited.
That sounds like a pretty dangerous road to go down.
I came to the conclusion several years ago that the argument made by von above is probably right. My immediate followup thought was “we’re screwed, then.”
As others noted, “corporate personhood” is a *different* problem.
Suggestions, that don’t require a constitutional amendment:
Corporations, as trustees of their shareholders property, MUST disclose to shareholders ALL political contributions, whether direct or via media support. Each shareholder may then request a REFUND of the amount spent on political contributions, in proportion to the number of shares owned. Failure to promptly refund makes the corporation to triple damages, with class-action lawsuits explicitly allowed.
Political candidates that receive donations from corporations must have that corporation name or logo PERMANENTLY TATTOOED on their body, in a size proportional to the donation. Prior to elections, candidates must have their tattoo collection AUDITED quarterly, with the audits made public.
At last, the GOP will have a reason for running a candidate that not only acts like Darth Vader, but dresses like him.
Wouldn’t your/their proposed rule would strip these organized groups of people of their right to free speech simply because they are organized?
No. Unlike a corporation, your typical volunteer association is not a creature of the state (i.e., chartered).
First, as noted abvoe, the word “person” isn’t in the First Amendment.
True. However, if you look closely, you will find this word used prominently in the 14th Amendment which, correct me if I’m wrong, is still part of the Constitution.
I cannot speak to the legal issues. However Russels’s uggestion would have the political advantage of forcing Republican politicians to be more honest about who they represent and that would be good for our political discourse.
So I say go for it. Make the Repulbicans in Congress get on record as voting agaist the idea that people are people and corporations aren’t. I’d make them vote on the the whole list Russel has up there.
Von has it right. This is not a good idea. And it isn’t only free speech that is at issue, it is the full range of constitutional protections that people who choose to associate together would probably like to retain. In effect, the rule of law would apply to natural persons only and not natural persons organized as publicly or privately held corporations (whether nonprofit or for profit), partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships or limited liability companies.
Finally, pretty much any system can be gamed, absent draconian, widespread regulation and enforcement. If you don’t like many of the security measures now in place for counter terrorism purposes, you will like even less the regime needed to keep people from spending their money to influence voters who vote for politicians who regulate their businesses.
There is no silver bullet solution, but if you want to impact how congress is influenced, the most expedient route is term limits. Careerism is a bipartisan blot on the body politic.
I rather like Snarki’s first suggestion.
I think the rest are way over the top. But perhaps they are just included as negotiating positions, from which we could compromise down to just the first one.
Although it is at best tangential to the Citizens United issue, I’ve come to believe that corporations should be offered a choice: legal personhood, or limited liability. Choose one.
(Biological persons, of course, are not accorded the privilege of limited liability)
As bobbyp alludes to, the problem here isn’t people banding together to advocate for one position/cause or another, but that, e.g., IBM is doing so as essentially an immortal entity entitled to accumulate wealth in perpetuity.
Von is right in that banning people from organizing to petition the government for a redress of grievances would be a bad thing. But what is not necessary to effect this sort of citizenship is the corporation (and it’s various derivations, such as limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.).
What allows corporations to grow so large, and certain shareholders to become so wealthy, is their limited liability and (to a lesser extent) perpetual life. If I invest $5 in Corporation X and 50 years later Corporation X commits a massive tort killing thousands of people, I’m only on the hook for my original $5 investment (in most cases), even if I’ve earned $1 million in dividends in those 50 years.
So, you want to limit corporate influence in politics without the ancillary effects von notes above? End the limited liability of their owners. This would also limit the influence of said owners.
Whether this would be good for the economy writ large is a separate question, but the accumulation of wealth via corporations, both inside and outside the form, and thus its/its shareholders ability to influence policy, is what permits such corporations/persons the outsized influence they seem to have in our national/state/local politics today.
What would be interesting is whether a state could strip corporations of their limited liability via statute and be consistent with the Constitution (and/or the various state versions thereof).
Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.
I think this is too blunt of an instrument- there are things that are properly (er, more effectively) done at each level of government. eg I don’t want US trade policy to be set at a county-by-county level. If Im understanding this proposal correctly- Im not sure what would qualify as ‘legitimate’ v ‘illegitimate’ preemption.
As for corps, I dont want to strip them of their rights wholesale, but I think there’s a good argument against letting them donate to politicians or PACs etc:
1)If the money isn’t buying actions or influence, then there’s no advantage to bundling it as a corporation as opposed to distributing it to shareholders and giving them the corp’s opinion on how it should be used
2)If the money is buying actions or influence, then that’s corrosive to the political process
Of course, we all know the answer is option 2, but it’s worth pointing out that even the fig leaf of option 1 doesn’t afaict provide any benefit to the society that couldn’t be provided by individual action.
No. Unlike a corporation, your typical volunteer association is not a creature of the state (i.e., chartered).
Really? Virtually every “volunteer association” that I know of is a creature of the state, and most are incorporated in some fashion.
What allows corporations to grow so large, and certain shareholders to become so wealthy, is their limited liability and (to a lesser extent) perpetual life.
Yes, advantages that nonprofits and volunteer groups also like to take advantage of.
Moreover, what about for-profit media corporations? Do we deprive the New York Times Company of its right to “free speech” because it makes money for its shareholders?
Look, I appreciate these concerns, put you’re addressing them in the wrong way. It’s one thing to argue for greater corporate disclosure, as Snarki suggests. It’s quite another to propose the far-reaching changes that Russell, BobbyP and others have advocated. You’re not going to like the world on day+1 of these proposals.
*I think some of those suggestions are misplaced as well, but that’s a different ball of wax.
I thought the problem with Citizens wasn’t necessarily the corporations = people part but the money = speech part.
The biggest issue seems to actually be the ability to funnel large amounts of ‘ANONYMOUS speech’ towards a candidate or party.
Seems a bad idea to let other countries (or anyone really) influence our polity by funneling large amounts of money into our politics while hiding behind a corporate logo.
This isn’t a good idea for all the reasons outlined above, but I want to reinforce that your discomfort with Citizen’s United doesn’t mean that scattershot proposals are a good idea.
Do you want ANY organization to have its memberships lists examined by the state at any time without a warrant? Your proposal would allow that.
Do you want ANY organization to have its property seized by the state without even eminent domain procedures and without compensation? Your proposal would allow that.
Do you want ANY organization to have its property searched at any time without a warrant? Your proposal would allow that.
Do you want ANY organizations computer files to be open to examination by the police without a warrant? Your proposal would allow that.
Do you want the law to be able to prohibit the ACLU from petitioning the government? Your proposal would allow that.
Do you want the law to be able to prohibit the ACLU from taking out ads during non-campaign times? Your prosposal would allow that.
Essentially no constitutional right would be available on a group basis.
You’re right that it is a radical proposal. But the downside doesn’t even begin to compare with the upside (especially as I suspect that it won’t even keep money out of politics.)
Berial “The biggest issue seems to actually be the ability to funnel large amounts of ‘ANONYMOUS speech’ towards a candidate or party.”
That actually isn’t a worry about Citizens United at all. It didn’t allow for that. The disclosure requirements were upheld.
Reading Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club Pac v. Bennett (a more recent opinion, from which Kagan dissented, which was based on Citizens United) makes me agree that it’s the money = speech issue that is the problem. Kagan’s dissent logically describes the role of money as facilitating the dissemination of speech, unlike the majority opinion that treats them as being the same thing. It seems to me that there’s no reason that one person (whether individual or corporate) should be allowed to have a louder microphone than another based on wealth. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to me that one person should have greater media access than another merely based on wealth.
Trying to level the playing field so that all voices are able to be heard doesn’t seem to Kagan (or me) to violate any First Amendment principles, but rather furthers them. The majority seems to believe that the right to disseminate a message broadly is as exclusive as money can buy. I don’t see how that can be read from the First Amendment.
To follow up on Seb’s comment, which I wish I’d written, full disclosure is (1) the right thing and (2) about all we can reasonably hope for. With disclosure, people can be angry or unpersuaded, as the case may be, with who gives who how much money. What I don’t much care for is the reflexive drive to limit or restrict activity in a free society. Freedom necessarily implies excess, bad outcomes, etc. It’s part of it. If the balance tips too far in favor of one side, say the hyper wealthy, the risk is an eventual and unpleasant populist backlash.
The entire reason for being of corporations is limited liability. End that, and you bring us all the way back to the days prior to the Dutch East India Corporation. You might argue that’s a good thing, but I don’t think you can argue that it would be a quite drastic change, and therefore one whose economic consequences are difficult to predict.
It seems to me that there’s no reason that one person (whether individual or corporate) should be allowed to have a louder microphone than another based on wealth. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to me that one person should have greater media access than another merely based on wealth.
Or a bigger house, or a nicer car or own their own newspaper. Or, that people who are really good writers and can find a publisher ought to be allowed to write on topical subjects when others, not similarly, skilled are not given equal access to publishers.
Or, that celebrities should not be allowed to use their public access to discuss their policy preferences.
And movie studios–no more films with political themes. Unless, everyone else, all 300,0000,000 us, get to make their own movies too, using the studios’ resources.
But, I have a solution–we should limit all political speech to blogs and every citizen should have the right to not only comment on every blog, but to be a headliner.
And to ensure equality of access, each citizen would be limited in the time they are allowed to post and comment, because otherwise, those who do not need to work would have a disparate impact.
Please. I could have a louder microphone than my neighbor simply by forgoing other discretionary spending to take out ads in the local paper. Or, I could partner up with like minded friends and acquaintances, pool our money, and buy airtime.
In the annals of bad ideas, this is a one percenter.
What I don’t much care for is the reflexive drive to limit or restrict activity in a free society.
There was no limitation or restriction in the Arizona public financing system that was struck down in the Arizona Free Enterprise case. The only “limitation” was to check the influence of money (to a certain degree). The wealthy could still talk and advertise. The less wealthy could compete. What was the problem? In the majority’s view, it seems, the problem was that wealth didn’t have as much power to overwhelm the competition as it deserved. I don’t see anything about the right of the wealthy to overwhelm the less wealthy in the First Amendment.
What exactly are the disclosure requirements of corporations, unions, and/or PACs?
I’m asking because I honestly don’t know, but I DO know, I’ve seen a lot of commercials being funded by ‘neutral’ sounding groups, that are anything but neutral. Who is that group? I don’t know, and have no easy way to find out. Is it ACTUALLY a group, or is it one billionare funding some pet project?
At least with the commercials funded by ‘Friends of XXX’, I know what they are about. Who knows what a group called ‘Citizens United’, or ‘Crossroads America’, or ‘Citizens for the Betterment of the Future of our Patriotic Children’ is really about.
Would these problems even be such huge problems if the income inequality weren’t so bad in this country? Where 5 billionares can get together and put more cash in a candidates corner than a thousand of his opponent’s supporters could?
And McKinneyTexas another ‘risk’ a police state answering to a very few crushing the populist backlash.
Or you could start a blog, and through excellent writing, develop a significant readership, all without spending more than beer money.
But people with more writing talent than I (which is nearly everyone) should be required to share with the less fortunate.
Speaking of which: the words should be allowed to have very little place in the context of liberal democracy, IMO. There are things you can be constrained from doing that are overtly harmful to others, but the government is not there to micromanage your privileges. Also IMO. Give the government that power, and pretty soon the government has the power to do anything. Everything, even. Same goes for other people. There were some really good reasons for not having the US be a full democracy, and the possibility of having to subject yourself to every whim of a majority of your neighbors might point us to some drawbacks.
So yeah, we’re screwed.
In the annals of bad ideas, this is a one percenter.
McKinney, your reductio ad absurdum argument is silly. No one is suggesting any of the things you mentioned. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that people who have money should have more access to the media. Less than 20 years ago, the air waves, were considered to be owned by the public. Remember “the public trust,” the concept that was abolished by Reagan? And just because you want to “forego discretionary spending” to take out a political ad, doesn’t mean that citizens shouldn’t be able to vote to allow competing voices (who may represent those without discretionary money) to be subsidized by their tax dollars. Yes that’s what the Supreme Court said wasn’t allowed.
Also: there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they shouldn’t. Also not specified: how many cars they can have, how much real estate they can own, and how many college educations they can fund. And a whole raft of other things, left completely unspecified in the Constitution! What were the Founders thinking?
All good points, here are my thoughts.
The ‘groups of people’ issue is a reasonable concern. So, a second sentence:
2. Groups composed solely of natural human persons, organized specifically for the purpose of engaging in activities specifically protected by the Constitution or any its amendments, will be considered to be ‘people’ for purposes of the above definition.
Maybe this leaves the barn door open a bit too wide — is ‘making money’ a Constitutionally protected activity? — but I’m sure the lawyers among us could find a way to craft the language to allow the ACLU and the NRA to carry on.
The ‘unintended consequences’ thing I basically ignore. Waking up in the morning has ‘unintended consequences’.
If you want to talk about actual, specific, describable consequences that one could imagine flowing from a change like this, all good. If ‘something bad might happen’ is going to rule your world, you might as well stay in bed.
Do we deprive the New York Times Company of its right to “free speech” because it makes money for its shareholders?
Also a very legitimate concern.
I would say that the right to free speech ought to belong the writer and not to the publication.
We do this now (to the degree that we still do it at all) with 4th Amendment rights as regards telephone and electronic communications. They are protected not because the phone company or your ISP is protected, but because you are.
The phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” makes no reference to people whatsoever
The issue of the word ‘persons’ not showing up in the text of the First Amendment is interesting, but as far as I know every free speech claim by corporations or anyone else is predicated on their status as persons. If they would like to try to claim First Amendment protections based on their status as something other than persons, I suppose they are welcome to try.
Other points:
I’m not extremely concerned with large expenditures of political cash by individual people. The Kochs have a lot of green to throw around, but there are only two of them. Some kind of absolute per-annum limit on personal political contributions might be wise, but it’s not the be-all and end-all as far as I’m concerned.
Human rights belong to people. Human beings. Not to anyone or anything else.
Also, for the record, I’m not in favor of eliminating limited liability. It serves a good and important purpose.
I’m not anti-corporation. I just don’t think they’re people.
Oops, forgot one:
I object to “natural human persons.” What’s wrong with “human persons?”
OK, clones too.
But no robots, AI software, or zombies.
Also: there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they shouldn’t.
Perhaps, but the Supreme Court struck down a law (passed by a legislature, representing actual citizens) that allowed candidates without as much money to have more, saying that it violated the First Amendment rights of the wealthy people. What exactly are you arguing Slartibartfast? Your comment isn’t responsive to the point.
This. But I think Rob’s problem is that he has realized that even if corporations are people, they are comprised of people whose free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Disclosure might be the only approach that doesn’t result in own goal.
“Less than 20 years ago, the air waves, were considered to be owned by the public.”
And why was that? Because of the limited bandwidth of tv and radio signals, and for the purpose of making it possible to use them without the radio wave interference of everyone trying to use the same frequencies at the same time. Those signals are still considered owned by the public.
What does that have to do with putting commercials on cable television, writing on the internet, or making movies about politicians you don’t like?
Your future robotic overlords, running their AI Software to determine your doom, may just turn you into a Zombie for that.
What does that have to do with putting commercials on cable television, writing on the internet, or making movies about politicians you don’t like?
It has to do with the fact that the airwaves are now auctioned off to the highest bidder with very little regulatory consideration about allowing air space to people who don’t have money. Which means that big corporations own the media, and have almost no responsibility to share the airwaves with those who aren’t solely concerned with amassing profits.
And, yes, the Internet helps to level the playing field.
von: Yes, advantages that nonprofits and volunteer groups also like to take advantage of.
I’m not sure who the “owners” of nonprofits and volunteer groups are (I guess the people who control the funds), but to the extent they act as large piles of money used to influence politics, their limited liability could similarly be taken away.
Slarti: The entire reason for being of corporations is limited liability.
Well, yes, and there should be some sort of price to pay for that, like perhaps a second level of taxes and perhaps some restrictions placed on the ability to influence the democratic process.
Slarti: End that, and you bring us all the way back to the days prior to the Dutch East India Corporation. You might argue that’s a good thing, but I don’t think you can argue that it would be a quite drastic change, and therefore one whose economic consequences are difficult to predict.
And as I noted, the question of whether that would be economically good for the economy is separate from the political effects.
I object to “natural human persons.” What’s wrong with “human persons?”
OK, clones too.
But no robots, AI software, or zombies.
What about self-aware robots? Like, I think HAL 9000 should probably be protected, but not ENIAC.
“Do we deprive the New York Times Company of its right to “free speech” because it makes money for its shareholders?”
Probably not, but “we” will deprive the New York Times Company of its right to “free speech” because it does NOT make money for its shareholders.
“There’s nothing in the Constitution ….”
I’m starting to think there actually is “nothing” in the Constitution.
“It has to do with the fact that the airwaves are now auctioned off to the highest bidder with very little regulatory consideration about allowing air space to people who don’t have money.”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here at all.
First, what distinction are you trying to draw with ‘now’? TV and radio bands weren’t available to Joe Schmo off the street in the 1970s or 1980s either. (except in pirate form, which is to say illegal use).
Second, there has never been much regulatory concern about “allowing air space to people who don’t have money”. The public access stations have never been a major channel of communication. They’ve been cult status at best.
Third, the reason they are being auctioned off now is because they really aren’t that important for public communication in the sense you’re talking about anymore. We don’t need to waste them on TV signals when they are much better used for ubiquitous long range Wi-Fi or other similar ideas.
So I don’t understand how any of this connects with your concerns re Citizens United.
Groups composed solely of natural human persons, organized specifically for the purpose of engaging in activities specifically protected by the Constitution or any its amendments, will be considered to be ‘people’ for purposes of the above definition.
So what isn’t specifically permitted is proscribed?
there should be some sort of price to pay for that, like perhaps a second level of taxes and perhaps some restrictions placed on the ability to influence the democratic process.
A real pro-growth, pro-freedom plan. I don’t know what the right wing analogy is, but the previously mentioned reflexive drive to regulate and limit others’ activity is especially in bloom today.
Where’s the “balancing” in comments this thread, like the arguments made in this one?
