I hope SCOTUS overturns it 9-0 although the leftists will not vote for it. Government really should not tell you how to spend your money especially when it comes to political speech.
I am a radical on this one: let people or corporations or unions give as much as they want, but candidates must report every dime. This would be much cleaner than the mess we have now.
There have been cases where neighbors have gotten together to oppose a measure and been investigated or told to stop because they got together to oppose something. The rules on all this make it very hard for people to organize.
Let's have a little freedom for once.
Dionne is not an idiot, but he is on this one. Have campaigns been cleaned up since M-F? No, there is more money than ever but the donors can hide better.
Again, let's have a little freedom.
We should amend the constitution to get rid of this bizarre idea that giving money to a political candidate is a form of speech protected by the 1st amendement. If you think we have a democracy (or even a republican form of representational democracy) with all of the money flowing to candidates, you are a complete fool. Money runs the system. Elected representatives routinely turn over the legislative and regulatory process to industry lobbyists bearing big bucks. Just look at the medicare drug benefit. What was missing from that bill? The right for the government to negotiate down drug prices. Why? Bill Tauzin was on the take from drug companies, so much so he actually retired after the bill passed to become their principal lobbyist. Get the money out of politics. Let our government return to being an expression of the will of the majority, not the will of the wealthy. One person one vote.
Protecting political speach is actually primarily, not ancillarily (is that a word:)) what the 1st amendement is for.
Lower the amount of regulating the government does and you will lower the amount of money flowing into politics.
Businesses put money into politics because it is a good investment. If government had less ability to favor certain industries and companies over others than the companies would put their money elsewhere.
Maybe, but at one hell of a cost. Without meaningful regulation, corporations/industries would have a free hand to pollute, push harmful goods and services, monopolize, corrupt and/or endanger markets the world over.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Lower the amount of regulating the government does and you will lower the amount of money flowing into politics.
Businesses put money into politics because it is a good investment. If government had less ability to favor certain industries and companies over others than the companies would put their money elsewhere.
Great idea. A few problems might crop up along the way:
Ford Pinto
Love Canal
Thalidomide
Telemarketers
Naked short selling
Monopolies
Sleep deprived trucker driving overloaded vehicles
Phen-fen
Firestone tires tread separation
Bald Eagle extinction
Children with near mental retardation from lead paint exposure
E-coli contamination
Vioxx
Chevy Corvaire
Mad cow disease
Cigarettes marketed to kids
Money laundering
Three Mile Island
Lawn Darts were a great game.
didn't these pop up WITH government regulation?
Mr. Obvious...great post.
luv2run wrote:
I am a radical on this one..
this one??? ha ha ha.
luv2bedumb, you are radical on nearly every issue i see you comment on.
I am a conservative, but when it comes to corporations, regulation is extremely necessary. The good of the people has to come before the good of a corporation.
Corporations are not human, and therefore have no compassion, empathy, ethics, etc. Everyone can shrug it off as "it's just business."
Corporations are greedy SOBs.
Having worked in the corporate world, I can tell you that they do not make the best decisions, they make the most profitable decisions. They need to be regulated.
I love how the guy giving the examples of how regulation is necessary showed a bunch of things that happened with regulation.
Regulation, as most people think of it, is a bad thing. We only need to respect property rights and everything else will take care of itself. Most regulation doesn't merely protect property rights, it makes things worse.
People should be allowed to spend their money however they wish when they're not violating anyone's rights.
I do think some regulation of companies and private markets is useful and necessary. Although I tend towards a less government philosophy I am not an absolutist about it. Where to draw the line is a tricky question (part of the art of politics I guess).
Nonetheless at this point trying to get corporate money out of politics is exactly as pointless as trying to eliminate illegal drugs by suppressing the supply by arresting drug dealers. As long as the demand is there and there are sufficient profits someobody is going to serve that market. As long as government and government legislators and regulators can make or break a company then companies are going to try to influence them.
Mtn Dew wrote:
People should be allowed to spend their money however they wish when they're not violating anyone's rights.
People, yes. Not corporations.
I don't even know if I disagree with what you said, to be honest...
