Yesterday's decision essentially allows corporations and unions (but let's face it, unions are weaker than they have every been, and don't have nearly as much money as corporations do) to use as much money as they can to create political ads supporting candidates, with the stipulation that the ad identifies who is sponsoring it. Republicans hail this decision as a victory for free speech. They argue that we have an open market place of ideas and anyone should be allowed to pay for any ad supporting any political candidate or view one wants. Add to that the warped idea that corporations are people, and the denial of allowing corporations to do this amounts to denying a person their freedom of speech. The problem is, there are good reasons why we've restricted this.
The main reason is the issue of corruption by money in politics, not that there isn't already enough of that. If a corporation spends millions on ads supporting a candidate, then that corporation will have significant influence over that politician. Furthermore, a corporation can bribe or blackmail politicians with the threat or offer to spend millions on getting him or her elected. Politicians are already representing the interests of corporations rather than the interests of the people, but now things are only going to get worse. Because let's face it, my letter to my congressman is going to have much less influence than Lehman Brothers letter that includes a 2 million dollar check. What this amounts to is the further concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy few and out of the hands of the people. This decision was anti-democratic and anti-freedom. Which shows that despite all the freedom rhetoric, Republicans don't really give a damn about freedom since the majority of corporate dollars goes to their candidates. Just like they really don't give a damn about judiciary activism, seeing as this decision was a result of that and I have yet to hear a Republican point that out.
So if you hated the amount of political ads that aired in the last election year then get ready, because you ain't seen nothing yet. And just know that most of those ads won't be for candidates that have your interest at heart, but rather for the banks, Wall Street, big insurance and energy companies.
6 comments:
Chris,
I'm curious if you think the "right" gets anything right? I mean your thoughts on this issue are clear that you disagree with the Supreme Court.
Your posts always seem to point out how the republican, libertarians and pretty much anyone except the dem's gets it wrong.
Do you think that the Dems are ever wrong? If so, could you cite a case for me?
You should check your facts on the amount of corporate contributions that go to Republicans versus Democrats. Does billionaire George Soros give anything to Republicans? NO. And as far as judicial activism is concerned, the principle doesn't really apply to the Supreme Court, whose DUTY it is to decide the constitutionality of any legislation when that legislation has been challenged. Is it time to go back to PoliSci 101 instead of grad school?
dave-
i've been doing some fact-checking over at the center for responsive politics. i will admit that i was surprised to find that democrats are more evenly funded by business and wall street than i thought. but republicans still seem to be funded more heavily by most industries. but still, dems are the ones most against this ruling, while reps seem thrilled with it. and i just can't help but feel naive to think that they are happy just for the sake of free speech. and i also think my original point holds that this reduces democracy.
judical activism, i believe, is when the judicial branch essentially changes the law by a ruling ala roe v wade. how is this ruling not JA then? it has changed decades old campaign finance laws. and if my memory doesn't fail me reps are the ones who cry foul over this.
joe-
http://chrisostrander.blogspot.com/2009/02/partisanship-fails-again.html
http://chrisostrander.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-understand-that-there-are-people.html
there. in the first post i argued that the stimulus package was too loaded with pet democratic projects rather than real stimulus, and that this was creating a harsh political climate. and in the second i state in the end that i would like to see more spending cuts from failing programs, and i even site a conservative columnist, david brooks, that i read and link to on this blog.
i just philosophically disagree with libertarians/american conservatives. and, philosophically i agree with progressives. so given the two crappy choices, i side with democrats the most.
oh, and democrats get abortion wrong.
Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of a court decision that actually made law. However, that is not what happened in this most recent decision. It was not "decades old" campaign finance law that was altered . . . it was McCain-Feingold, which is relatively recent.
The idea of free speech for corporations, distasteful as some may find it, has to be the consequence of placing other burdens on them. For example, we want the corporations to act like "persons" when it comes to social responsibility. We can't accept what the corporations have to say about things like the environment but not listen to what they have to say about other politically associated ideas.
from politifact's article discussing schumer's comments stating the the ruling overturns 100 years of legislation.:
"We also don't want to downplay the historical importance of the Citizens United ruling. The Citizens United case does overturn some notable precedents and laws. The majority opinion specifically said it was overturning a 1990 precedent, Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which said that the federal government could regulate corporate spending as laid out in the reforms of the 1970s. You could also argue that the Citizens United case overturns the campaign finance portion of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.
Schumer said the Supreme Court "decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures." But he ignores the fact that the ban on direct donations from corporations to campaigns still exists. And the oldest law that specifically banned independent expenditures dated to 1947. You could also argue that we should be dating this from the 1970s campaign finance laws, or even the 1990 Austin case. So he's exaggerating the scope of the ruling and how long the laws have been on the books. We rate Schumer's statement Barely True."
also, i don't see the difference even if it only altered mcain-feingold. the gripe about JA is a separation of powers issue. the judicial branch is doing the legislative branch's job.
i guess i also don't follow your logic as to why corporations need to be considered people to be socially responsible or obey laws and regulation.
Post a Comment