Perhaps your point could use some restating, because I quoted what I responded to, and noted where it lacked snything like substance. Speaking of which:
The above doesn’t seem to connect with anything I wrote at all. What I said was more along the lines of the Constitution doesn’t really do much at all to tell us what rights some people shouldn’t have.
“snything”
I’ll leave it up to the reader to determine authorial intent, here.
Me: there should be some sort of price to pay for [corporate limited liability], like perhaps a second level of taxes and perhaps some restrictions placed on the ability to influence the democratic process.
McTx: A real pro-growth, pro-freedom plan. I don’t know what the right wing analogy is, but the previously mentioned reflexive drive to regulate and limit others’ activity is especially in bloom today.
Uh, but what I suggest above is what we’ve pretty much always had, especially as to the first (a tax on corporate profits as well as those distributed to shareholders), and until recently (and continuing in certain regards) the second (limits on corporate influence in politics).
Now all of a sudden this is a “reflexive drive to regulate and limit others’ activity”??
Where’s the “balancing” in comments this thread, like the arguments made in this one?
In speech, we don’t prefer one person’s rights over another, we don’t limit what one person can say by keying the quantum of speech to what another can afford. We are talking here about the liberty of adult citizens, whether acting individually or through the corporate form, to engage in speech, and specifically political speech. The abortion debate, whatever else it might be, is not a speech issue.
Now all of a sudden this is a “reflexive drive to regulate and limit others’ activity”??
I took you to be proposing new taxes and new limits in exchange for maintaining the status quo. If I misread you, I withdraw my comment as it applies to you, but I leave it in general response to the search for a means of bringing those damn corporations into line. Freedom is often messy, but still the superior state of affairs.
So what isn’t specifically permitted is proscribed?
????????
What I’m calling for is for Constitutionally guaranteed rights to be accorded to human beings, and not to things that are not human beings.
What humans can do today, they would be able to do tomorrow.
Congress could, in fact, leave all of the legislation that currently allows entities that are not human beings to engage in political activity in place. In fact, there would probably be a good buck to be made, by them, in doing exactly that.
The only difference would be that they would have the option of *not* doing that, which today they do not have.
Because it has been denied them by judicial fiat, no less. Imagine that. Largely based on a peculiar reading of the word ‘person’ in the 14th Amendment.
So, I’m just looking for a little clarity.
We’re about a million miles away from ‘whatever is not permitted is proscribed’.
What about self-aware robots? Like, I think HAL 9000 should probably be protected, but not ENIAC.
Well, sure.
What I don’t much care for is the reflexive drive to limit or restrict activity in a free society. Freedom necessarily implies excess, bad outcomes, etc. It’s part of it. If the balance tips too far in favor of one side, say the hyper wealthy, the risk is an eventual and unpleasant populist backlash.
This seems like a dangerous principle to embrace when we’re talking about the political process itself. If we casually permit de facto bribery of public officials as a necessary ‘messy’ outcome of freedom, there’s no guarantee that this compromised political process will continue to be free.
Also, let’s not put too much faith in the pendulum. Societies can undergo radical transformations under pressure/imbalance- the risk is more than just a second FDR and an improved social safety net.
And a whole raft of other things, left completely unspecified in the Constitution! What were the Founders thinking?
That we could specify those things with laws and not have them struck down by we-are-strict-constitutionalist activist judges.
Or a bigger house, or a nicer car or own their own newspaper.
Strawman. I suspect there are things we all agree should be for sale, such as nicer cars. And things I *hope* we all agree shouldnt be for sale eg slaves, justice, the votes of the members of Congress, etc.
So, on being asked whether ‘access to a bigger microphone’ is one of those things, I think you can make a reasonable case that it is. But comparing to the things that IMO obviously ought to be for sale isn’t constructive, any more than me claiming that paying for access to the media is equivalent to selling votes.
Speaking of which: the words should be allowed to have very little place in the context of liberal democracy, IMO.
Im not sure what this means. The phrase ‘should be allowed’ suggests that government protects some activities (ie allows freedom of speech etc) or prohibits others (ie doesn’t allow assault). I think you’re getting at something, but I don’t think this conveys it clearly.
[otoh, I think this often happens when trying to create an artificial division between things that we think ought to be Ok and things we don’t think ought to be Ok, to make our preferences appear less arbitrary].
Russell:
Groups composed solely of natural human persons, organized specifically for the purpose of engaging in activities specifically protected by the Constitution or any its amendments, will be considered to be ‘people’ for purposes of the above definition.
Maybe I am misreading you, but first you would require a group to ‘specifically’ limit itself to ‘specifically’ protected constitutional activities in order to be considered within the constitution. That is, a condition precedent for exercising a specific constitutional right would be declaring that intent in advance. Then, that group would be limited in its constitutional freedom only to specifically granted constitutional rights. By implication, a group could not have a dual purpose, e.g. we intend to publish articles on tax policy and raise money for the Special Olympics–sorry, no can do.
Any group failing in either category of specificity falls outside your proposed constitutional definition of natural person (or human person or some such).
To illustrate just how problematic this would be: any association of two or more people who failed to specifically identify their intent prior to speaking on a political subject would be subject to prior restraint by the federal freaking government. Prior restraint is the nice way of saying blanket censorship.
Worse still, there are a lot of things that associations, in whatever specific corporate form, do that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution. Yet, none of these would have any constitutional standing or rights under your definition.
Indeed, what is not specifically permitted is specifically subject to proscription for any entity outside your definition.
We cannot, as a country, countenance any law, and especially not one residing in the constitution, that would allow the feds to censor anyone engaged in political speech, ever. Or to condition the exercise of a fundamental right on artificial lines of specificity. Your brush is way, way to broad.
Or a bigger house, or a nicer car or own their own newspaper.
Strawman. I suspect there are things we all agree should be for sale, such as nicer cars. And things I *hope* we all agree shouldnt be for sale eg slaves, justice, the votes of the members of Congress, etc.
Not at all as to ‘Strawman’ and a non sequitor as to the rest. Here’s what Sapient wrote at 12:33:there’s no reason that one person (whether individual or corporate) should be allowed to have a louder microphone than another based on wealth. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to me that one person should have greater media access than another merely based on wealth.
A louder microphone or greater access to the media are both the product of an individual’s resource allocation. The gov’t has no more business rationing speech equally along economic lines than it does telling an individual how much or how little of their money they can spend on speech. And if the gov’t can force speech rationing along economic lines, why not any other thing?
As for what should and should not be for sale, we are talking about buying air time or access to media, both commodities that should be available in a free society, not bribing public officials. Homes, cars, etc, as commodities, are indistinguishable from air time or newspaper space. Limiting access on account of wealth is precisely Sapient’s point. And it’s a bad one.
The gov’t has no more business rationing speech equally along economic lines than it does telling an individual how much or how little of their money they can spend on speech.
No, this is really twisting the definition of “speech”. Speech is one person’s expression. In its purest form, without technology of any kind, it’s language spoken or signed from one person directly to an audience (of one or more). Speech does not require money.
(Although the word “press” requires technology and perhaps involves money, the Supreme Court doesn’t talk about “press” in Citizens United cases.)
So, really what we’re talking about is the right to disseminate speech to a large audience. In terms of microphones, I don’t think anyone would argue that people can’t blast through neighborhoods screaming through a loud microphone – everyone is equally limited by noise ordinances, etc. Similarly, disseminating opinions through media doesn’t seem any more sacrosanct if the effect is to drown out other voices. Everyone has a right to speak unabridged. People shouldn’t (it seems to me) have the right to use their money to monopolize the media. That’s different than speech. The case I was talking about, which no one has discussed, is the Arizona Free Enterprise Club case. In that case, no one was muzzled in the least. No one was restricted; no speech was muzzled. On the contrary, people’s speech was subsidized. How is this a First Amendment violation? The only way it is a violation is if you think that freedom of speech changes by degree according to your wealth.
I think you did a much better job than I did, Carleton, but my one and only point is that the Constitution doesn’t do anything nearly as specific as sapient mentions, except where it concerns activities that the government must or must not do.
Yes, I agree with that. But it wasn’t my phrase, and I wasn’t using it to prop up my argument.
There is no silver bullet solution, but if you want to impact how congress is influenced, the most expedient route is term limits. Careerism is a bipartisan blot on the body politic.
I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling people how long they’re allowed to hold a job for. If you want someone out of office, then you and your friends can control your discretionary spending, buy a whole bunch of speech, and convince others to vote him or her out.
I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling people how long they’re allowed to hold a job for. If you want someone out of office, then you and your friends can control your discretionary spending, buy a whole bunch of speech, and convince others to vote him or her out.
And yet, that is exactly what we do with our President. And it’s not just anyone’s job, it’s members of congress and senators only. Incumbency is single largest indicator of re-election success. Both sides sell themselves shamelessly for the money to maintain their positions. And defeating an incumbent takes even more money.
That said, I agree that the vote ought to be a sufficient protection against careerism. Unfortunately, as it has played out, not so much.
“Speech is one person’s expression. In its purest form, without technology of any kind, it’s language spoken or signed from one person directly to an audience (of one or more). Speech does not require money.
(Although the word “press” requires technology and perhaps involves money, the Supreme Court doesn’t talk about “press” in Citizens United cases.)”
Analytically, I don’t agree that this frame is useful. Pretty much everyone shorthands “freedom of speech, or of the press” as ‘freedom of speech’. But treating the shorthand as if it had some special status other than making it easier to talk without using lots of extra words seems wrong. Analytically they are almost always treated identically. Citizens United was a case about a movie broadcast over cable tv, so if you insist on making a distinction between freedom of speech and the press (a distinction which so far as I can tell isn’t made very often) the case was about the press and you need to analyze it as such.
And even if we say that corporations don’t ‘speak’ so they aren’t protected by freedom of speech, they do use ‘the press’ so the 1st amendment would still protect them unless you don’t think ‘the press’ covers them.
But in that case, we need to be talking about ‘the press’ and not ‘freedom of speech’, in which case you’re on the wrong topic entirely, and worrying about “it’s language spoken or signed from one person directly to an audience (of one or more)” is just a big distraction from the topic of whether or not groups of people should be allowed to engage in political expression.
I tend to think it isn’t an interesting distinction for the most part and that whenever we talk about freedom of speech, freedom of the press is almost always included. (For example NYT v. Sullivan, or the Pentagon Papers cases are generally talked about as free speech cases while under your rubric they are clearly freedom of the press cases). But if you’re firmly convinced it is an interesting distinction, you need to be talking about the right one.
Maybe I am misreading you, but first you would require a group to ‘specifically’ limit itself to ‘specifically’ protected constitutional activities in order to be considered within the constitution.
A group of people, or a group of corporations, or a group of hot dog stand vendors, can organize themselves to do any lawful thing.
In the current world, and/or in russell’s world.
Period.
The only change from current world to russell’s world is that a group can only assert the *constitutionally protected right* to do whatever it is they want to do if:
(a) their membership includes only natural human persons
(b) they are organized for the purpose of doing that constitutionally protected thing
So yes, I suppose it’s possible that there might be groups currently organized to support the Special Olympics that would be required to assemble under a separate charter if those same people also wanted to, frex, sponsor an advertisement for a political candidate.
But, groups like the ACLU, the NRA, etc etc etc etc etc, all good, as long as their membership is only real live people.
If you want to start a bowling league, or a quilting club, or a marching band, no such bar is in play, all that is necessary is that those activities be legal in your jurisdiction.
But if you want to assert the Constitutional right, against which no law can be passed, to engage in some activity with a bunch of other people, your organization has to be (a) made up of actual people, and (b) be organized for that purpose.
Perhaps there is a huge threat to freedom in there, but if so I don’t see it.
Actually, I’ll mention one additional aspect to my modest proposal.
Since money is speech and speech is money, and since only natural human persons (including clones when they appear on the scene) can claim the right to engage in Constitutionally protected activities, then *things that are not natural humans* cannot participate through the medium of money.
Or, more properly, it would not violate the Constitution for Congress or any lesser legislature to pass a law banning the participation of non-human entities in, for example, the political process through the medium of money.
If the legislatures choose to make it lawful, they may. If not, not.
What would change is that legislatures could choose to make it not lawful.
There’s a lot of other stuff that could also go on the end of this, one of which could very well be how much free speech they can exert. Plus endless other things, of course, among which are who they can sex with, how many people they can have sex with, and whether their lights can be incandescent or must be compact fluorescent.
Do you want ANY organization to have its memberships lists examined by the state at any time without a warrant? Your proposal would allow that.
At least with this part I have no problem. If one organizes in a legal form, the (identity of the) participants should be liable to disclosure. Not necessarily to the public but to the entity recognizing it legally. Your grannies’ informal knitting circle would not be affected since it is not a legally organized entity. Once they form the Organisation of Senior Knitters (Inc/Ltd. or not) that would change.
McTx: In speech, we don’t prefer one person’s rights over another, we don’t limit what one person can say by keying the quantum of speech to what another can afford. We are talking here about the liberty of adult citizens, whether acting individually or through the corporate form, to engage in speech, and specifically political speech. The abortion debate, whatever else it might be, is not a speech issue.
The reason I brought the “balancing” point up is because that’s the entirety (IIRC) of SCOTUS’s reasoning in decisions upholding restrictions on campaign financing/advocacy. In that, while free speech is a core american right/value, there are other rights/values against which it must be weighed, and aren’t the non-judicial branches the appropriate places to engage in such weighing (in most cases)?
McTx: I took you to be proposing new taxes and new limits in exchange for maintaining the status quo. If I misread you, I withdraw my comment as it applies to you, but I leave it in general response to the search for a means of bringing those damn corporations into line.
Upon re-reading I guess you did misread me, my apologies for not being clearer and thanks for withdrawing. On “bringing those damn corporations into line”, don’t we have to? As I keep hearing over and over (not necessarily here), a corporate executive’s job is to maximize profits for shareholders, political process be damned.
A louder microphone or greater access to the media are both the product of an individual’s resource allocation…. Homes, cars, etc, as commodities, are indistinguishable from air time or newspaper space.
This is argument by assertion. If you want to make the case that buying airtime for a politician in a de facto exchange for input in crafting legislation is *exactly* like buying a coke, then make that case. Obviously if everyone agreed with your last sentence here then we’d agree with your entire case- I don’t agree with it, and restating it doesn’t make it any more persuasive.
Yes, but to coopt the political process for corporate gain, the executive must bend the ear of the congressman. It’s not just the cash, it’s what you say along with the cash. Therefore, you must spend even more cash on lobbyists to do the ear-bending.
I think that’s how it works, anyway. If that’s the case, I think this is a pretty decent idea:
Hartmut: At least with this part I have no problem. If one organizes in a legal form, the (identity of the) participants should be liable to disclosure. Not necessarily to the public but to the entity recognizing it legally.
I can get on board with this. Part of the reason a U.S. is considered a “tax haven” by other jurisdictions is the lack of a requirement under, e.g., Delaware law to disclose the beneficial owners of an entity such as an LLC to the state, but in the meantime the state recognizes the entity as a juridical person that can, e.g., conduct business.
More broadly, maybe a common theme of my comments in this thread is that, by granting limited liability to the organizers of an entity (corporation, LP, LLP, LLC, etc.) the state has conferred a benefit on the entity’s owners, and thus it should be able to should be able to impose conditions/extract concessions in exchange for this (within certain limits). The traditional condition/concession being a second level of tax imposed on the income of such entities, as most corporate-type entities* were formed to conduct business (though as von notes not all, though it seems to me that was a secondary event). Later, restrictions on political advocacy.
I mean, if we were designing corporate law/limited liability from scratch, would it be constitutionally problematic to say that in exchange for limited liability, the entity cannot engage in political advocacy? I don’t think so (obviously we might disagree on what “political advocacy” means). If you want to organize based on undivided (but liable) ownership of the organization’s property generally, advocate away, but if you want to limit your liability to amounts contributed/invested, not so much.
Instead, we have hundreds of years of corporate law whereby the filing of a piece of paper accords privileges with very little in return.
*Trusts seem to be a separate matter here.
It’s not just the cash, it’s what you say along with the cash. Therefore, you must spend even more cash on lobbyists to do the ear-bending.
I think that’s how it works, anyway.
My general impression is that the cash per se can often be fairly persuasive.
But mostly I think what the cash gets you is access. When you precede your phone call with a check, the call is more likely to be answered.
I’m not sure that that, in and of itself, is a completely bad thing. A cash contribution is a gesture of support, just like putting a sign in your yard, or making phone calls, or canvassing door to door.
Do any of those things for a candidate, and you will increase your access to the candidate.
I’d just prefer that the money thing be a privilege limited to people, acting as people, and not proxies for giant accumulations of capital.
Slarti: Yes, but to coopt the political process for corporate gain, the executive must bend the ear of the congressman. It’s not just the cash, it’s what you say along with the cash. Therefore, you must spend even more cash on lobbyists to do the ear-bending.
IIRC, there are some estimates of a return on corporate tax lobbying in congress of $100 in reduced taxes for every lobbying dollar, on average.
As to this:
Because much of their value to their employers comes from their prior government service, I think that the taxpayers deserve a share of the return, say in the form of a 50 percent surtax on any earnings by political appointees in excess of their prior government salaries for the first five years after they leave office.
I’m pretty sure you took this from a commenter/poster here (or someone with the general political leanings of such), but, eh. It’s incomplete because it’s limited to political appointees (so the whole of Congress and their staff is exempt, not to mention lesser Executive Branch officials who are not appointed and yet routinely go on to earn much greater salaries in the private sector), and over broad, affecting the “good” public servant in addition to the “bad.”
Maybe my experience is unique in that the relatively high-level government officials I’ve engaged with over the years in tax policy have all seemed to be seeking the “right” answer; as opposed to the “answer that most benefits the gov’t/my future employment.”
“And yet, that is exactly what we do with our President.”
And that required a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that?
“And it’s not just anyone’s job, it’s members of congress and senators only”
So now you want to discriminate on the basis of job title, too? Tsk, tsk.
I’m not sure that that, in and of itself, is a completely bad thing. A cash contribution is a gesture of support, just like putting a sign in your yard, or making phone calls, or canvassing door to door.