I just see issues with Monsanto owning everything and being able to buy anything and anyone. It just reeks of conflict of interest. No one to be held accountable, no one to be responsible for a specific decision. Now if it were Jim Monsanto that had to make the decisions, it would be a different story.
I realize this is radically theoretical. I am just sayin...
The issue at stake is whether corporations can spend SHAREHOLDER'S money to finance political candidates without their permission.
I say that this is not constitutional.
A retort to Dionne's one sided commentary. Most importantly note that in no way will an overturn here "eviscerate" previously established law.
A Campaign-Finance-Law History Lesson [Hans A. von Spakovsky]
With the special argument on rehearing in Citizens United v. FEC taking place today in the Supreme Court, the hysteria arising out of the campaign-reform crowd and their supporters in the press, like E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post, is really amazing. On the last day of its term in June, the Supreme Court asked for further briefing on whether it should reconsider its holding in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC. The supporters of campaign-finance reform resemble Chicken Little running around saying the sky is about to fall down. Dionne can’t even get the most basic facts correct in a column he published about the case on Monday. He wrongly asserts that if CU wins this case, the Supreme Court will be “eviscerating laws that have been on the books since 1907 and 1947 — in two separate cases — banning direct contributions and spending by corporations in federal election campaigns.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.
In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, which banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates. This Act, which campaign “reformers” and Dionne trumpet as a wonderful example of progressive law, was sponsored by Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, probably the worst racist to ever serve in the United States Senate. He was chiefly responsible for the implementation of Jim Crow laws in South Carolina when he was governor and was proud of his record of disenfranchising and murdering black citizens. He sponsored the Tillman Act because, at that time, large corporations supported Republican candidates like Teddy Roosevelt, who had banned Tillman from the White House. Tillman wanted to stop corporate giving to help the Democratic party and hurt Republican candidates, who were supported overwhelmingly by blacks. The 1947 law Dionne refers to simply added unions to the corporate ban on direct giving.
However, the Austin case had nothing to do with direct contributions to federal candidates. The Supreme Court instead upheld a state ban on corporations engaging in independent political expenditures. It is a case that is completely at odds with other decisions of the Supreme Court that have consistently held that while direct contributions to candidates can be regulated, independent political expenditures cannot be restricted. Overturning the Austin case would in no way overturn the corporate and union ban on direct contributions to federal candidates. Moreover, the Supreme Court is only reconsidering the portion of the McConnell case that upheld the facial constitutionality of the electioneering communication provision. This bans certain advertisements by corporations and unions close to an election that simply name a federal candidate, even if the ad has nothing to do with an election and everything to do with a bill on an important issue that is coming up for a vote by the incumbent candidate.
I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will overturn its prior holdings in both of these cases and uphold the political-speech rights of the First Amendment. If it does so, it does not mean that the sky is falling in on campaign-finance reform, as Dionne claims, or that either the 1907 or 1947 law on direct contributions will be “eviscerated.” More’s the pity.
Mtn Dew wrote:
I love how the guy giving the examples of how regulation is necessary showed a bunch of things that happened with regulation.
Regulation, as most people think of it, is a bad thing. We only need to respect property rights and everything else will take care of itself. Most regulation doesn't merely protect property rights, it makes things worse.
People should be allowed to spend their money however they wish when they're not violating anyone's rights.
Proof?
I believe independent issue-advocacy should be viewed as constitutionally protected since it is one of the primary ways in which citiziens can petition the governement for a redress of grievances. Bans on issue advocacy should be struck down, even apart from consideration of whether direct contributions should be allowed.
ticuru mozambique wrote:
Proof?
Mtn Dew is long on opinion, short on reasons.
He thinks that if he hits people over the head long enough and hard enough with a concept: "property rights" that this concept will somehow be clear, and rationally supported.
Mtn Dew = idjit wrote:
Mtn Dew is long on opinion, short on reasons.
He thinks that if he hits people over the head long enough and hard enough with a concept: "property rights" that this concept will somehow be clear, and rationally supported.
Hey, that's how they convinced us to invade Iraq.