Supreme Court Allows Corporate Influence in Politics

[NoNameAtAll]

From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The decision could drastically alter who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in this year's crucial midterm elections. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the decades-old law that said companies and labor unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

"It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions," said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.

The opinion goes to the heart of laws dating back to the Gilded Age when Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 banning corporations from donating money directly to federal candidates. Though that prohibition still stands, the same can't be said for much of the century-long effort that followed to separate politics from corporate money.

The decision's most immediate effect is to permit corporate and union-sponsored political ads to run right up to the moment of an election, and to allow them to call for the election or defeat of a candidate. In presidential elections and in highly contested congressional contests, that could mean a dramatic increase in television advertising competing for time and public attention.

In the long term, corporations, their industry associations and labor unions are free to tap their treasuries to assist candidates, although the spending may not be coordinated with the candidates.

"It's going to be the Wild Wild West," said Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney who has represented several GOP presidential campaigns. "If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts ... it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions."

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."

Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.

"Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law," Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.

But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.

The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

FUCK. FUCK. FUCK.

I'd be an idiot to think corporations didn't already influence this, but to publicly ALLOW this shit?

We're so fucked.

[BK-201]

I agree with you on this account.

[Judas]

I'm glad to see the Supreme Court finally overturned these decisions. Of course unions and corporations should be allowed to support a candidate! It is only common sense that you want whoever is in office to reflect your opinions. After all, that is democracy, yes? The ability to have the government listen and incorporate your opinions into legislation?

I mean, as an individual, I can already fund politicians and ad campaigns in hopes of swinging people to see my side of things; a corporation, if so inclined, should be able to do the same, because they have opinions as well. Corporations and unions, of course, cannot and should not be able to vote, but does that inherently make them incapable of having an opinion? No. Think about it. If I run a medicare business, for example, do I want a president who will socialize/nationalize medicare? Of course not, that would absolutely ruin me! So what should I do? I should fund ad campaigns or things of that nature supporting my candidate so as to make people want to vote for my candidate rather than the one promoting socialized medicare, but previously you weren't able to because oh noes you are a business you are the devil. It's that kind of ridiculous anti-capitalist paranoia that inhibits these businesses from fighting for what they believe in and pursuing their goals through the system of democracy. In the end it's the individuals who vote; McDonalds doesn't mean shit at the polls, but that doesn't mean they can't try to get those individuals to see their side of things.

The idea of "corrupting a politician" is ridiculous. If donating money corrupts politicians, then we should stop anyone from donating. There is a difference between supporting certain groups and corruption. If enough ultra-conservative Christians are donating to you and voting for you, do you want to alienate them? Of course you fucking don't. But does that mean you're going to make Christianity the only state-recognized religion as soon as you get to office? No. It's going to make you think of them more, and perhaps try to do a few things for that demographic, which is what being a politician is about: representing the people who elect you in the government. They are citizens too so their opinion should be given a thought before we pass any legislation. The same way with a business; Microsoft is run by citizens too, so I should probably think about those people before I pass a bill banning Windows computers.

Besides, that's why we have a Congress, a Constitution, a Judicial Branch, states rights, and an election every two and a half minutes: if a politician is doing shit you don't want them to do, here's a thought - don't vote for them. Are too many other people voting for them? Well then that's Democracy, tough shit.

[quanta]

I would say more, but Judas covered it pretty well.

George Soros can already donate spend fucktons of money to support whatever causes he likes, why shouldn't Wal-Mart be able to?

The New York Times can endorse whatever candidates they like whenever they like, why shouldn't Wall Street or the Unions be able to?

Furthermore, you're pretty much kidding yourself if you think that such regulations really had a beneficial effect. All they accomplished other than muzzling the free speech of some was to change how money was donated. It's far better for donations and campaigns to be transparent and simple than for them to be covered by a slew of regulations and restrictions. Unions and corporations were already powerful forces in politics anyways.

Not to say that there aren't issues around this... Unions being allowed to run ad campaigns is problematic in the sense that their donation money can come straight out of the pockets of members who might not support those ads. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't literally mandatory to join a union in some states and industries; it's rather different than a business doing the same thing because a business pays its employees (their money isn't being used for something they don't like). But it's still preferable for unions to be allowed to say whatever they like than vice-versa.