I disagree, I think it’s a completely bad thing. It puts the hand of the state up for the highest bidder- need a recommendation to a service academy? need an immigration issue resolved for a friend? need an earmark for a local project? There’s no line that I can see between mutual back-scratching and outright sale of state goods or services.
So maybe we can’t stop that, maybe volunteering for your Congressman makes it easier to get your SS issues resolved. But we should fight against it tooth and nail.
How about this: you can spend whatever you want on political advocacy, but it has to be completely anonymized before being spent. I havent thought through the implications at all, but it seems like another way to attack the money = buying influence problem wo actually prohibiting spending on speech.
I disagree, I think it’s a completely bad thing.
Actually, I think you’re right, and I was wrong. I retract my prior comment.
I guess what I had in mind in terms of access was less ‘do me a personal favor’, and more ‘listen to my thoughts on topics X Y and Z’. But I agree, I’m not sure the two could ever be teased apart.
Anonymizing personal contributions also seems like a good idea to me.
If you want to make the case that buying airtime for a politician in a de facto exchange for input in crafting legislation is *exactly* like buying a coke, then make that case.
This is goal post moving. No part of my argument, nor any part of Sapient’s, referred to a quid pro quo, nor was the law, pre-UC, limited to prohibiting quid pro quo deals. The language that Sapient quoted applies equally to any other commodity, based on economic level. The question Kagan asked, in effect, was why should rich people be able to buy more media exposure than poor or middle class?
you can spend whatever you want on political advocacy, but it has to be completely anonymized before being spent. I havent thought through the implications at all, but it seems like another way to attack the money = buying influence problem wo actually prohibiting spending on speech.
Others have thought this through and it produces an awful result: millions spent by the Kochs or Soros or who knows who in favor of someone. The spender remains anonymous from the public, but do you really think the beneficiary wouldn’t find out who it was? And act accordingly? And no one would ever know. Which is why disclosure is the best you are going to get without even more oppressive and constitutionally suspect laws and regulations.
As much as I agree with the underlying premise on the corrupting influence of wealth/money on the political system, it is all too easy to imagine ways corporations could evade the limitations being proposed here.
For example: “Friends of Coal”, an organization composed of actual persons who just coincidentally happen to be the spouses of people that get paid as “consultants” millions by various corporations in the coal industry.
So, I guess, an amendment mandating publicly subsidized campaigns for all candidates (or qualifying advocacy groups in the case of ballot measures or proposed legislation), at the level of $X plus the inflation rate, or a greater rate of increase as the Congress may authorize. Part two would require any person or entity that sells advertising time and space to any candidate must make equivalent advertising time and space available to all candidates at the same rate.
I will leave it to the regulars here to dismember the specifics of this proposal, but the general intent is, give everybody the opportunity to make their case on the merits.
Priest–would a challenger have the same limits as an incumbent?
Really? Virtually every “volunteer association” that I know of is a creature of the state
Well, no. Most are not. You might make a case for unions, but legislative and judicial history argues against that. Corporations are granted their “personhood” (ability to sue, etc.) in return for a grant of limited liability. Please tell me the quid pro quo for say, the Chamber of Commerce? The UAW? The ACLU? Further, what other of these entities can “buy back their own shares” and virtually represent NOBODY except their own state sanctioned avarice? Shells within shells.
In the good old days, corporations were charted for a specific purpose and often for a very limited period of time. That was then, back in the golden early era of a Republic still basking in the glow of its Founders (early 19th century).
The state creates corporations. To insist that We The People retain the power to regulate corporate political activity strikes me as eminently appropriate give the gift of money grubbing we grant in return.
Today’s so-called conservatives are indeed quite radical. They seek nothing less than the commodification of all human activity.
This is goal post moving. No part of my argument, nor any part of Sapient’s, referred to a quid pro quo, nor was the law, pre-UC, limited to prohibiting quid pro quo deals. The language that Sapient quoted applies equally to any other commodity, based on economic level.
Im pointing out that calling things equivalent is not the same as demonstrating that they are equivalent. Your second sentence is *once more* a restatement of your position rather than an argument for it. Perhaps you could tell us why you think this language applies to every other possible commodity(!) rather than telling us that you do. You’ve made that clear.
[Also- if anything, my extension of your case is much less dramatic than your extension of Sapient’s. The leap from “political spending” to “political spending that buys influence” versus the leap from “political spending” to “every possible commodity on the face of the earth”].
McK – I was thinking more of a floor, rather than limits, but the subsidy amount would be the same for all.
The kind of circumstance I have in mind is the ’92 Dem Presidential primaries, when Tsongas “suspended” his campaign because of his financial situation despite being the top alternative to Clinton. There was anti-Clinton sentiment (both ideological and pragmatic) that had nowhere to go, practically speaking (Brown did pick up some of that support).
Sebastian, speech and press are different. Obviously, the press amplifies speech so the two are very much related in that libel can be prosecuted against the speaker and the amplifier (hence, NYT v. Sullivan). But if I talk to you, I am not “the press”. A speech in front of an audience is not “the press.” The press covers it. Both things are protected but they are not the same. But I agree that the distinction isn’t all that important to the current discussion.
It’s fairly recent in American history that megamoney has become such a big issue in elections. That’s mostly because of the huge expense of access to the broadcast media (meaning FCC regulated media). Ron Paul could make as many speeches, and distribute as many pamphlets as he ever wanted for as much as it would cost him to print them (nominal), and distribute them. The Constitution doesn’t require that Ron Paul be able to buy the same ad space in the New York Times as Mitt Romney, and that’s fine with me. But (IMHO) it shouldn’t forbid the citizens of the United States, through legislation, to create a system where Ron Paul can buy as much time as Mitt Romney to buy ads. That doesn’t infringe on Mitt Romney’s speech – he can buy as much has he wants. It amplifies his competition, but how does that infringe on Mitt Romney? This is the issue. So far, the Supreme Court has said that rich people’s right to access can’t be infringed. To my mind, that’s a new Constitutional right for rich people.
russell, out of curiosity, how would saying that corporations aren’t people solve anything? The problem seems to me to be money. Anyone who has enough money to influence a political official to a greater extent than his/her/its vote or power of reason – that seems like undue influence to me. And corporations don’t vote (for now). What direct effect do you think such an amendment would have?
bobbyp, the ACLU and other similar organizations are usually organized under state statutes as “not-for-profit” or “nonstock” corporations. For an example, which is similar to those in other states, see Virginia’s. They don’t have shares, but do have limited liability, and receive other benefits of corporations (such as the right to buy and sell property, and the kinds of protections discussed in Citizens United).
“But if I talk to you, I am not “the press”. A speech in front of an audience is not “the press.” The press covers it. Both things are protected but they are not the same.”
I think you’re confusing ‘the press’ as instruments of communication and ‘the Press’ as a profession. In almost any case I can think of, ‘the press’ is about instruments of communication. The group of people known as journalists don’t have special constitutional rights. Which highlights the problems this kind of proposal are going to have vis-a-vis journalists. Most journalists are going to have corporate ties. At the very least they are likely to be employees of corporations, or be used by corporations like the NYT. If corporations can’t spend money on political speech, reporters can’t report because corporations won’t have freedom of the press.
“The Constitution doesn’t require that Ron Paul be able to buy the same ad space in the New York Times as Mitt Romney, and that’s fine with me. But (IMHO) it shouldn’t forbid the citizens of the United States, through legislation, to create a system where Ron Paul can buy as much time as Mitt Romney to buy ads. That doesn’t infringe on Mitt Romney’s speech – he can buy as much has he wants. It amplifies his competition, but how does that infringe on Mitt Romney? ”
The first part is clearly correct. Why do you think the second part would be unconstitutional? So far as I know public spending laws are very much constitutional, and in fact in force right this second in the US.
I’m not convinced they are a wise policy. Nor do I believe they actually work very well. But what case do you think makes them unconstitutional? It isn’t Citizens United.
Sebastian, it is you who are confused. You say: “The group of people known as journalists don’t have special constitutional rights.” True enough, and I didn’t say they did.
In terms of your response to my second quote, have you read the Arizona case that I mentioned? Would you care to distinguish the Arizona statute (that was ruled unconstitutional) from the situation I described?
The group of people known as journalists don’t have special constitutional rights.
Uh, you may want to ask bloggers and the courts whether that’s the case. Some courts have already ruled that bloggers aren’t covered by shield laws that allow journalists to protect sources. .
the thread has moved on, but to clarify my comment from ‘way back in the beginning…
The corporation “disclosure” of political/media support needs to be disclosure to shareholders. Not necessarily the public, for a private corporation. The equally important feature is that shareholders can individually and easily “opt out” and receive a proportionate refund of the cost, to compensate them for THEIR investment being used for a purpose which they do not approve.
Thus turning the issue into one of corporate governance, not constitutional law, strongly based on property rights.
Now, the effect? Well, for many investors the result would be “I get free money for signing this paper? For reals?” which would restrain corporations. Many just wouldn’t want to bother with the hassle.
You can apply the same idea to non-profits, but I’d expect more unanimity of purpose.
Change of subject: the money=speech=money equation is FAR more worrying when it causes restrictions on how “money” is used to restrict how “speech” is used.
For example, speak sympathy to the goals of the IRA = material support of terrorism = serious felony.
I guess the general issue that bothers me is that, although most people agree that money corrupts politics (in that wealthy interests have disproportionate political power), how do we fix that in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings? That (to me) is a more vital question than the various issues of whether corporations are people, or the distinctions between various first amendment protections.
Should we get money out of politics? If so, how do we do it? Or is there some other problem that russell is getting at?
There’s a lot of other stuff that could also go on the end of this, one of which could very well be how much free speech they can exert. Plus endless other things, of course, among which are who they can sex with, how many people they can have sex with, and whether their lights can be incandescent or must be compact fluorescent.
Speaking strictly for myself, I’ll be up in arms on that grim day when the government starts telling to me that I can no longer have sex with people who have incandescent lights.
For example: “Friends of Coal”, an organization composed of actual persons who just coincidentally happen to be the spouses of people that get paid as “consultants” millions by various corporations in the coal industry.
Yeah, no matter what you do somebody will find a way to game it. People game the situation we have now. At least if corp personhood was off the table, you could actually pass laws to keep it down to something like a noise level.
Can’t do that now.
Which brings me to:
russell, out of curiosity, how would saying that corporations aren’t people solve anything? The problem seems to me to be money. Anyone who has enough money to influence a political official to a greater extent than his/her/its vote or power of reason – that seems like undue influence to me. And corporations don’t vote (for now). What direct effect do you think such an amendment would have?
If corporations were not considered people for purposes of interpreting the Constitution, they would not be entitled to the rights guaranteed to people under the Constitution.
So, Congress, or even states counties or towns, would be allowed to pass laws governing if, when, and how they — meaning corporations — could participate in the political process.
Citizens United is a completely consistent and logical ruling, if you assume that corporations are persons under the Constitution.
Corporations don’t vote, and they have no need to vote. They gain extraordinarily more access to policymakers than 99.9% of voters do by virtue of the $$$ they flood the political system with.
Folks object to the Koch Bros (as do I, frankly). But the Koch’s *personal* political contributions since the 80’s are something like $100 million.
Total lobbying expenditures in 2011 so far comes to $2.45 BILLION dollars, with a ‘B’. Total in 2010 was $3.51 billion.
I’m +2, so somebody please check my math, but if I’m mistaken $3.51B is about $6.5 million dollars PER CONGRESS PERSON. In one year.
Nearly all of the top lobbying contributors are corporations or professional associations including corporations.
Frankly, if the Kochs want to spend many millions of their own money to outright buy a couple of House seats, or even a Senate seat or two, I can live with that. It will be balanced out by the millions of other people whose interests don’t specifically align with the Kochs.
It’s the $3.51 billion that makes the halls of Congress smell. IMVHO.
Also, for the record, I’d like union money out of the game also. Unions exist to advocate for the interests of their members regarding the terms and conditions of their employment. That’s absolutely great, I support them 100% in that goal, but that agenda is not the same as political speech.
“Nearly all of the top lobbying contributors are corporations or professional associations including corporations.”
All that really says is that corporations are an extremely useful and hence popular way of organizing people. The Sierra Club, the ACLU and Greenpeace USA are all organized as corporations. The fact that people can easily band together in that way makes much, much easier to counterbalance folks like Koch who have huge personal fortunes.
You can definitely put me down as someone who thinks the whole “money equals speech” business is the real problem, with corporate personhood at best a sideshow.
Over here media have to provide (a certain amount of)ad space free of charge to political parties that have successfully registered during election season (our system is essentially based on parties not candidates). So even obscure minor parties will get heard to a degree. Most ads are right before the news, so many people will actually see or hear them. On the other hand parties are (iirc) forbidden from buying ad space like they were ads for shampoo etc.(at least beyond a certain limit but I don’t have the details at hand). So, in broadcast media the playing field gets levelled quite a bit (and not for the major party cavalry to ride down the opposition on foot). What is not affected by that are billboards, although there are rules about how many of those may be put up per area, when they can be put up and when they have to be removed again.
Iirc there is not a single millionaire in our parliament and most definitely no billionaire.
I do not claim that we are in any way free of corruption or lobbying but our normal parliamentarians are not as openly bought (or leased) as is the case in the US. Here you have to buy the prime ministers and risk that he (or they) will be replaced on the spot when it becomes known. Disadvantage: politics over here works like sleeping pills. It’s boooooring.
I see commenters like Sebastian and Slartibartfast (who happen to be very privileged people in the red in tooth and claw struggle to make one’s opinions heard) display very little creativity when it comes to schemes that could limit political inequality arising from inequality of money and media access.
The alternatives are apparently the status quo or chaos! anarchy! tyranny! dogs and cats sleeping together!
To the suggestion that limits on paid speech by corporations also would limit paid speech by unions and interests groups, I say: good. The influence of a union, or a chess club for that matter, should not be dependent on the size of the participants’ wallets.
Realize that when you permit someone to run an ad reaching millions, they are enroaching on a shared, limited resource, namely the public’s attention and capacity for discussion. The least you could do is compensate the public economically – e.g. put a tax on advertising services, and distribute the revenue thus collected in an equal share to all citizens.
Another way to achieve the same goal would be vouchers – media vouchers. For any enterprise selling advertising space/impressions, whether political or not, demand that payment be made only in the form of these vouchers. So you can decide if you will spend your 15 minutes of public attention on promoting your chess club or promoting Obama – or maybe some combination.
A third option, quite different from these two, would be to make public (in other words, tax-funded) media institutions, where all editorial decisions are made by a board of citizens randomly allotted for the purpose – like a proper jury would be.
These are all revolutionary proposals, I do not pretend otherwise. They would take a lot of power away from people who have more than their fair share of it – rich people, politicians, advertising agencies, high-profile bloggers etc. It will be an uphill battle to convince us to let go of it willingly.
All that really says is that corporations are an extremely useful and hence popular way of organizing people.
Or: all that really says is that corporations are an extremely useful and hence popular way of amassing very large pots of money, which can then be used to purchase political outcomes.
The Sierra Club, the ACLU and Greenpeace USA are all organized as corporations.
Sierra Club, ACLU, and Greenpeace USA do not appear in the Open Secrets list of top contributors.
And, as noted upthread, I’m fine with preserving Constitutional protections for the activities of groups of people – real, live human beings – who organize specifically to engage in protected activities like political speech.
So Sierra, ACLU, Greenpeace, also NRA, Tea Party USA, and the American Family Council. All good.
Exxon Mobil, not so much.
If corporations can’t spend money on political speech, reporters can’t report because corporations won’t have freedom of the press.
I’m not sure this hangs together Seb.
The fact that I cannot be prevented from hiring a hall and holding a political meeting is a function of my 1st Amendment rights, not those of the company that owns and operates the hall.
The fact that the police (sort of, mostly, once upon a time) need a warrant to tap my phone or review my email is a function of my 4th Amendment rights, not those of the phone company or my ISP.
I don’t see why the 1st Amendment rights of a journalist, essayist, or editor are insufficient to protect the press.
That’s not the rationale we work under *now*, but that’s not the same as saying it’s not a sufficient rationale.
I apologize for my lack of political artistry, and bow to those more skilled in politicking.
Or, possibly, infringement of free speech rights of individuals. If you skipped my discussion of that, possibly due to its lack of creativity, then you missed my whole point.
Count me in support of a proposal that curtails money in politics including union money. Just ’cause Unions usually support Team Blue and I’m (presently) with Team Blue, doesn’t mean I think their money shoudl tip the scales any more than money from the Kochs, Exxon, etc.
Money = speech is definitely the problem. The question is how to solve that problem without introducing new problems that are actually worse.
> Or, possibly, infringement of free speech rights of individuals.
What good is free speech, if you’re standing in front of a stadium concert-scale loudspeaker?
It’s you who’ve missed the point. Free speech is important, but in the final reconing it is just a means to an end – and that end is political equality, equal opportunity to influence the collective decisions your society has to make.
In the face of David Koch’s billion-dollar boosted free speech, even your free speech (and as a well-connected blogger/academic you’re probably in the top 5-10% most influential people) might as well be made from inside a prison camp.
Poor analogy. If you happen to be in the vicinity, you can’t just ignore the bugger, nor can you be heard yourself.
We’re not talking about loudness, here, or drowning out the speech of others.
That’s just a declaration of victory in drag. I think I get the point fairly well; I just happen to disagree with you.
Rules, rules, rules. We need more of them to compel dishonest people to be honest. Laws, regulations, constitutional amendments, telling people how they can and can’t organize and what they can and cannot say, depending on how they do or do not organize themselves will surely accomplish that goal.
Or not.
Do you think corporate influence, or any other improper influence, in the electoral process is more or less destructive than the influence of special interest group lobbyists in the legislative/spending/taxing arena?
It is fair to require unions, corporations and the like to disclose their spending on lobbyists, the targets of their lobbying efforts and their political donations.
It is a very bad idea to require individual’s, who are members of any group, regardless of agenda, to be disclosed.
To illustrate: do you want employers with political skin in the game to know if their employees are members of a group that works against that employer’s interests or views?
That is a real problem for civil trial lawyers in Texas. Almost all of us believe that tort reform and deck stacking in favor of institutional interests has gone way beyond reason. Yet, few of us who represent institutional interests are willing to speak up, for fear of losing clients. I haven’t lost any clients (yet) but I know lawyers who have and I know many who are afraid to speak up. Anonymity (privacy) has its place for people, not institutions.
If you want a dividing line, there it is: institutional influence must be fully disclosed, private actors not. Then, let the system, if it can, sort itself out. Quit trying to regulate what people can or cannot do or say.
I’m not a Freudian, I’m a Groucho Marxist, but if money is speech, then maybe you can roll this into a cigar and smoke it as long as you take it out of your mouth every once in a while:
Freud writes in “Dreams in Folklore” (1958 [1911]): “How old this connection between excrement and Gold is can be seen from an observation by Jeremias: gold, according to ancient oriental mythology, is the excrement of hell”
Freud underscores the importance of this equivalence in terms of the object: “Defaecation affords the first occasion on which the child must decide between a narcissistic and an object-loving attitude. He either parts obediently with his faeces, ‘sacrifices’ them to his love, or else retains them for purposes of auto-erotic satisfaction and later as a means of asserting his own will”
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/feces#ixzz1dyVGAUhB
So, if feces are money, and money talks, then the single incident of an Occupy Wall Street participant going number two on a police cruiser in the street is now protected political speech.
Plus, that poor misguided guy’s actions have the further upside of transparency, unlike, say, Jamie Diamond’s daily foray into the executive penthouse bathroom voting booth/stall to deposit all of that talkative money into a tube that goes directly into the pockets and mouths of the power-brokers in Washington.
And, of course, we now have some clue from whence which end of Newt Gingrich the money does its talking.
J. Paul Getty said, in this vein, that “Money is like manure. You have to spread it around or it smells.”
Not that the art he purchased stinks.
But it might explain why our political process is in the crapper.
Or as Rob in CT said, upthread (twice): “We’re screwed.”
You can take that to the bank and not even get a repossessed toaster these days.
Huh? That is why it is a good analogy. You can’t ignore the Koch loudspeaker in the room – not if you want to make use of soundwaves yourself.
If you aren’t, you need to. No discussion of freedom of speech can afford to leave it out – that ought to have been obvious by the invention of mass media.
Just as a blaring loudspeaker does not interfere with your act of speaking per se, super PACs don’t interfere with your right to political speech.
Without articulating your disagreement, that is a totally empty statement. Do you think a formal right to free speech is worth sacrificing political equality for? Why?
Yet, somehow I do. They somehow also manage to avoid drowning you out.
In order to agree with you, I’m sure that me focusing my attention on that to the exclusion of all else is vital.
If you think that neither what I’ve written upthread nor our back-and-forth constitutes articulating my disagreement, I think our conversation is finished.
I don’t disagree with you that there are some problems posed by the influence of money in politics, Harald. I just think that there are solutions less unpalatable than muzzling. And you know why, because you’ve read the thread. Right?
MckT asked:
“To illustrate: do you want employers with political skin in the game to know if their employees are members of a group that works against that employer’s interests or views?”
Good point.
But if we turn it around and ask if we want employees with political skin in the game to know if their employers are members of a group that works against the employee’s interests or views, then I could probably say Yes.
Further, “Anonymity (privacy) has its place for people, not institutions.
Well, I spose, but once corporate and union institutions which have had legal personhood conferred on them congregate anonymously and ominously into an organization whose only identifying marker is an anonymous mail drop, then I think we have a horse of a slightly different but anonymous color.
If corporate and union institutions are now legally people and now may talk as a unit with their money anonymously through “People For The Anonymous Way” or the “Union of Concerned Anonymous Scientists”, then anonymity has indeed found its place for institutions.
Natch, I put all of this forward under an assumed name.
Quit trying to regulate what people can or cannot do or say.
If this is addressed to any of my points here, I’d like to point out that I am very, very specifically NOT interested in regulating what people can or cannot do or say.
What I am interested in is allowing *people*, by which I mean human beings, to regulate what entities that *are not people* can and cannot do or say.
Right now that’s off the table.
To a very large degree, I’m not that interested in whether, or how, any legislative body excludes corporations from engaging in political speech or not. That’s going to be a moving target, and I think that’s fine.
All that I am interested in is establishing that it is legitimate for people – human beings – to do so, *at all*, through their elected representatives.
If you don’t like the rules we end up with, that’s fine. They can be changed.
I am purely interested in establishing that the rules *can be made in the first place*.
$3.51 billion dollars in one year McK. Not from Greenpeace, or personally from the Koch Brothers, or from the ACLU or the NRA.
From the US Chamber of Commerce, and the American Medical Association, and GE, and Pharma, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
$6.5 million dollars PER CONGRESS PERSON, per year.
Maybe that strikes you as fine, maybe it doesn’t. But whether it strikes you as fine or not, there’s f**k-all that can be done about it, because participation in the political process is viewed as a protected form of speech, and the right to engage in it has been granted, by the SCOTUS, to amorphous giant pots of private money.
It’s profoundly corrupting, and the people – the human beings – who live in this country can’t do a freaking thing about it, because the last court of appeal in the land has said “No”.
If you want to go over the heads of the Court, you have to amend the Constitution.
So, that’s my plan.
You want regulation? We can horse around with stupid half-@ssed webs and matrixes of rules and formulas about who can do what, when, in what amount, under what conditions, etc etc etc.
Or we can just cut the freaking Gordian knot and say people can play, things that aren’t people can’t.
Or, at least, things that aren’t people can only play if, and to the degree that, people allow it.
If only real, live people are allowed to play, I’m really not that worried about the corrupting influence of money. There aren’t that many folks that are going to put their own personal fortunes into the pot.
Koch Bros? $100 million in thirty years. That’s not enough to really tip the balance. I’m not worried about the Koch Brothers as personal actors.
$3.51 billion in one year. That makes a dent.
Rules, rules, rules. We need more of them to compel dishonest people to be honest. Laws, regulations, constitutional amendments, telling people how they can and can’t organize and what they can and cannot say, depending on how they do or do not organize themselves will surely accomplish that goal.
Yes, rules are bad. Let’s get rid of all of the rules.
Oh, wait, you just want to get rid of the rules you don’t like?
You likewise rail against a reflexive drive to regulate and limit others’ activity, but surely this is only directed at regulations you don’t like; at least, Ive never heard you advocate for anarchy.
From previous discussions, taxes and government spending are generally bad, excepting those you prefer (excuse me, ‘those that are necessary’ iirc)…
I wish you would avoid blanket statements like this that could be deployed against any item in the category, but only to be used against those against which you have another agenda. I realize it would be much harder to make a specific case against a specific set of regulations…
[Obama is evil because all men are evil, but Newt is a nice guy.]
Sapient, for some reason I thought Arizona Free Enterprise was a state case, but on initial reading it looks like I violently disagree with it (I only read the facts and holding not the dozens of pages of reasoning, so a more considered opinion of it will have to wait until I have time.) So I apologize, it makes no sense to me. I thought you were talking about something in Citizens United about it (which I am intimately familiar with).
The Arizona case on first blush makes no sense to me. It seems to me likely to be a very expensive policy if they aren’t careful, but I don’t see 1st Amendment problem initially. (However I am a bit worried about how you choose who gets subsidized. Eventually you could get back to the favored/unfavored points of view problem which would definitely be a 1st amendment issue).
Russell: “The fact that I cannot be prevented from hiring a hall and holding a political meeting is a function of my 1st Amendment rights, not those of the company that owns and operates the hall.
The fact that the police (sort of, mostly, once upon a time) need a warrant to tap my phone or review my email is a function of my 4th Amendment rights, not those of the phone company or my ISP.
I don’t see why the 1st Amendment rights of a journalist, essayist, or editor are insufficient to protect the press.”
It is insufficient because journalists, essayists or editors are HIRED by corporations to do speech and then the corporations AMPLIFY their speech. This is exactly what you say you don’t want corporations to be doing. When corporations do speech now they hire people to craft the speech, and then they public it on the airwaves. That is exactly what you don’t like. That is also exactly what the NYT does.
“even if corporations are people, they are comprised of people whose free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
why must a corporation be considered a conduit for its shareholders rights ?
corporations are artificial entities, created by the government to limit the liability of shareholders; why can’t the government simply say that corporations do not have the right to concentrate and amplify the political speech of the few shareholders who control the corporation’s checkbook ?
Carleton, if we limit ourselves to free speech rules we can agree that prohibiting political speech are more corrosive to the political than rules about what voltage should be installed in houses. Making the ACLU’s point that 1st Amendment rights shouldn’t be messed with isn’t a general anti-regulation point.
Well, I spose, but once corporate and union institutions which have had legal personhood conferred on them congregate anonymously and ominously into an organization whose only identifying marker is an anonymous mail drop, then I think we have a horse of a slightly different but anonymous color.
Citizens United left the disclosure requirements in place. It did not say that corporations are people.
But whether it strikes you as fine or not, there’s f**k-all that can be done about it, because participation in the political process is viewed as a protected form of speech, and the right to engage in it has been granted, by the SCOTUS, to amorphous giant pots of private money.
It is reasonable to require lobbyists to register, to disclose for whom they lobby, what legislation/issue they raise,etc, which congress members/senators they visit, how much they are paid and what they spend with each congress member/senator, staff member and family member.
All fair game. The lobbying is where the big money is and where the corruption is.
I agree it’s there. That’s why I favor term limits. Eliminate careerism. Compel disclosure. Make every congress/senator post on his/her website all of the matters above. Good luck getting them to pass this, but doing so is within the constitution.
I wish you would avoid blanket statements like this that could be deployed against any item in the category, but only to be used against those against which you have another agenda.
The difficulty in responding to your arguments, Carleton, is that my statements are limited to the context in which this discussion is taking place, not every conceivable set of circumstance. When you disagree with me, you generally do so by restating and misstating my position, extending it far beyond what is plainly intended and then take me to task for it. That said, it is generally true of all of us that we have our preferences, you have yours, I have mine. We seldom agree. I don’t come here to have people agree with me.
It is insufficient because journalists, essayists or editors are HIRED by corporations to do speech and then the corporations AMPLIFY their speech. This is exactly what you say you don’t want corporations to be doing.
Not exactly.
First, I’m not saying what I do or don’t want corporations to do, or be able to do. “Engaging in free speech” is an extraordinarily broad area, I’m not there’s a one-size-fits-all rule to say if and when a corporation should have the privilege of doing so.
I am saying exactly one thing, which is that, unlike for natural human persons, the privilege of engaging in protected speech should be, for corporations, exactly that – a privilege. For human beings, it is a right.
The ‘hired’ vs ‘non-hired’ distinction is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s that different from my hiring-a-hall-to-speak example.
Lots of venues and/or production companies hire pundits and politicians to come and speak. They hire them because they will fill the hall. The speaker, the hall, and the producer of the event all get paid.
The fundamental right for the speaker to speak in public doesn’t, or at least need not, rely on First Amendment rights belonging to the venue, or its owner, or to the production company that hires both speaker and hall.
It’s sufficient that the *person who wants to speak* owns that privilege as a birthright.
Just out of curiousity, McK — and assuming you did so in 1980 and 1984 — if Ronald Reagan had been eligible to run for the presidency again in 1988, would you have voted for him?
I don’t think I’ve stated anything of the kind. All I’ve stated is that speech is executed (at the admittedly cliched where-the-rubber-meets-the-road level) by living, breathing humans. If you can find some inventive way to stifle corporate speech without stifling the speech of any individuals, great! I just don’t think that’s possible.
People are paid to speak all the time. Newspaper columnists make a living at it, as do former high-level politicians. Restricting speech for pay is, I think, not going to fly very well.
And now that I’ve read through russell’s comment immediately preceding this one: dogs and cats, living together! MASS HYSTERIA!
Just out of curiousity, McK — and assuming you did so in 1980 and 1984 — if Ronald Reagan had been eligible to run for the presidency again in 1988, would you have voted for him?
Probably, but you are assuming he would have been willing (and able) to run for and serve a third term.
Careerism, which is a byproduct of the incumbency advantage, it would seem to me, is so obviously at the core of what concerns all of us, even if we disagree about the remedy.
It is so much easier, and less constitutionally suspect, to fix careerism than any of the other solutions being offered.
I don’t think I’ve stated anything of the kind.
never said you did.
twas a rhetorical question referencing the Way Things Are.
Restricting speech for pay is, I think, not going to fly very well.
which is something i didn’t say. (yay!)
my proposal was more along the lines of a law that says “no money shall be spent from the funds of a corporation in the promotion of legislation, candidates or political ideology.”
if your corp makes widgets, make widgets, don’t spend money promoting “conservative” candidates.
yes, this would make illegal blatantly political entities like Fox News. i don’t care.
Probably, but you are assuming he would have been willing (and able) to run for and serve a third term.
It’s just a hypothetical, one to which the answer is indicative of . . . something. Not sure what.
It is so much easier, and less constitutionally suspect, to fix careerism than any of the other solutions being offered.
Maybe. Certainly the courts didn’t see it that way when a bunch of states tried to pass term limits for their federal officeholders. And, frankly, I’m not convinced that term limits are the answer. Your workplace wouldn’t run very efficiently if you were required by law to turn your staff over every X number of years, and I don’t know that that Congress would, either.
That said, I don’t know that it works now, nor am I claiming to have any answers, just trying to interrogate some peoples’ positions here.
And that said, if you’re a fan of term limits, what are your feelings on stronger laws against the revolving doors between private enterprise, lobbying and officeholding?
Careerism, which is a byproduct of the incumbency advantage,
The incumbency advantage is a nearly direct result of the spending that russell and others are talking about in these comments.
yes, this would make illegal blatantly political entities like Fox News. i don’t care.
Which is why your idea is so dangerous. Particularly when you don’t include MSNBC. Even if you did, the idea is about as bad an idea as there could be on this topic. Any other lefties going to speak up on this narrow point? I don’t catalog–I should, but I don’t have the time–how many times headliners here, and commenters, come down on conservatives for not denouncing some really awful idea on the right. Here’s one on the left. Any takers?
Which is why your idea is so dangerous.
is more dangerous than letting corporations drive our political process ?
I don’t catalog–I should, but I don’t have the time–how many times headliners here, and commenters, come down on conservatives…
waahhh. wahhh. boo hoo.
Sorry, cleek; I thought you were addressing that remark at me, and assumed you were addressing a point of mine.
And that said, if you’re a fan of term limits, what are your feelings on stronger laws against the revolving doors between private enterprise, lobbying and officeholding?
Between office-holding and lobbying, I am good with almost any limits. I am not sure what revolving door there is between private enterprise and office-holding. If you are addressing private enterprise hiring former office-holders to lobby current office-holders, I would broaden “enterprise” to “anyone” and ban former office holders, their staffers and their families from lobbying, period.
is more dangerous than letting corporations drive our political process ?
Even assuming this is correct, which I don’t, yes, way more dangerous. You would outlaw venues for points of view you don’t agree with under the rubric of eliminating corporate influence. Very convenient.
one to which the answer is indicative of . . . something. Not sure what.
I am not sure Reagan was capable of running for a third term. I am not sure, if he was capable, he would have done it. But, if he did, I would have preferred Reagan over Dukakis, even if I was concerned (which I would have been)with any president serving a third term. Roosevelt’s 4 terms were enough of a bipartisan concern that it prompted a constitutional amendment.
Any other lefties going to speak up on this narrow point?
I, personally, don’t think anyone should be prevented from engaging in political speech, in any context.
The only difference I could imagine in a post-russell’s-28th-amendment world would be that the right for J Random Pundit to espouse whatever opinion they espoused would belong to them, personally, and not to the corporation providing the material means for their distribution.
All of that said, I’d be more than fine with a return of the Fairness Doctrine, as a reasonable quid pro quo for said corporation’s use of the public airwaves. But I ain’t holding my breath.
But long story short, Fox News may not have First Amendment protections in my perfect world, but Bill O’Reilly would.
Which is why your idea is so dangerous. Particularly when you don’t include MSNBC.
Is that the same MSNBC that regularly has on Pat Buchanan as a commentator?
I am not sure what revolving door there is between private enterprise and office-holding.
I guess I should expand from “officeholders” to “government service,” to avoid things like FCC commissioners rubber-stamping the Comcast/NBC merger, then waltzing out the door to take high-paid jobs at Comcast.
Fox News may not have First Amendment protections in my perfect world, but Bill O’Reilly would.
Seriously? No 1st A protections for Fox News? What about the NYT?
I guess I should expand from “officeholders” to “government service,” to avoid things like FCC commissioners rubber-stamping the Comcast/NBC merger, then waltzing out the door to take high-paid jobs at Comcast.
Something like a non-compete? I am not sure a lifetime ban would work, but maybe a three-year “direct and indirect” industry ban? I’m ok with that.
Seriously? No 1st A protections for Fox News? What about the NYT?
Yes, seriously.
People: yes, first amendment protections.
Corporations: no, no first amendment protections.
For details please check my back-and-forth with Sebastian upthread.
Carleton, if we limit ourselves to free speech rules we can agree that prohibiting political speech are more corrosive to the political than rules about what voltage should be installed in houses. Making the ACLU’s point that 1st Amendment rights shouldn’t be messed with isn’t a general anti-regulation point.
I agree that speech rights should be carefully protected, but that’s a very different position than saying they are absolute. Dismissing any discussion of things remotely resembling speech rights (eg the right of a corporation to give money to a politician to aid their re-election) only makes sense if we’re not going to be balancing speech rights against other things.
In this case, I think we’ve got an ongoing, pernicious use of money to buy influence in the political process. One that we’ve become accustomed to & therefore maybe violates McTex’s “dont make new regulations” standard. I think there’s a discussion to be had about balancing these things, but we’ll never have it if it’s declared to be off-limits.
The difficulty in responding to your arguments, Carleton, is that my statements are limited to the context in which this discussion is taking place, not every conceivable set of circumstance. When you disagree with me, you generally do so by restating and misstating my position, extending it far beyond what is plainly intended and then take me to task for it.