[GKSB]

It is an invasion on our right to representation to allow uncontrolled political support by corporations because, even though under law a corporation is considered a separate entity, it has hugely disproportionate influence due to its size and resources than any real person. So, even if the majority of the population supported one candidate through money donations, a few large corporations (which are composed of people whose own political opinions are NOT factored into their employer's actions) could easily back another candidate in their favor and aid them substantially more, increasing their chance of winning highly. There's no sense in being naive about the fact that money is extremely important to a candidate's likelihood of winning - President Obama's own election is surely representative of this.

Essentially, corporations (and for that matter, extremely wealthy individuals) can heavily influence, say, an election to favor a candidate that supports them, despite the fact that it is not truly representative of the majority's will. Since the Constitution makes no reference to any entity other than the individual taking part in the election process, it only makes sense by our form of democracy to assure that the main concern of candidates is a voting demographic made up of individuals - not corporations, unions, and so on.

However, I'm also not foolish enough to believe we actually follow that kind of democracy any more. Nevertheless, total lack of restriction on large entities like businesses will help drown out the will of the huge amount of people who aren't involved in that sphere of influence and who aren't benefited by their successes.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Crepe Knight

[quanta]

It is an invasion on our right to representation to allow uncontrolled political support by corporations because, even though under law a corporation is considered a separate entity, it has hugely disproportionate influence due to its size and resources than any real person.

Disproportionate? Corporations are a significant proportion of employers in the U.S.

So, even if the majority of the population supported one candidate through money donations, a few large corporations (which are composed of people whose own political opinions are NOT factored into their employer's actions) could easily back another candidate in their favor and aid them substantially more, increasing their chance of winning highly. There's no sense in being naive about the fact that money is extremely important to a candidate's likelihood of winning - President Obama's own election is surely representative of this.

Actually, you'd probably be shocked by how little of an effect it might have compared to what you're thinking. Less is spent lobbying the government each year than is spent on chewing gum (Freakonomics IIRC). Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that employees are PAID by corporations. Not vice-versa. Corporations are obligated to fulfill any contracts they might have, but mostly they exist to make money. It's silly to think that the people they pay should be represented by the corporation. Those people have their own money if they want to donate.

And actually... Obama's election, although he owes a lot to unions and other typical liberal interests, was partly notable for how much small donor support he got.

Essentially, corporations (and for that matter, extremely wealthy individuals) can heavily influence, say, an election to favor a candidate that supports them, despite the fact that it is not truly representative of the majority's will. Since the Constitution makes no reference to any entity other than the individual taking part in the election process, it only makes sense by our form of democracy to assure that the main concern of candidates is a voting demographic made up of individuals - not corporations, unions, and so on.

The majority was hardly intended to be the be-all and end-all of U.S. politics. The senate alone should testify to how strongly the U.S. government resists the paradigm of truly equal representation on a per-individual basis. (As a sidenote: I believe this is mostly a good thing.)

However, I'm also not foolish enough to believe we actually follow that kind of democracy any more. Nevertheless, total lack of restriction on large entities like businesses will help drown out the will of the huge amount of people who aren't involved in that sphere of influence and who aren't benefited by their successes.

The U.S. never did follow that kind of democracy. You could about read some of the history of the ideological and political battle between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Or about how Hawaii was essentially conquered by Dole (The pineapple company). Or maybe something about the early titans of U.S. business, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. Any of these things ought to confirm the fact that things aren't really going to hell in a handbasket, the U.S. has never operated under the principal of equal influence per person (except in the most important way, which is that each person legally only gets one vote).

[GKSB]

I'm speaking specifically on the election and campaign progress, which is the end-all for any politician's thinking and action (we control the government through votes much more than voice, after all). Campaigning is undeniably a factor of money. Also, you prove my point, corporations do not represent the people they employ. Why should the size those people confer then give them that weight of representation in government (which was a theme I saw in previous posts)?

Obama may have recieved 'small' donor support, but that which he did receive was evidently enough to reject public funding and the spending restrictions that go along with it. His advertising was also extremely effective, you might note - his pre-election sheen was maintained through fall of 2009, before skepticism set in again.