Have I done that here? Im trying to understand your position, and so far all Ive got is ‘regulation is just bad’ and ‘regulating political speech is like telling people what toaster to buy because they’re both purchases’. I don’t think either of those are exaggerations of your position; I can provide quotes if you think that either is unsupported.
I know there are more persuasive arguments to be made; some of them are actually being made here (eg can we draw the line between for-profit corporations reporting news and for-profit corporations using news-like activities to subsidize politicians).
What I want is the short exchange we had on anonymizing donations; Im not convinced that those sorts of problems couldn’t be fixed, but they are certainly problems & limiting wink-and-nod activity is very difficult. There, we had a reasonable exchange. Here, I can’t get you to say anything substantial enough for me to grapple with it, so I keep provoking you to get down to specifics.
That said, it is generally true of all of us that we have our preferences, you have yours, I have mine. We seldom agree. I don’t come here to have people agree with me.
Well, sure. Im not ordering you to agree with me. Im trying to find out why you disagree with me. And Im sure that I deploy generalized arguments against specific cases when it’s useful for me, but I hope (and suspect) that Id get called out for it when I do.
Any other lefties going to speak up on this narrow point?
Well, I think that groups of people operating together are important to the news process. Id be open to discussing whether those entities should be limited to being nonprofits.
But Ive not really given it any thought, and Im entirely open to the idea that this would be a disastrously stupid idea even with my proposed modification.
Fox News may not have First Amendment protections in my perfect world, but Bill O’Reilly would.
Seriously? No 1st A protections for Fox News? What about the NYT?
Well, he did make it clear that nothing would stop FOX News from paying people to speak, and that that payment doesn’t affect their personal speech rights (so Bill OReilly’s show would be personal political speech). Im not at all clear how paying someone to speak in a news context would be different from paying someone to speak in a political commercial though, or how paying someone to transmit your message is somehow protected by *their* speech rights- can a corp pay an actor to say whatever the corp wants and have it protected by the actor’s rights?
I can see how that might prevent *direct* payments from corps to politicians or PACs. But the structure itself seems flawed to me.
Russell–I am imagining a world in which, before buying airtime or newspaper space, I’d have to get a legal opinion on whether I am violating a law IF the newspaper or network is a corporate entity. I have the right to free speech, just not the right to hire a third party corporate contractor to broadcast my brilliant ideas.
Wow.
You would outlaw venues for points of view you don’t agree with under the rubric of eliminating corporate influence. Very convenient.
Wait, wait….let us rephrase that: “You would use the power of government to intervene and enhance the position of those with money, its power, and the influence it can buy to effectively diminish the public square to the point that those who disagree with the corporatists are effectively shut out of the conversation, their voices drowned out in a flood of money?”
As Ann Coulter would say, “My straw man is bigger than your straw man.”
Does it not strike you as incongruous that worshippers of the Ozzie and Harriet/Norman Rockwell contented small town white pickett fence world of the 50’s are so eager to defer to the whims of international corporations makig a total total mockery of their oft expressed, and no doubt sincere, heartfelt desires for “local control”?
You want to talk slippery slopes? Here’s one for you, money=speech is a concept so deeply antithetical to the concept of a living breathing democracy, that it is reasonable to conclude it will only end in tragedy.
And what cleek said.
(PS: Politically, an Amendment is simply to difficult to impliment…so I’m not a big fan of it as a program of concrete political action, much as I agree in spirit. Dean Baker has some good stuff in his book, Loser Liberalism. I heartily endorse it for those of you who have lost all sense and are willing to take my advice….in strict adherence to internet traditions, it’s free. So is Dean’s book.)
be gone typos! be gone….aw crap.
Sorry, those two things are not equal. They don’t even belong to similar categories of things.
Any other lefties going to speak up on this narrow point?
You dennounce your crappy ideas first 😉
I’m all dennounced out after Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
” ….. it is reasonable to conclude it will only end in tragedy.”
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents or averts tragedy, even of national proportions.
I’m all for inserting our heads directly up our fundaments so that when the time comes to place our money=speech where are mouths are, we’ll know from whence we speak.
With a laugh track.
Sebastian, thanks for reading the Arizona case. It’s gotten a lot less press than Citizens United, but I find it even more disturbing.
money=speech
Sorry, those two things are not equal. They don’t even belong to similar categories of things.
Buckley, meet Valeo.
FEC, meet Davis.
Choir, meet speaker.
I don’t understand this. I can’t tell if it is a completely useless distinction, or if I’m completely missing your argument.
How do corporations do speech now? They have hired employees print, speak, create and/or broadcast. Or sometimes they hire outside people to print, speak, create and/or broadcast. The corporation might pay for that speech/print/multi-media production by these people to be put on radio/television/the internet.
You *seem* to be saying that is ok under the ‘hire’ concept. But you can’t mean that, because that would mean that everything would be exactly the same as it is now, and you seem to be suggesting that lots of things would be dramatically better under your suggestion.
So I have to conclude that I don’t understand what you are saying at all, because it looks like your suggestion is exactly what we already have.
Phil “The incumbency advantage is a nearly direct result of the spending that russell and others are talking about in these comments.”
Why do you think this? Everything I’ve seen suggests that the incumbency advantage has to do with name recognition, the fact that you can get the government to pay for a bunch of your campaign events as ‘public services’, and the fact that you can take credit for the spoils coming back to your district. In fact, I’ve always heard that it is NON-incumbents who feel they have to spend so much to defeat the non-monetary incumbent advantage. Do you have some sort of cite/analysis that you’re thinking of?
Sebastian,
Regarding incumbancy, you raise some good points. There is also gerrymandering. But as far as the money goes, I cite the Wiki:
In the 1990s the typical incumbent in a contested election had somewhere between 83 to 93 percent of what was spent by all the candidates in the district, and these incumbents typically captured about 64 to 67 percent of the vote.
Money speaks. Ask any advertising executive.
MckT wrote at 11:56 am:
“Citizens United left the disclosure requirements in place. It did not say that corporations are people.”
I’ll take your professional word for that, because I have no problem with deferring to expertise.
Thing is, who is going to break the news to Mitt Romney, who let us know that corporations are people, too?
And then you have a declining slope of idiot opinions regarding Citizens United among the other, umm, candidates.
Is it too much to ask that folks running for the f8cking most powerful office in the universe exhibit intelligence and expertise at least equal to the commentariat at Obsidian Wings?
I guess not, considering the nuthin the Constitution has to say about it.
As Benjamin Franklin said when asked what the Founders had wrought: “A republic, if you can figure out what the hell we meant in the Constitution. I’m outta here.”
But I still need to ask — what good are disclosure requirements if I don’t know the names of the powerful individuals behind Anonymous Citizens For American Anonymity?
Or is that disclosed?
I’m wondering too, MckT, doesn’t the phenomenon of the deeply pocketed, lavishly funded Tea Party (consisting of political neophytes, ostensibly) disprove your assertion that term limits will blunt the impact of money in politics?
I don’t understand this. I can’t tell if it is a completely useless distinction, or if I’m completely missing your argument.
Hey Sebastian, let me take another whack at it. “Completely useless distinction” is always a possibility, please feel free to point that out if that’s what it turns out to be.
A common, and also a legitimate and reasonable, objection to the idea of stripping guarantees of Constitutionally protected rights from corporate ‘persons’ is that doing so will compromise freedom of the press.
This has some weight, because historically the folks who have actually gone to the mat for freedom of the press have been corporations. The NYT in the case of the Pentagon Papers is a commonly cited example.
I respect and respect all of that.
My point is basically that its not necessary to invest the right to freedom of the press in the owners of the physical means of publication in order to have effective freedom of the press. Investing that right in the author of the content really ought to be enough to get it done.
The purpose of citing phone or email communications is simply to provide an example of another situation where considering the Constitutional protection as belonging to the *author of the content*, as opposed to the owner of the channel, is an adequate basis for guaranteeing the right in question.
Phone and email communications are (or at least used to be) considered to be protected under the 4th Amendment. That right *is not* considered to belong to the phone company or the ISP, but to the person talking or writing. But, the effect of the *person* having the right means that the police have to have a warrant to demand the relevant materials from the phone company or ISP.
So, by analogy, it seems — to me — that a reasonable, legitimate, and sufficient argument can be made that, for example, the government could not have prevented the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the NYT because *the author of the article* was exercising his or her Constitutionally protected right to publish information via a public medium.
As opposed to the owner of the means of publication — in that case, the NYT — having the right.
The distinction, I suppose, is between the human author of the content, and the corporate owner of the means by which the content is physically published (whether that is print, radio, TV, blog, whatever).
We recognize that private communications sent via email or phone are protected, because *the person who sends them* has Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the 4th Amendment. Not because the phone company or the ISP have them.
Likewise, it seems to me that we could recognize the right to publish your thoughts through the channel of any of the public media is guaranteed because *the person who authors the content* has Constitutionally guaranteed rights, rather than that the owner of the printing press, radio station, television studio, or movie theater has the right.
It works perfectly well in one context, it’s unclear to me why it would not work equally well in the other.
Although I do appreciate the concern.
Citizens United left the disclosure requirements in place.
Show me the donor list for Crossroads GPS.
I try to engage public opinion on issues of global warming. LMTY, my influence on that is so tiny compared to the Kochs that yes, it is drowned out.
I have reread all your comments, but no, you do not do anything like answering this question, which I ask you again: Do you think a merely formal right to free speech is worth sacrificing political equality for? Why?
“Phone and email communications are (or at least used to be) considered to be protected under the 4th Amendment. That right *is not* considered to belong to the phone company or the ISP, but to the person talking or writing. But, the effect of the *person* having the right means that the police have to have a warrant to demand the relevant materials from the phone company or ISP.”
But that is because the phone company is our agent. We hired them. The person who hires them holds the rights and liabilities. We hire the ISP to hold our communications.
The NYT hires journalists. A movie production company hires writers and actors. Think of the intense craziness of dealing with freedom of speech and a politically aimed movie. Would the writers only have free speech rights in the particular words they choose? Would the actors have separate rights for the scenes they were in? Would nobody be able to represent the whole movie? It would be completely unworkable
And what if a journalist got sued by the government? Can the NYT try to protect the free speech rights of their journalists? Can they hire the lawyers? Can they direct the defense? Can they hire other journalists to write about the government trying to squelch the first journalist?
What speech do you think will be curbed if a corporation can hire people who will make the speech? Or hire people already making the kind of speech they like, for the purpose of broadcasting it?
That is already how corporations exercise speech rights. So how is your rule ultimately changing anything? What work is your distinction doing that you think will curb corporate influence?
I’ve mostly just been lurking through this, but there is a point I’d like to raise, which if somebody else has raised, I’ve missed it:
It’s no accident that every media outlet in the country is a corporation.
Every newspaper. Every broadcast station and network. Every book publisher. Every ISP. ALL corporations.
Not an accident. It’s happened because laws have made it both unprofitable, and extremely perilous, to engage in these constitutionally protected activities without incorporating.
Are we really to accept the idea that the government can herd us all into corporations for it’s convenience, and then use the fact that we’ve gotten together in this specially privileged, (By not being subject to the same legal attacks!) form as an excuse to deny us those rights?
In Citizens United, the government argued before the Supreme court that it was entitled to ban books if they were published by a corporation. As all books are.
Let me repeat that: The government asserted the authority, under existing law, and consistent with the 1st amendment, to ban books.
That’s the consequence of Russell’s amendment: Censorship. It’s got no other purpose, you don’t take rights away in order to respect them. You take them away in order to violate them.
That’s why the ACLU took the side it did in the CU case, even though hordes of angry ‘liberals’, salivating at the thought of sticking a sock in Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, of taking Fox off the air, and basically censoring anyone who disagrees with them, complained bitterly. Because, until we don’t have to form corporations to do these things, denying corporations 1st amendment rights is the same as denying people 1st amendment rights.
That’s one thing I love about the CU decision: It brought a lot of aspiring censors out into the open. And they weren’t at the end of the political spectrum that liberals like to claim, you will notice. No, they were at the end that likes to proclaim how important freedom of speech is.
Until they think they’re losing an argument.
When has that ever happened? Has any incarnation of the US government ever even approached a standard deviation below the mean, here? Even with me dragging down the curve?
I’d suggest the Clinton administration, but I’d want to take another look at his appointees. Bill was plenty smart, and plenty adept at maneuvering, but I’d want to look at that government as a whole and not just as one guy.
Be careful what you wish for, because we might wind up drafting John Thullen for President, with Bob McManus as VP. Speaking of which, we haven’t seen either of those guys around here for a while.
😉
Hey Seb, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Last first:
So how is your rule ultimately changing anything?
My rule allows legislatures to pass laws limiting whether, how, and to what degree corporations can participate in the political process. Full stop.
But that is because the phone company is our agent.
I see what you’re saying, and basically I don’t think I have much to offer by way of reply.
My example upthread about the mutual who-hires-who relationship between pundit, lecture promoter, and hall was an attempt to thread this particular needle, but to be honest I don’t think it was a really adequate response.
Long story short, I think Bob in CT had it right, about 100 comments ago.
We’re fncked.
What’s likely to happen is that we will continue to horse around with stupid hair-splitting crap like McCain-Feingold, and in the meantime corporate actors will continue to purchase political outcomes at will.
Absent a clear distinction between human beings and corporations, the political direction of the US will continue to be dominated by the flow of giant pots of private money.
Because you might have a vote, but folks like, frex, the Chamber of Commerce have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend.
In the aggregate they bring billions of dollars to the table. Per year.
Billions of dollars, per year. That is just on Congressional lobbying.
You have a vote, they have billions. You lose.
So, I see your point, it’s a very valid one, and the logical consequence of it is that we are fncked.
Rob in CT wins the thread.
It’s happened because laws have made it both unprofitable, and extremely perilous, to engage in these constitutionally protected activities without incorporating.
That’s a very good and interesting point.
It brought a lot of aspiring censors out into the open.
If you’re referring to me, this is the part where I tell you to p*ss off. Seriously, if this is what you’re bring, kindly just p*ss the hell off.
In real life the verb would not be “p*ss” but this is ObWi, where civility is the order of the day.
Nothing personal really, I have no animus toward you about this or anything else. There’s just nowhere to go conversation-wise from a comment like yours.
So fnck it.
even though hordes of angry ‘liberals’, salivating at the thought of . . . basically censoring anyone who disagrees with them
If this line of thought were true, ObWi and other blogs would have banned you years ago, and yet they haven’t. Curious, that.
It’s happened because laws have made it both unprofitable, and extremely perilous, to engage in these constitutionally protected activities without incorporating.
That’s a very good and interesting point.
Not it isn’t. Millions of people self-publish often volatile political content without incorporating every single day, on blogs, via podcasts, via ebooks, via scores of other methods.
I mean, here’s a dude who spent all day yesterday on Twitter urging police to beat OWS protestors to death. Do you think he’s in any legal danger because he’s not incorporated? No? That’s because you have a brain.
All good points, Phil. I’d tend to look at it more this way: that the desire to limit speech of some organizations you don’t care for may have unpleasant & unanticipated side effects, and may even wind up stifling people you want to hear.
Plus, it adds to the power of government in a way I find uncomfortable.
Disclosure, on the other hand, I don’t see any downside to. But there may be some side effects to that that I have not anticipated.
Which is I think we value discussions over giving speeches to each other, after which we can count coup to ourselves. The coup-counting part doesn’t really translate to persuasion, for the most part.
None of the above is meant to admonish you, Phil, or to imply that I am even partially innocent of soapboxing.
None of us are! But I think Brett might want to re-examine his premises (as if!) in light of the fact that, for example, RedState and other conservative blogs whip out the banhammer as soon as anyone deviates from a particular brand of right-wing Republicanism*, whereas quite a number of liberal and mixed blogs let Brett blather on and on at length in their comments. (And a number of right-wing blogs, including the most popular ones, don’t allow comments at all.)
(*Didn’t RedState ban Charles Bird, for heaven’s sake? Or just drive him away?)
It probably says something about me that I don’t even know where the popular kids are hanging out.
That is already how corporations exercise speech rights. So how is your rule ultimately changing anything? What work is your distinction doing that you think will curb corporate influence?
Not to speak for russell, but I think he’s getting at activities other than actual speech by individuals- eg the idea that corporate spending on campaign donations or direct political advertising wouldnt be protected speech.
The problem is, I still don’t see a diff between Bill OReilly’s show and the corporate-paid political commercial that runs during the show. Both involve a speaker being paid by a corp where the corp has some degree of control over the message. So that might control actual donations, but doesnt seem to stop corps from speaking. On the third hand, it would at least force eg Exxon to speak for itself rather than funneling cash to Swift Boat Veterans For Truth Part 5.
Of course, Im still in the camp that money is the problem, not corps. That corps are responsible for a lot of the money doesn’t make the purchase of influence by individuals any less insidious to the political process IMO.
That’s the consequence of Russell’s amendment: Censorship. It’s got no other purpose, you don’t take rights away in order to respect them. You take them away in order to violate them.
Reading russell’s comments, I think Id need more than one hand to count the times he’s specifically disavowed this idea. Maybe his idea is unworkable, but that doesn’t seem to justify this sort of knee-jerk response.
Along the lines of McTex’s request for condemnation by lefties of attempts to censor FOX News…
Do the conservatives here think that corporations buying a ‘seat at the table’ (ie up to and including writing legislation up as a favor for their Congresspeople) is a bad thing? If so, do you have any proposals for limiting this, or do you adhere to the general principle that trying to fix this problem will inevitably involve worse side effects?
I’m going to take the rare chance of agreeing with Carleton completely. About both parts: I don’t think russell wants censorship, but he hasn’t been sufficiently careful about the dangers of his plan. So we can talk about the dangers of his plan, and he suggests he doesn’t like the dangers. If he really were a censor, those dangers would have been a feature not a bug.
But even more importantly, it is the money. We are disturbed by how money warps the way things work (or maybe warp isn’t even the right word since I suspect it has always done that). More likely, we’re disturbed by how money makes things work very differently from how think things ought to work.
Speech is just a very small part of that. Nancy Pelosi got to make scads of money by being one of the few individual investors for the VISA IPO right when Congress was voting on interchange fees (the credit cards won that round). She’s not my favorite politician by any means, but I honestly wouldn’t have put her as the kind of politician who would be arrogant enough to think that was ok even if she was already going to vote the way she did on the interchange fees. (And frankly, ‘vote the way she did’ is an understatement of the power of the Speaker of the House). Maybe if we got a handle on the things that look like straight up corruption better, the speech issue wouldn’t end up being quite as important.
the desire to limit speech of some organizations you don’t care for may have unpleasant & unanticipated side effects
Look, I have no such desire. None, whatsoever.
Fire up the great Gizoogle and find anything I’ve said, anywhere, that calls for limiting the speech of anyone I disagree with.
Look anywhere you like. You will not find me calling for any kind of limits of the speech of folks I disagree with. You won’t find it, because it’s not there.
And ‘limiting speech of some organizations I don’t care for’ has virtually nothing to do with my point.
My point is a very, very, very simple one. A corporation is not a person, and as such, it is not entitled to the Constitutional guarantees that belong to persons.
That’s my point.
As several, including Brett, have pointed out, that point as stated is overly simplistic, because there are certain forms of corporations that exist specifically to allow people to participate together in activities that most definitely deserve Constitutional protection.
I believe I have been abundantly clear, here and everywhere, that in my opinion these types of corporations should continue to be recognized as ‘persons’ for purposes of interpreting the Constitution.
And, it would not be very hard to make a usefully crisp distinction between those kinds of corporations and others. In fact, we already do it, now. Today.
So, let’s talk about those other kinds of corporations. The ones I allegedly ‘don’t care for’.
In real life, corporations have no actual agency. None. ExxonMobil does not wander the halls of Congress with bags of money. Neither the Chamber of Commerce nor the corporations and other businesses that contribute to it ever make a single phone call to a Congressperson.
People do those things. Real live human beings.
But the basis for us allowing those people to do those things is because they are doing it on behalf of ExxonMobil, or the Chamber of Commerce, or Pfizer, or Raytheon, or Boeing.
Because we now construe those entities to be ‘persons’.
I have *no problem whatsoever* with the very same people who now spend money and make phone calls and produce TV ads to advance the interests of The Chamber Of Commerce doing the exact same thing, *if they did so based on their own, personal status as persons*.
I have a *very large problem* with them doing those very same things — EXACTLY the same people, doing EXACTLY the same things — when they do so based on the ‘personhood’ of J Random Corporation.
And the reason for the difference is because corporations command resources that no human, and no reasonable collection of humans, can ever hope to bring to the table.
They have wealth in amounts that beggar what people – real live people – have.
Accumulating wealth *is the reason that corporations — by which I mean for-profit corporations* exist. They exist as a vehicle for the formation of capital.
The public policy of the US is for sale. Openly and blatantly so.
You have a vote, the Chamber of Commerce has hundreds of millions of dollars. They win.
I’ll say it again, in case it’s not completely clear yet.
If the CEOs of the Fortune 500 want to get together, pool any or all of their considerable personal fortunes, and buy TV ads to run 24/7 in every major market in the US up to and including Election Day, all to advocate for a 0% top marginal tax bracket starting at $1M, I’m fine with that.
It’s their money, they can do what they like with it.
I am *NOT* OK with them doing so in the name of, and *with the resources of* the corporations they manage.
Corporations are accumulations of private wealth. That, precisely, is what they are. I think that’s fine. It’s useful for many many many good and splendid reasons for folks to be able to pool their capital in a limited-risk context in order to pursue whatever purpose they like.
That great big pool of capital *is not a person*.
If you want to engage in political speech, do so *as a person*, *with your own money*.
If you and 10,000 of your closest friends want to get together and do so as a group, splendid.
Corporations, with the specific exception I’ve noted above and in ten million other places and contexts, no thank you.
All of this, of course, is academic. I’m simply laying it out to avoid having to tell even more people to piss the hell off.
It’s academic because, as both Seb and Brett have noted, the corporate form is so inextricably woven into the fabric of our public life that we would have to unwind about 100 years of legal, social, and economic history in order to do anything like what I’ve suggested in a really effective way.
So, Rob in CT wins the thread.
That’s fine. It wasn’t directed at you, specifically; nor was it really directed at Phil. I don’t have any specific problems with what you’ve written, russell, but what I’ve had time to think about I find to be mostly unobjectionable. Even if I have no idea how they’d work, implementation-wise.
So, yes, I completely get that you’re not up to limiting anyone’s speech. Sorry if you took my comment personally.
Regarding Crossroads GPS, not to be confused with American Crossroads, though both want us to be confused.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/campaign-law-watch/fec-asks-crossroads-to-reveal-donors-20110616
Slart: “Be careful what you wish for, because we might wind up drafting John Thullen for President, with Bob McManus as VP.”
I knew John Thullen, and I, sir, am no John Thullen.
But I’m of two minds about that.
Besides, Brett Bellmore would take one look at that ticket and restring his atlatal, atlatle, alatle, skadattlle with a view to some aggressive but anonymous censorship.
Wasting McManus in the VP slot is a non-starter.
I’d view him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Russell for President.
rob in CT as Press Secretary and Chief speechwriter.
Reporter: “Rob in CT, may I call you Rob? What is the President’s view of issues surrounding the Citizens United decision?
Rob in CT: No, to the first question. For purposes of anonymity, you may call me Betsy. To the second question, the President’s view is that the American experiment, in his words, is now thoroughly fncked.”
Brett’s NOT going to restring his “atlatl”, is he:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYas53pGGKg
Also, way up thread, I incorrectly referred to Jaime Dimon of J.P. Morgan as Jaime “Diamond.”
I thought he wanted some anonymity.
My point is a very, very, very simple one. A corporation is not a person, and as such, it is not entitled to the Constitutional guarantees that belong to persons….
I believe I have been abundantly clear, here and everywhere, that in my opinion these types of corporations should continue to be recognized as ‘persons’ for purposes of interpreting the Constitution.
Obviously no corps are persons for the purposes of voting, serving on juries, etc. And all of them are (or ought to be) persons for the purposes of government seizure of property…
Expanding on your speech-rights-via-individuals idea, I think it might be better to ask how specific rights might pass through the corporate veil rather than saying “some corps are persons and other aren’t”. So seizure of property would be protected not because this particular corporation has a right to property, but because the underlying persons have a right to property that would be violated. But nothing about forbidding corporations to vote would affect a person’s right to vote.
Under that framework, I guess you could say that corps organized to project speech must have protected speech to protect their constituent citizens, but making political speech is tangential to the sole purpose of for-profit corporations.
Tangential question for the lawyers- as I understand it, foreign nationals have strong speech rights. A foreign national is protected if they say at a party “America should stop trading with Venezuela”. Presumably they’d be protected if they ran an ad in a newspaper saying the same thing. Is a line crossed if they say “America should stop trading with Venezuela, and Frank Jones will support legislation to do that if he’s elected on Tuesday”. Or even add “… so vote for Frank.”
Or the line now just that foreigners can’t donate directly to candidates? And if money is speech, how can even that be justified?
Carleton: Expanding on your speech-rights-via-individuals idea, I think it might be better to ask how specific rights might pass through the corporate veil rather than saying “some corps are persons and other aren’t”. So seizure of property would be protected not because this particular corporation has a right to property, but because the underlying persons have a right to property that would be violated. But nothing about forbidding corporations to vote would affect a person’s right to vote.
This is pretty much the SCOTUS reasoning on this point, i.e., when does it make sense to treat corporations as a collection/extension of their owners, and when does it not. Thus, as you note, no voting rights for corporations; OTOH, you can’t just take property from corporations w/o due process because that property is really the property of the owners who have due process rights. Similarly, if a corporation is speaking it really is an extension of its owners speaking, and thus we can’t limit its right to speak.
Where this last point breaks down is, IMO, in most (if not all) publicly traded corporations. In those situations, management is separated from ownership, and while management theoretically answers to the owners via the Board of Directors, this is not the case in practice. Thus, management is generally free to do what it wants, including spend enormous sums on lobbying congress and supporting political campaigns, even if the owners of the corporation would object if it were (specifically) put to a vote.
So, in terms of whether it makes sense to treat a corporation as an undivided collection of its owners for purposes of constitutional rights, it’s far from clear to me that this is the proper treatment for First Amendment purposes.
Where you get into trouble, is that you can have all these subtle distinctions in mind, and the actual laws that get enacted if the 28th clears the way will be written by the same incumbants who deliberately did NOT write such distinctions into McCain/Feingold, even though they had people screaming at them about the 1st amendment implications of it applying to groups like the ACLU and NRA.
Because that’s who they meant to shut up, not businesses. And that’s who they’d set out to shut up again, if you got the 1st amendment out of their way.
Becaus you might not be interested in censorship, but they sure as heck are.
Because that’s who they meant to shut up, not businesses. And that’s who they’d set out to shut up again, if you got the 1st amendment out of their way.
Becaus you might not be interested in censorship, but they sure as heck are.
So, the problem with russell’s proposal is
1)that something else might get implemented, and
2) your mindreading suggests that what actually gets implemented would have a covert aim different from russell’s aim
Yeah, I can see how that totally shoots him down.
Saying that “corporate personhood is currently possible” has the same ring to me as “school prayer is currently forbidden”. It begs the question of what evidence is there that this alleged inequity actually occurs?
One of the things that makes corporations seem powerful is the multitude of their shareholders, who can be paid to say the same thing in multiple locations. This gives the illusion that they are more people than they really are.
To imagine that a corporation would not only give up its front of multitude, but go so far the other way as to claim it’s only one person, is absurd.
I realize that people mean something else by “corporate personhood”, but if I have to ask you, or guess, then that neutralizes the power of the words. Remember that the Constitution is a legal document that must say what it means, not a holy writ free to be mysterious.
Yeah, I can see how that totally shoots him down.
Actually I think Brett has a point. Although I agree that not doing stuff because “something bad might happen” if you do is not a formula for progress, on any front.
Also, I would like to apologize for the “piss off” stuff. I almost always disagree with Brett but IMVHO he’s always here in good faith.
But for the record I’m definitely not here to censor anybody.
Long story short, it may be that some Gordian knots cannot be cut.
After reading this thread, I’m ending up at the point where I don’t think the distinction between corporate speech and personal speech is useful. In theory, I can make the distinction, but I can’t really do much with it after that. (I was not there before, or at least I didn’t think so.)
I’m at the point where it really is about money, regardless of whose money it is, be it a corporation or individual or group of individuals. (It just happens to be that corporations have more money than just about anyone else.) And it’s about how money can be employed, mostly on TV and somewhat on the radio.
How invasive is it and how wide is its reach? How much advantage does it gain in putting forth one message over another, maybe at the virtual exclusion of all others?
Let’s say I invented a way to put voices directly into people’s heads, controllable to reach any set of people you wanted. Would it be okay to use it, even at all? Would it be okay to use it with the consent of the people who would hear it, perhaps on a subscription basis? Could I sell the use of it to others for political messaging, in either case?
I had no problem with Citizens United putting an infomercial or documentary or whatever you wanted to call it (even propaganda) on pay-per-view for the simple fact that you had to go out and ask for it. The same holds for books (Brett). Even Fox News and Bill O’Reilly (or MSNBC and Rachel Maddow) are what they are, and you can reasonably be expected to know what they are. They don’t just pop up in the middle of Monday Night Football or during American Idol.
It’s not about telling people what they can say. It’s about how big of a megaphone you can get simply because you have enough money to buy it, regardless of who or what you are. And maybe, even then, it’s only during certain crucial times during our political process that it matters. Or maybe it matters all of the time. I don’t know.
Thoughts, anyone?
It’s about how big of a megaphone you can get simply because you have enough money to buy it, regardless of who or what you are.
I don’t even mind that; Im fine with groups of people with money dominating the airwaves with commercials. I mean, that’s not ideal & Im open to suggestions, but am in the cure-probably-worse-than-the-disease camp for the most part. We can work around the edges of the problem sometimes.
My problem is almost entirely with the use of money to purchase influence over the political process itself; if we had uncorruptible politicians I wouldnt have an issue. It seems crazy to me that “Senator, here is 100k for your reelection campaign if I can write subsection X of the new law” is a felony but “Senator, here is 100k for your reelection campaign. Oh, while Im here, perhaps I could write subsection X of the new law” is business as usual.
I mean, if a mafia don approached a known thug and said “Frankie, here is 25k because I like you. By the way, if so-and-so were to die tomorrow, Id be a happy man” we wouldnt hesitate for a second throwing both of them in jail.
I mean, that’s not ideal & Im open to suggestions, but am in the cure-probably-worse-than-the-disease camp for the most part.
I think you might be right, only because I’m not sure that spending tons of money on commercials is as big a deal as it might seem on the surface. Years ago, when traditional media were more dominant, it may have been a bigger deal than today. Here’s to hoping.
The trouble now is we let groups completely dominate the megaphone with out any accountability. Lied about the candidate they’re trashing? Sorry, nowhere to take your complaint. Lied about their goals? Too bad, sucker, I guess you shouldn’t listen to unknown voices, even if they’re the only voices that can afford the media buy.
If money is speech, how does the constitution let congress pass any law restricting my right to head down to the local BofA branch for an ad-hoc withdrawal of all the speech I can carry, so I can get my voice out.
“It seems crazy to me that “Senator, here is 100k for your reelection campaign if I can write subsection X of the new law” is a felony but “Senator, here is 100k for your reelection campaign. Oh, while Im here, perhaps I could write subsection X of the new law” is business as usual.”
Problem is, “Businessman, here is a clause I’m considering inserting in the next omnibus bill. What, it would bankrupt you? A $100,000 donation wouldn’t…” is business as usual, too.
IOW, the problem with a lot of these “reforms” is that they’re based on the implicit premise that the locus of corruption in Washington is somewhere other than among the members of Congress. That what we’re looking at are bribes, rather than shakedowns. Otherwise most of the suggestions would be like putting Don Corleone on the Mafia task force.
And that’s what I see the proposed amendment doing.
If money is speech, how does the constitution let congress pass any law restricting my right to head down to the local BofA branch for an ad-hoc withdrawal of all the speech I can carry, so I can get my voice out.
“Money is speech” is simplistic shorthand. The actual article of faith is that spending money is speech, and even more specifically, spending money to communicate is speech. So no comments about how not letting me buy enough crack rocks to Scrooge McDuck a swimming pool is government censorship of the worst kind.
Brett wrote:
“IOW, the problem with a lot of these “reforms” is that they’re based on the implicit premise that the locus of corruption in Washington is somewhere other than among the members of Congress. That what we’re looking at are bribes, rather than shakedowns. Otherwise most of the suggestions would be like putting Don Corleone on the Mafia task force.”
So, “place your money …. excuse me … speech … in an envelope and leave it with my secretary” is an example of speech …. excuse me, money … you would like to do away with?
Hmmm. I’m sure political shakedowns for money occur. But if the locus of corruption in Washington rests with the members of Congress via shakedowns, what accounts for the allegedly exponential increase in the modern regulatory state, if that’s what gives you heartburn?
What, the politicians turned their noses up at the money and other perks during the shakedowns, no matter the amount offered?
Do you mean there has been a gigantic failure to be shaken down, which could be called “honesty” in some parts, despite the vast sums of money … excuse me, speech … sloshing around the system like words inside a paper cup?
Which is it? The politicians took the money and regulated anyway in unheard-of- amounts, or they didn’t take the money and regulated anyway?
Which scenario makes you sicker to your stomach?
1. Politician: Mr Old King Coal, I’m going to stick a clause in the omnibus bill outlawing coal companies from leveling mountaintops and thus polluting watersheds, wink, wink. I’ll look over there while you place the money in the open desk drawer and, who knows, maybe that wording might disappear.
Robert Byrd. Gesundheit!
2. Politician: Mr. Old King Coal, I pledge to never, ever in the fullness of eternity regulate your God-given right to level mountaintops and thus pollute watersheds because my conscience, Ayn Rand, the invisible hand (not to be confused with the Black Hand), your family’s talking kitchen table, the Bible, and the Constitution say so, so you can put your speech back in your wallet and save your breath.
3. Politician: Mr. Old King Coal, I’m going to outlaw your ability to level mountaintops and thus pollute watersheds because folks in these here parts drink that water from their wells and they fish in it and because, well, so do I, and it gives me a certain, uh, Ji-Ji-ja-ji-Jimmy Stewartish pleasure to tell you to shove your very talkative money up and down your coal-fired, fundament Christmas stocking, despite what the Constitution doesn’t say nowhere.
4.Politician: Mr. Coal, I’m going to outlaw your ability to level mountaintops and thus pollute watersheds because The Sierra Club gave me twelve dollars and some nice words, and despite the fact that you are offering me the carrot of one million dollars and the stick of waking up in the morning with a dead prostitute, a live 12-year boy, and a horse’s severed head in my beddie-bye, the simple fact is I come cheap. Good day, sir.
You could throw into the mix MckT’s term-limits idea to see how that muddies the waters and maybe Mr. Coal would offer the carrot of coal-mining jobs for the politician’s constituents (in which bribery and/or shakedown is transferred to the lowest level of government, the individual, where the Constitution says it belongs, though I doubt it, because like everyone else I’ve no idea what the Constitution says, but I know for sure what it doesn’t say, which is EVERYTHING, as far as I can tell.
Lastly, just for fun, let’s parse the locus of bribery/shakedown/extortion in the act of a Tea Partier signing Grover Norquist’s no-new-taxes-never pledge.
Or does someone want to tell me that exchange is just a meeting of pristine conscious’s’s’s’s.
It’s all a sticky wicket.
It occurs to me that all Russell is asking of the big pots of money out there is what Andy Taylor is asking Barney Fife to do in this clip (watch from the 17:20 to 19:30 segment in the video, but it’s Saturday morning so go ahead and make pretend your a kid and watch the whole episode):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Q9NRnr1wc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA1A6E30EDB4B876D
Course, Russell would want Glen Cripe (you’ve got to watch to get that) to shaddup too.
It occurs to me that all Russell is asking of the big pots of money out there is what Andy Taylor is asking Barney Fife to do in this clip
Thanks Count, but no, I’m not that moderate.