I realize we have a system of removed representation and I recognize it's for the better. However, that has little to do with the fact that heavily interested non-government entities can significantly influence the actions of the government through increasingly unrestricted direct participation in the political process. This is removing the separation of government and people which you imply is ideal, because it allows more reach by businesses into politics outside of votes.

I know the history of the Federalists and Democratic Republicans, and I don't understand your point. They were concerned by division of government, which does not involve increasing the political powers of non-government entities such as businesses (probably because powerful companies or unions didn't exist in America at that time). Note I exclude political parties because their (idyllic) interest is representing the interests of the voters who are members of that party. I concede that business have affected politics ever since they became powerful enough to significantly do so; but by the government type we claim to have, it isn't justifiable.

Basically, it's loathsome to me to dance around the issue that actions like these give more political power to non-voter entities by pretending it's an issue of defending what is being undermined - the power of the individual in the political process and their right to free speech.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Crepe Knight

[quanta]

I'm speaking specifically on the election and campaign progress, which is the end-all for any politician's thinking and action (we control the government through votes much more than voice, after all). Campaigning is undeniably a factor of money. Also, you prove my point, corporations do not represent the people they employ. Why should the size those people confer then give them that weight of representation in government (which was a theme I saw in previous posts)?

You confuse two different things. Corporations can't vote. At all. This is a key point. They don't receive any weight of representation from their employees. They aren't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to vote one way or another. They are allowed to spend money to run ads. Running ads is political speech. Therefore it shouldn't be restricted. I'd also like to note that this ruling was not only for for-profit corporations; it also affected non-profits; the specific issue at hand was whether or not the government should be able to muzzle negative speech about a political candidate. It shouldn't be able to.

Obama may have recieved 'small' donor support, but that which he did receive was evidently enough to reject public funding and the spending restrictions that go along with it. His advertising was also extremely effective, you might note - his pre-election sheen was maintained through fall of 2009, before skepticism set in again.

Irrelevant.

I realize we have a system of removed representation and I recognize it's for the better. However, that has little to do with the fact that heavily interested non-government entities can significantly influence the actions of the government through increasingly unrestricted direct participation in the political process. This is removing the separation of government and people which you imply is ideal, because it allows more reach by businesses into politics outside of votes.

I only brought it up since you implied a strict equality of votes ought to exist.

I know the history of the Federalists and Democratic Republicans, and I don't understand your point. They were concerned by division of government, which does not involve increasing the political powers of non-government entities such as businesses (probably because powerful companies or unions didn't exist in America at that time). Note I exclude political parties because their (idyllic) interest is representing the interests of the voters who are members of that party. I concede that business have affected politics ever since they became powerful enough to significantly do so; but by the government type we claim to have, it isn't justifiable.

A bad example perhaps. I was thinking largely of the split between the two parties in terms of economics. The Federalists favored bankers, businesses, and trade. Hamilton's philosophy was very much one that favored businesses (in a way that democrats today would probably argue would be horribly destructive and the end of the nation).

Also, I like your lack of response to my example of Hawaii. What Dole did there is far more than any corporation could get away with now.

Also, it's perfectly justifiable for businesses to run political ads by the first amendment.

Basically, it's loathsome to me to dance around the issue that actions like these give more political power to non-voter entities by pretending it's an issue of defending what is being undermined - the power of the individual in the political process and their right to free speech.

I'm not dancing around the issue. The restriction of political speech on the part of entities with explicit political interests is bad. People form corporations to gain leverage and pool assets (and limited liability of course), and to block corporations from running ads is restricting people's speech even if you might consider it not to be or indirect (HINT: it's a roadblock for political nonprofits formed by groups of individuals who want to say something about candidates in the elections). And how the hell does it undermine the individual's right to free speech? Nothing changed there. You can still say whatever you want. There is no guarantee anyone has to listen to you though and there never was. And the individual's power in the political process? It hasn't been undermined. The individual is the only one who can vote. That's all 90% of individuals probably ever do or did. They still can. Corporations being allowed to run political ads more directly does not magically prevent individuals from voting. There are already tons of political ads few of which were funded directly by one or two individuals, should we restrict all of their political speech too? How about you just can't run an ad unless your a candidate or personally wealthy (because this is basically what you are arguing ought to happen)?

You make the mistake of thinking that somehow because one group is now allowed to say more, all other groups have had their right to speech assaulted.