I’m not even asking anything of the big pots of money, per se. What I’d like is for them to not even be invited to the table.
It’s a table for living breathing people, not vague amorphous crypto-persons invented to facilitate the accumulation of capital.
Nothing wrong with that, mind you. It’s just that when Jefferson talked about being ‘endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights’, I don’t think he intended for ‘their creator’ to mean the State of Delaware.
Crazy lefty moon man talk, for sure. But that’s all that runs through my head these days. With all the sh*t that’s going down, it rings truer and truer to me every day.
Money is speech and legal devices invented to let folks pool their capital for investment are persons endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.
We’re modern people, no more mud for us. Nowadays we make our golems from nice clean money.
What a pleasure to revisit the world of Mayberry, though. Felt like I was a kid again. Thanks for that.
I’d say it is more something inbetween bribes and shakedowns. Or rather it is a nasty combination of both, and somewhat less explicit. Company A wants rules to box out Competitors Y and Z. It has donated money to a bunch of Congressmen and get to chat about it. That is the pseudo-bribery side. Y and Z don’t get face time unless they also donate lots of money, that is the pseudo-shake down side. Both exist and are important. (See for example Google, which naively thought that it didn’t need to get involved in politics until after its competitors almost had the government legislate against about 6 years ago. Suddenly Google found the wisdom of political donations for its own survival.
As long as it is not only legal, but considered to be deserving of Constitutional protection, for individuals and/or organizations to petition their Congresspeople with bags of money, the only way to avoid corruption of the political process will be for each and every Congressperson to be an individual of truly extraordinary character.
I mean, exceptional.
The odds are against that happening.
What about approaching the problem form the opposite direction?
The Constitution of the USofA shall thus be amended:
1) Members of Congress, the Federal Judiciary or the Executive branch may accept donations or the non-monetary equivalent thereof only from natural persons [that are citizens of the US].
2) Congress may regulate kind and size of legally acceptable donations or non-monetary equivalents thereof.
3) Equal conditions shall apply to candidates for office as to holders of the same for the purpose of this amendment
Corporations would have to funnel their donations through natural persons within the limits set by law. It would become a bit more complicated to legally bribe..eh persuade by use of speech equivalent..public officials because one would have to find enough people to do the actual donations. Unions could for example set locked accounts for each member where a part of the memberhip dues go. If the union wants to spend money to influence politicians, it would partially unlock those and ask their members to personally transfer the money or to personally consent for the transfer to be made in their name. Additional benefit: this would be equal to a referendum. Dissenting members would simply refuse to agree to the money transfer.
Proposal 1: Excellent idea.
Proposal 2/3: Since incumbents have advantages other than spending money, what’s to stop them from setting the level of legally acceptable donations low enough that challengers would be hopelessly underfunded?
In general, though, the concept is promising. You want to stop members of Congress from being bribed, regulate THEM, not everyone else.
Just as long as we have none of this nonsense of declaring speech that might help a candidate to be a “donation”; If we’re talking bribery, it has to be something fungible.
You want to stop members of Congress from being bribed, regulate THEM, not everyone else.
What does it mean for a Congressperson to be ‘bribed’?
If I donate a million bucks to the DNC, and my Congressman then decides to act in my favor regarding some piece of legislation, was he ‘bribed’?
If I donate a million bucks to a 501(c)(4) that happens to also support my Congressman and/or legislative efforts that are of particular interest to him, and suddenly a paragraph in some piece of legislation that I found uncongenial is somehow reworded in my favor, was he ‘bribed’?
Even if he was, how the hell would you ever prove that?
Note that in my second example, ‘disclosure’ will do nothing for you. 501(c)(4)s are not required to disclose donors. That’s why Rove set up Crossroads GPS, the 527 version (American Crossroads) was having difficulty attracting donors because of the disclosure requirements. When they set up the 501(c)(4) the phone started to ring.
What I want to point out is the absurdity of insisting that any person, or any organization constituted for any purpose whatsoever, can funnel money in any amount into the political process, while at the same time being shocked — SHOCKED — that members of Congress are influenced by this.
Those corrupt, self-seeking bastards!! How *dare* they take our money!! Even worse, how *dare* they be influenced by it!!
$6.5 million spent on lobbying last year, *per Congressperson*. Do you think $6.5 million bucks would have no effect on your actions?
Regarding Hartmut’s proposal upthread, as long as corporations are people, your suggestion (1) will not pass Constitutional muster.
Given that they are persons, it’s baldly an act of making different rules for one class of persons — humans — and another class — corporations. That’s not allowed.
As long as money = speech, suggestion (2) will likewise be ruled right out. The Constitution guarantees the right to speak. Not speak a little, not to speak unless you start to crowd out the other folks. Just to speak.
I’ve just really got a basic, root problem with this whole, “We’ve got to give Don Corleone more power to stop those evil businessmen from bribing him!” approach to political corruption. It stands the actual situation on it’s head. It can only make things worse.
We’ve got to give Don Corleone more power to stop those evil businessmen from bribing him!
Once more into breach.
I have no problem with ‘evil businessmen’ trying to ‘bribe’ Sen. Corleone.
I want them to use their own money. I don’t want them to be able to use the treasury of the business they manage.
And kindly note that the treasuries of the companies they manage are not their fncking money in the first place.
Daddy Warbucks wants to donate a million of his own war bucks to Sen. Corleone’s re-election campaign? As far as I’m concerned that is within the scope of 1st Amendment protection. It’s problematic for a number of reasons, but they are not primarily Constitutional ones, IMVHO.
Daddy Warbucks wants to draw on the treasury of Warbucks Inc. to donate a million to the exact same place, as a contribution from Warbucks Inc., I say no good.
Why? What a weird hair to split, right?
Compare the capitalization of for-profit corporations in this country with the personal wealth of even the richest people in this country.
Koch Bros total *personal* political giving in the last 30 years is about $100M. As far as I’m concerned, that is not a problem. That is not a sum that is going to give them an overwhelming advantage when it comes time for our elected representatives to sort out all of our various interests.
It’s the sums with three commas that no person, and no collection of real, live human persons, is going to be able compete with.
The Constitution guarantees the right to speak. Not speak a little, not to speak unless you start to crowd out the other folks. Just to speak.
Actually, that really isn’t true as far as Supreme Court case law is concerned. There are many restrictions on speech (time, place and manner; “low value speech” such as obscenity, threats, etc.). The restrictions have resulted from balancing the First Amendment rights of the speaker with various rights of everyone else. There’s no reason in the world why there can’t be balance between various speakers rights, and previous Supreme Courts have attempted to find that balance. It’s only the current majority that insists not only that money equals speech, but that finding content-neutral ways to supplement less wealthy speakers is an affront to the rights of the wealthy ones.
In the olden days, there were suggestions that campaigns be completely publicly financed. The airwaves would have reserved space for public speech. No paid ads. Under this regime (which, no doubt, would have some difficulties – mostly in determining who would be eligible for media space), costs of campaigns would be much more modest. There is absolutely no philosophical reason why money should be involved at all in First Amendment law.
And I have to disagree with people who seem to be fine with wealthy humans exercising undue influence on political candidates. Except for the scale, the problem is the same.
Actually, that really isn’t true as far as Supreme Court case law is concerned. There are many restrictions on speech
To my knowledge, there is no case law regarding quantity of speech. IANAL, so I could be wrong.
There is absolutely no philosophical reason why money should be involved at all in First Amendment law.
Actually there *are* philosophical reasons for money being involved in First Amendment law, and the philosophies the underpin them are the ones that are operative today.
There’s no *language* about money in the 1st Amendment, but we are long, long, long past the penumbra stage on that count.
Except for the scale, the problem is the same.
Scale is actually relevant. In purely practical terms, scale is what makes the question matter at all.
Long story short, *if you assume that corporations are persons for purposes of interpreting the Constitution*, there is no solid argument for putting limits on corporate ‘speech’ that are any different than those that apply to natural persons.
The public financing idea is interesting, but the issue of who gets to play is actually kind of thorny. Also, it does not address lobbying and political spending that is not directly spent on campaigns.
To my knowledge, there is no case law regarding quantity of speech. IANAL, so I could be wrong.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “quantity of speech,” which is a term the Court has used, but which to my mind is meaningless. There are definitely regulations on how many people can attend certain events based on fire regulations, for example. In that case the speaker’s message can only be amplified (in the moment) based on a factor of the number of people who are allowed to attend. Likewise, banning Hare Krishna people from soliciting at airports (which was authorized by the Court) certainly cuts down on the organization’s “quantity” of speech opportunities in that the space on earth is limited, and finding a similarly effective captive audience to speak to might be challenging. “Quantity” of speech means what: quantity of time on TV? quantity of words spoken? quantity of people who hear? quantity of people who actually listen? quantity of decibels? Right now it’s just a convenient way for the balance to be tipped toward the wealthy.
Actually there *are* philosophical reasons for money being involved in First Amendment law, and the philosophies the underpin them are the ones that are operative today.
russell, let me correct my earlier comment. The philosophical underpinning is extremely weak, and only one of many logical paths that could have been taken. And we are not “long, long past…” The concept of money = speech is relatively recent, beginning with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. Right now, the concept (in its most destructive form) hangs on a fragile 5-4 balance in the Supreme Court.
The public financing idea is interesting, but the issue of who gets to play is actually kind of thorny. Also, it does not address lobbying and political spending that is not directly spent on campaigns.
It’s kind of thorny, just as all of these issues are thorny. It is almost impossible to create a perfectly “fair” public forum where all voices are heard according to their “value.” There’s just no reason why money has to be the “value”. As to lobbying and political spending, it’s really about campaigns. Spending on wining and dining, gifts, etc., are fairly easy to regulate.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “quantity of speech,”
What I mean by ‘quantity of speech’ is that, assuming that spending money on political communication is considered to be speech, I don’t think there’s a strong basis for saying that some persons can spend N dollars and other persons can spend X dollars.
The philosophical underpinning is extremely weak, and only one of many logical paths that could have been taken.
I agree with this.
And we are not “long, long past…” The concept of money = speech is relatively recent, beginning with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
Noted.
By “long, long past” I was referring more the concept of corporate personhood as we construe it now, which is more like 150 years old.
Thanks for your comments here.
Thank you, russell. Responding to comments here helps me to clarify my own thoughts on so many issues.
IOW, the problem with a lot of these “reforms” is that they’re based on the implicit premise that the locus of corruption in Washington is somewhere other than among the members of Congress…. You want to stop members of Congress from being bribed, regulate THEM, not everyone else.
Im not sure I get this- we want to regulate a relationship. We want to regulate a transaction. Saying that the crack user is the *real* problem and the crack dealer is only there because the users want to buy doesn’t make sense to me. Or vice-versa.
The problem isn’t people spending money on political speech. The problem isn’t Congresspeople making decisions, or even listening to their constituents and making decisions. It’s those two things, put together, influencing each other.
I dont see how we could stop that with any amount of control limited to the Congressional side of the equation (even if, as you say, these are shakedowns rather than bribes).
I mean, I guess I can see some extreme possibilities- Congresspeople agree to be monitored 24/7 and have that monitoring on the public record. Congresspeople are sequestered throughout their entire term. etc. But not much that would be likely to actually be implemented, or to work.
Also, I have no idea why you think businesses wouldnt approach their Congresspeople in order to gain a competitive advantage. Are they all supposed to be devoted Randroids, working ruthlessly for selfish advantage, but never stooping so low as to invoke the evils of collectivism?
This just seems like ideological blinking on your part.
Given that they are persons, it’s baldly an act of making different rules for one class of persons — humans — and another class — corporations. That’s not allowed.
That’s not allowed as long as the constitution is not changed, which is the very purpose of the amendment: To allow law to differentiate between natural and un-natural/juristic/legal persons.
And the constitution does not say that there are ‘persons’ different from natural ones in the first place. That has been an interpretation (with a rather unsavory story behind it) unlike e.g. the definition of slaves as far as personhood is concerned. I see it as similar to the federal income tax question. The amendment was added not because the original constitution explicitly forbade it but in order to block the courts from interpreting it, as if it would. The problem with that is that those that oppose income tax see it as proof that it was unconstitutional before not as a clarification. So, to declare corporations as not being the same as natural persons would be seen as proof that they were before the amendment.
But I see no way to avoid this in any case.
The whole discussion is — of course — purely academical since the chances of Congress cutting itself off of the lavish lifestyle is negligible at best. And unless the elites do something really stupid over an extended period of time, it is also unlikely that the hoi polloi will change it for them. USians lack the spirit of lanternizing solutions.
—
PS: bashing the French Revolution seems to be a new fad on the Right. The very existence of evul libruls is now attributed to it (You know, the glorious American revolution was a theocratic one while the French copycats did it without god and thus spawned all the liberal evils).
“Also, I have no idea why you think businesses wouldnt approach their Congresspeople in order to gain a competitive advantage.”
If their Congresspeople aren’t corrupt to begin with, approaching them in order to gain a competitive advantage is at best futile, and at worst a quick route to the slammer.
I mean, seriously, you get pulled over for speeding, don’t you routinely slip the cop a $50 bill to let you go on your way?
No, you don’t, because offering a bribe is awfully risky if you don’t already know the person you’re offering it to is corrupt. It’s the same with Washington. Congressmen get bribed because they make it known they’ll take bribes.
Paying attention to business fundamentals is always important to a business, sending money to Washington is only important if Washington is going to stomp you if you don’t.
Unfortunately, once Washington becomes corrupt enough, sending money to Washington can become a more successful business model than paying attention to business fundamentals. Which isn’t just corrupting, it’s bad for the economy, because Washington can dictate winners and losers in a zero sum game, but it’s those fundamentals that actually create the wealth the game depends on.
That was, IMO, the real horror, and the damage, of the “stimulus”: It made getting cozy with Washington much more important than being productive. It’s warped the whole industrial economy away from a focus on production, and towards a focus on getting in good with whoever is in power.
If their Congresspeople aren’t corrupt to begin with, approaching them in order to gain a competitive advantage is at best futile, and at worst a quick route to the slammer.
And the Congresspeople wouldn’t be corrupt if no one was approaching them with cash & favors to be done. Again, you view one side of the equation as the bad guys, one party in the transaction as the ‘real’ motivator, and the other party as an innocent bystander swept up in the deal somehow against their will or better judgment.
The problem is the relationship. The problem is the transaction. The problem isn’t just that Congresspeople are not incorruptible (even if there are incorruptible people, they are de facto unelectable because they cannot raise money under ‘normal’ circumstances).
That was, IMO, the real horror, and the damage, of the “stimulus”: It made getting cozy with Washington much more important than being productive. It’s warped the whole industrial economy away from a focus on production, and towards a focus on getting in good with whoever is in power.
Im glad to hear that, in your country, the government attempted a large enough stimulus to matter- altho from your description it may have been *too* large, warping the entire economy. Here in America, the stimulus had about 100B of infrastructure spending (plus some other small pieces of direct spending in other buckets such as healthcare IT). Of course, no one could be foolish enough to think that 100B of spending spread out over several years is more than a drop in the bucket against a US GDP of 15T or so, or even US federal spending of roughly 3T…
So what country do you live in where the stimulus was so large as to warp the entire economy and make getting cozy with government more important than being productive(!)? I might consider moving there, but only if they allow ridiculously excessive hyperbole, that’s a very important part of my lifestyle.
“And the Congresspeople wouldn’t be corrupt if no one was approaching them with cash & favors to be done.”
You’re assuming, again, that there aren’t any shakedowns. Even, that nobody in Congress solicits bribes. The only way members of Congress wouldn’t be corrupt if nobody approached them, is if they never approached anybody themselves.
It’s this relentless determination to locate the source of corruption outside of Washington, to portray the polticians as hapless victims of the corrupting influence of business, that strikes me as so incredibly wrongheaded about campaign “reformers”. I suppose it’s understandable in people who see the only solution being legislation, but it’s still almost psychotic in it’s refusal to face what is really going on here.
I suppose it’s understandable in people who see the only solution being legislation
I seems to me that the options are legislation, or the guillotine and pitchfork.
What’s behind door number 3?
That was, IMO, the real horror, and the damage, of the “stimulus”…
The horror of it all, what with all the dead bodies strewn about, and the crying, orphaned children. Historians will reflect on the darkness of the stimulus with great gravity for centuries to come.
…to portray the polticians as hapless victims of the corrupting influence of business…
Um, what???
Thank dog all of us morons have noted sociologist and psychologist Brett Bellmore to tell us how the world really works.
All those poor, noble businesspeople being corrupted by those evil politicans. RIP American business. ;_;
I think I’ve said more than once here, or at least on God’s Great Internets, that corruption in the United States is not your typical corruption. For example, you don’t have to bribe the clerk at the DMV to get your driver’s license, bribes offered to police to get out of speeding tickets are probably more likely to get you arrested on the spot than out of the ticket, and it seems to me that most state and federal legislators/executives are not willing to explicitly bargain government favors in exchange for cash. There is, of course, a fair bit more corruption on the municipal level, but not something that the average citizen would have to deal with on a day to day basis.
That said, what goes on in the United States is a sort of tacit corruption and pay for access. The former, a sort-of unstated bargain (if that’s not an oxymoron) of legislators saying “if I do what you want now, you’ll reward me later” in the form of campaign contributions and/or later employment/lobbying opportunities. The latter manifests itself in “well, X is a big campaign contributor, let’s hear what he/she/it has to say” and while not necessarily corrupting, if that’s all you’re hearing what position are you likely to take?
Not sure what to do about any of this. It would be hard to somehow mandate who a congressperson does and does not speak to, as well as police tacit corruption (maybe that’s too harsh a word).
In light of Rep. “Freezer Cash” Jefferson, and most especially Congress’ reaction to the corruption, (“How dare you search our offices for evidence of crimes!”) I’m having trouble buying the idea that it’s just tacit corruption.
You’re assuming, again, that there aren’t any shakedowns…. It’s this relentless determination to locate the source of corruption outside of Washington, to portray the polticians as hapless victims of the corrupting influence of business, that strikes me as so incredibly wrongheaded about campaign “reformers”. I suppose it’s understandable in people who see the only solution being legislation, but it’s still almost psychotic in it’s refusal to face what is really going on here.
Once again you demonstrate a scathing attack on the opposite of your position rather than on anything anyone else is saying. I have said several times, the problem is on both sides of the relationship, both Congresspeople and businesspeople. Trying to imagine how the game of corporate/Congressional bribery started is like wondering whether Adam had a &$*#ing navel; yet navel-gazing is apparently far preferable to you than admitting that practical businesspeople are not Randroids & would stoop to invoking collectivism in the name of profit.
That you go from this fevered projection to diagnosing a mental illness from *my* imagined need to only blame one side- well, I can only tell you, afaict you are the only person here displaying that telling symptom, debating with some imaginary Marxist who (perhaps not surprisingly) sounds a great deal like you do- same fervor, same inability to process nuance, same clinging to dogma in the face of evidence.
In light of Rep. “Freezer Cash” Jefferson, and most especially Congress’ reaction to the corruption, (“How dare you search our offices for evidence of crimes!”) I’m having trouble buying the idea that it’s just tacit corruption.
Of course there is actual explicit corruption as well. That’s almost easier- explicit corruption (and explicit shakedowns) require explicit statements. Which can end up on tape recorders or wiretaps, sooner or later. Of course, assuming that assertions of institutional privilege imply that everyone has cash in their freezer is to (perhaps intentionally) fail to understand the psychology of institutional privilege in the first place.
Implicit bribery is much more insidious. Or implicit shakedowns. In some ways the same thing IMO- everyone who can afford to pays to play, and interests or groups that can’t afford to pay get screwed.
Well, shakedown as a model does have a problem- in the final analysis, IMO most of the time the payers are getting a leg up, not just avoiding a threat: big pharma, big defense, big oil- these guys are not just breaking even at the Congressional trough. And I don’t see any purely shakedown model that explains lobbyists literally drafting legislation (unless one is such a Corporatist that they feel corporations *ought* to write the laws, and threatening to take that away from them is fundamentally unfair).
Yes, Brett: I, for one, AM assuming there are no shakedowns, for the very simple reason that not one accusation on a single shakedown attempt has been made.
Between ‘Backwoods’ Breitbart’s clan, WeirdNuts Daily, Rube State and the Murdoch empire, if there were even a superficially-plausible report of such a thing, WE’D HAVE HEARD ALL ABOUT IT LONG BEFORE NOW.
Over, and *over*, and OVER AGAIN.
What you suggest is roughly as likely as monkeys flying out of your butt, and we’d at least see you in the Weekly World News.
When the sites that make up pseudo-news as their stock-in-trade can’t be arsed to cobble together something so ridiculous, your chances of selling it to well-informed thinking people disappear.
The google case. They didn’t start massive political contributions until after their competitors had spent millions in Congress and threatened to seriously hurt their ability to do business. In a good political system, a company like google (even with its flaws) wouldn’t need to pour millions into Washington DC just to fend off Oracle et al. But they do. I don’t know if you call that kind of thing a ‘shakedown’, but it sure looks that way to me.
Brett- I just realized that there’s another odd fixation to your insistence on the shakedown model: why would the evil Congresspeople going after the cash of the innocent capitalists only offer negative deals? Why not offer to do something *for* them rather than *to* them?
Upsides: You never piss anyone off. You make a friend rather than a potential enemy. You invite future deals initiated from the other side. You can hope to build an implicit relationship where recording is never a threat. etc.
I dont really see the downside.
Seb- It looks that way from the pov of Google. From the pov of microsoft, oracle, et al, it looks like payment for services rendered.
IMO in order for it to meet Brett’s ‘innocent businessmen minding their own business’ model, the Congresspeople would be going after Google of their own accord, not at the prompting of a competitor.
I agree, the net-net of the system is that big businesses are almost required to buy in. But that ignores the other side: the net-net for politicians is that they are almost required to do pay-for-play in order to have enough cash every two (or six) years. They are just as much prisoners of the system as the corps. Which is why I keep saying the problem here isn’t either side in a vacuum, it’s the relationship between the two wherein both suffer serious penalties for not taking part in our system of de facto bribery.
[I say both sides are ‘prisoners’, but prisoners who reap the rewards of corruption & don’t ever try to fix the system. What I mean is that, even someone wanting to do the right thing would be strongly tempted, and ignoring that temptation might be fatal to a business or political career.]
Carleton, the incumbent advantage is enormous. Incumbents in the US almost never ever lose.
Is it really so symmetric? Google really could have been put out of business by the political workings of microsoft and oracle in Washington DC. The incumbent reelection rate would have to be a lot lower before I would believe that there is a similar problem for Congressmen. They are going to win reelection almost every single time. Businesses don’t really get to choose who they play with. Politicians do.
But isn’t the incumbency advantage to a large degree the ability to get huge amounts of campaign cash? Incumbents that do not play the game but bite the hand that feeds them (specimens are rare admittedly) seem to be far less secure in their seats. From the business perspective any new face (=candidate) is a risk while an incumbent has shown his or her colours before the next election. Since most incumbents are reliable players it will in most cases be prudent to rather support him or her than an unknown entity that may promise to be even more open to your demands but may turn out not to be. Only if the incumbent is seen as a real liability, the risk may be worth taking. Of course the threat can be made in order to keep the incumbent ‘reliable’. In the past years we have, I think, seen enough examples of incumbents threatened ‘to be primaried’ should they deviate from the party or business line (high overlap there but not 100%). As in chess the threat is stronger than its execution (cf. the consequences for the party leadership of replacing merely corrupt with insane Congresscritters in the last election).
I see the whole thing as an unholy symbiosis with both sides profitting at the cost of society. As long as both partners stay equally strong this can be kept up almost indefinetely. It gets critical once one side sees the opportunity to shift the balance totally to their side. To exaggerate it: Once corporations acquire not just person- but state-hood and can send their two senators each to Washington the elected officials lose their power. Once the elected officials automatically become CEOs of major companies as part of their duties, business loses its independent power. Voila, the natural extension of the idea of fascism (in the pseudo-Mussolini sense), resp. communism (in the real world setting not original Marxist model).
Incumbents who don’t play the game are a threat to their fellow incumbents. They find the machinery turned against them; The institutional party will start encouraging challengers, instead of discouraging them, drop it’s support for them. Suddenly they’ll find that an incumbent’s normal immunity to minor things like traffic enforcement has fled them. They start losing cushy committee positions.
See, the thing is, it’s not a minority of corrupt members in Washington. Corrupt is the norm, deviations from which are punished.
Sebastian: Google really could have been put out of business by the political workings of microsoft and oracle in Washington DC.
Sebastian – could you elaborate on this and/or provide a link to supporting documentation?
Personally, I am shocked – SHOCKED – to discover that, given the opportunity to influence public policy in their favor, private actors with billions of dollars at their command will use that money to try to influence the political process.
I am shocked – SHOCKED – to discover that, given the availability of billions of dollars, per year, to influence the political process, that some Congresspeople find themselves prone to being influenced.
Good heavens, some of them even seek it out!
I am shocked – SHOCKED – to discover that, when some corporate entities are willing to spend millions and millions of dollars to influence outcomes, that their competitors find it necessary to join in just to keep up.
I am shocked – SHOCKED – to discover that, given all of the above, some folks are attracted to a career in ‘public service’ for reasons that are less than admirable.
Really, it’s all so surprising. Who would have imagined it?
The amount of money that pours into the US political process is profoundly corrupting. The folks who are pouring the billion-dollar figures – the sums with more than two commas – are not individual human beings spending their own personal resources.
Do the math. It’s not complicated.
You know the way to stop me /
But you don’t have the discipline.
“The amount of money that pours into the US political process is profoundly corrupting. The folks who are pouring the billion-dollar figures – the sums with more than two commas – are not individual human beings spending their own personal resources.”
But to the extent that this was true, it was true *before* the Citizens United case. So why are you so convinced that corporate personhood is a key issue in the problem?
And talk about non-virtuous cycles, campaign finance reform laws are always written by the incumbents. Don’t you find it the least bit suspicious that the proposed rules always make it harder for challengers to go up against the incumbent by restricting the ability to get name recognition, to get your views out, and to highlight the problems with the incumbent?
I don’t agree at all the the main advantage of the incumbent is that he can raise money better. Though nowadays one excellent advantage of the permanent campaign is that he can raise money *longer* because they start ten seconds after being (re)elected while a challenger has to wait until near the next election before they can become plausible enough to raise money.
Think about it this way: presuming that you admit there are any major advantages to being an incumbent, any legal rule that makes it so the incumbent can easily match an outsider’s spending means that the natural non-monetary advantages of the incumbency will dominate the race. So any rule that provides exclusive public funding or automatic matching to the incumbent will tend to increase the power of incumbency.
We have incumbency rates well into the 90% range. Unless you think the political system is functioning well now, and I certainly do not, focusing on measures which tend to reinforce incumbency can’t be a good thing.
Relatededly harmut: “In the past years we have, I think, seen enough examples of incumbents threatened ‘to be primaried’ should they deviate from the party or business line (high overlap there but not 100%).”
Pushing party and business line together in that analysis obscures more than it reveals. So far as I can tell most primary threats have been over abortion, war and recently taxes. The tea party is a confused mess with respect to business policy, but they are unified on taxes. So far as I know, most of their primary threats have been about raising the personal income tax rate for the rich. I don’t really think that is a pro-business stance. Think of it this way, you can probably name a number of politicians who got primary challenges because of their disagreement with a major party issue. Who got knocked off for pushing anti-trust against microsoft or google? Who got primaried because of their disagreements with Exxon?
The only counterexample I can think of might be union power with respect to the auto bailouts?
Oh and btw, if we’re making this rule, unions definitely don’t get to make any political speech right?
it was true *before* the Citizens United case. So why are you so convinced that corporate personhood is a key issue in the problem?
Corporate personhood precedes Citizens United by quite a bit.
Why is corporate personhood part of the problem?
Because corporate personhood is the basis for things that are not people, and which command resources actual people cannot begin to imagine, having the standing to claim protections under the Constitution.
We have incumbency rates well into the 90% range
One of the reasons for that is the amount of money in the political process that we currently do.
One of the primary reasons for *that* is….
if we’re making this rule, unions definitely don’t get to make any political speech right?
Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.
If we make the rule, then we get to say whether they do, or not.
“One of the reasons for that is the amount of money in the political process that we currently do.”
I’m not convinced of that. I see money as being one of the very few ways of having a hope of defeating the overwhelming advantages of being an incumbent.
And Whitman and Issa both illustrate that advertising money isn’t all it is cracked up to be anyway if you aren’t a strong candidate. (Whitman lost to Brown, who hasn’t been a strong Democratic candidate for almost 30 years, Issa spent $10 million in a primary campaign to fail against Matt Fong. Issa complained about name recognition, but I guarantee to you that Matt Fong was not a big name).
[re unions]”Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.
If we make the rule, then we get to say whether they do, or not.”
Sounds very coy. Other than just liking unions or thinking that their money will support causes that you like (which in my mind would be illegitimate concerns in campaign finance law), what principle would you use to exclude corporations and include unions? “If we make the rule, the we get to say whether they do, or not” makes it sound like you’re straying into the viewpoint being paid for rather than worrying about the money. That kind of talk is what makes it sound like censorship rather than concerns about corruption. Unions function exactly like corporations in all of the formulations you’ve used about corporate interactions with politicians.
Sounds very coy.
Yeah, I get that a lot.
Let me spell it out.
If an entity – whether it’s a for-profit corporation, a union, or an individual human being – has Constitutional protection for their activities, then there is not a hell of a lot that you can do legislatively to restrict that activity.
If they don’t, then you have a lot more options.
So, if corporations, unions, etc ARE NOT considered persons under the law, then we can, through our elected representatives, make laws about if and how they may participate in the political process.
To further clarify, I personally DO NOT support the participation of unions in the political process, any more than I support the participation of for-profit corporations in the political process. This is a statement I have made MANY MANY TIMES, here and elsewhere.
Neither of them are real human persons, neither deserves Constitutional protection for their activities.
We, human beings, can decide if, how, and to what degree we wish to extend that *privilege* to them.
As a further point of fact, there are many examples of for-profit corporations participating in the political process that I find quite laudable.
And I want those very laudable activities ruled out also, because I want corporations out of the political process, full stop.
None of what I am saying has anything to do with whether I ‘like’ corporations, or ‘like’ unions, or whether I personally ‘approve’ of any particular causes they advance.
I want Constitutional protections guaranteed to ‘persons’ to apply to real live human beings, because that is who they were intended to apply to.
Period.
If you think it’s questionable that the original intent was for them to apply to human beings, kindly read the text of the Constitution, and everywhere you see the words ‘person’, ‘persons’, or ‘people’, subtitute the word ‘corporation’ and see if it still parses in any way that makes sense.
I want them all out.
The counterargument about actual humans organizing under the corporate form to carry out constitutionally protected activities is a reasonable one, and I think that specific thing should be allowed.
The counterargument about the press is likewise compelling. I’m sure if we really wanted to address the problem, we could find a way. It might well be that simply appealing to ‘freedom of the press’ would get it done, it’s not clear to me that that would need to be attached to some form of ‘person’ in order to be operative.
But it’s all moot because none of this is ever going to freaking happen during any of our lifetimes.
Rob in CT wins the thread.
The incumbent reelection rate would have to be a lot lower before I would believe that there is a similar problem for Congressmen. They are going to win reelection almost every single time. Businesses don’t really get to choose who they play with. Politicians do.
That means that, in order to topple an incumbent, you need connections to the money machine or
To win an open seat against a well-funded opponent, it would help a lot to have connections to the money machine
So unless a Congressperson is going to sell their soul, get into office, and *then* get religion, this is almost irrelevant. Perhaps there are edge cases- wave elections or cycles where “reform” is slightly more than an empty slogan, where actual reformers can get a few seats without compromising themselves.
And talk about non-virtuous cycles, campaign finance reform laws are always written by the incumbents.
That is not a reason not to do reform, is it? Just to make sure that it’s crafted well.
Think about it this way: presuming that you admit there are any major advantages to being an incumbent, any legal rule that makes it so the incumbent can easily match an outsider’s spending means that the natural non-monetary advantages of the incumbency will dominate the race. So any rule that provides exclusive public funding or automatic matching to the incumbent will tend to increase the power of incumbency.
Only if we make your odd assumption that incumbency isn’t strongly tied to funding advantages and that significant funding advantages don’t translate into electoral advantages. Incumbents raise a *lot* more money than challengers, and they win a lot of the time. Political watchers often gauge whether a challenger is serious based on whether they’ve raised a similar amount of money to the incumbent (say, at least half or in that range).
So, this can be true only if money doesn’t matter very much in political races. Yet, you suggest that big money can level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. It’s almost as if big money can help challengers level the playing field, but cannot help incumbents tilt it further? I don’t understand.
any legal rule that makes it so the incumbent can easily match an outsider’s spending means that the natural non-monetary advantages of the incumbency will dominate the race.
The problem today is overwhelmingly not that incumbents use the power of their office to overcome the funding advantages presented by challengers. There is no way to defend the thesis that equal spending by all challengers across the last election cycle wouldn’t have reduced incumbency- unless, again, money does not significantly affect elections. If there are huge non-monetary advantages to being an incumbent, they are in the vast majority of cases augmented by money advantages today. So even if you’re right about large non-monetary advantages, leveling the money would still reduce incumbency.
I see money as being one of the very few ways of having a hope of defeating the overwhelming advantages of being an incumbent.
Remember that the incumbency rate you complain about exists in a world with a huge incumbent funding advantage. Well-funded challengers have a much higher success rate- of course, those are the ones who are demonstrably good candidates. Is the success rate of well-funded challengers high enough to be ‘healthy’?
[Also, we really can’t have a conversation about healthy incumbency rates wo discussing gerrymandering, but it’s far enough off-topic that Id rather avoid it].
And Whitman and Issa both illustrate that advertising money isn’t all it is cracked up to be anyway if you aren’t a strong candidate.
I dont think anyone is making the case that money is sufficient to get elected. The question is the degree to which money is necessary to get elected.
See, the thing is, it’s not a minority of corrupt members in Washington. Corrupt is the norm, deviations from which are punished.
And in the world of big business, in the sense that not buying yourself some serious goodwill in Congress exposes you to attack from those who have. Everyone has to play the system or suffer the consequences, and the only way to fix that is to change the system somehow.
[And, when I agree with “corrupt is the norm”, that’s with the ‘everyone participates in pay-to-play’, not ‘everyone probly has money in their freezer’.]
Not sure what you mean, russell, when you say that Rob in CT wins the thread. That we’re screwed? Actually, we’re not screwed if we vote Democratic. What did the Democratic Congress do between 2008 and 2010? Not enough? Right. Not enough to accomplish Paradiso, in the course of emerging from the Inferno. But a pretty tolerable Purgatorio. If only, if only we (the people) could keep our focus on sustaining the momentum. Instead, we say “we’re screwed!” and some of us give up. Or “hold our nose.” Or whatever else ineffective very important theorizing we do. What we need to do is to get excited about the possibility of changing our own imperfect country. It’s a country that will always be imperfect, but is capable of decent government. One vote, just one, on the Supreme Court would change a whole lot of things in our direction. But we “progressives” can’t see our way to keeping up the momentum for long enough to make it stay. That’s the real problem here. It’s not them; it’s us.
Not sure what you mean, russell, when you say that Rob in CT wins the thread. That we’re screwed?
Yes, that’s what I mean.
I will almost certainly be voting Democratic, and I have been and will continue to contribute time and money toward candidates with (D) in front of their name, but I have no expectation – zero – that any Democratic officeholder will make any significant effort to change the status quo as far as the flow of private corporate money into the political process.
If that non-expectation proves to be unwarranted, great. I’ll be the first to uncork the champagne.
I’m not in favor of sitting back and doing nothing, and I also recognize that the range of things that have any realistic likelihood of happening is fairly limited.
traditionally:
Dems win = status quo is kept and maybe minor damages get repaired (best case scenario)
GOPsters win = bad situation gets worse
these days:
Dems win = worsening of situation gets slowed down a bit but neither stopped or reversed
GOPsters/TPers win = DOOM!