Campaign funding free-for-all?

Unfortunately for our country the government of the people, by the people, for the people has become a government of special interests, by special interests, for special interests, and in all fairness that is a truly bi-partisan circumstance that can be found in Washington and at all levels of government regardless of who is in power.

The recent examples of millions of dollars in donations from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to the Sen. Brown campaign, and the donations from an electric company to a Senator from Alaska that has submitted a bill to block energy legislation that affects her benefactors are just the latest examples of business interferrence and manipulation in policy-making.

It is likely that Brown would have won without those political contributions, and that the energy legislation may be flawed, but I would certainly feel a lot better is decisions were made based on logic and merit rather than who paid the most.

It's no good, I've been trying really, really hard, but I shall never understand the USA.

I thought everybody was worried about the huge amounts of dosh that gets spent on electioneering? And agreed it needed to be curbed? Let alone the influence that organisations with a lot of loose cash lying around can bring to bear?

And now big corporations can spend as much as they like to get their own 'favourite' elected? I suppose it'll save on the lobbyists and their plain brown envelopes. They won't really be needed now, will they?

Why not just give big business the right to elect senators themselves and save the hassle and the expense? You could base it on the valuation on the stock market; Microsoft could elect three, say, GE and Pfizer two, Boeing one and so on.

Anybody know if this just applies to US-based companies, corporations or organisations, or can anyone join in? GazProm? Electricite de France? The People's Liberation Army? The Asociation of Fundamentalist Madrassas? Er, the NHS next time the US tries to do something about health reform?

I begin to see interesting possibilities.

What about those 'US' companies that actually have their registered head offices outside the US? There's at least one in the Bahamas, I think.

Ref. 7, squirrelist:

Oh, I don't know. You do ok.

"I thought everybody was worried about the huge amounts of dosh that gets spent on electioneering? And agreed it needed to be curbed?"

Yes to the first and yes, but it doesn't matter to the second.

Yes, Americans are worried that money plays too much a part in the election of our leaders, and we know that Amercian corporations have more money than God, but they get that money from us, and they get it by selling us stuff. If a corporation becomes obviously partisan, it runs the risk of angering half of their customers. The affect will be that of an undeclared boycott which, while certainly not cutting off more than say a few percentage points off the corporation's income, would be very hard on their quarterly reports. The officers of corporations must make money to keep their jobs. Bottom line: corporate America is aware that the People do not like them interfering in politics and most corporations will continue to give money to both sides.

It doesn't matter what the majority thinks in this case. The Constitution takes precedence. We could amend it, but the Bill of Rights is the most sacred of sacred cows in America. We don't dare touch it.

squirrelist (#7) "It's no good, I've been trying really, really hard, but I shall never understand the USA."

That's evident, but I will have a go at explaining it anyway.

There is a saying that we (in the US) "have a government of laws, not of men" (probably first stated in that form by John Adams). Our highest law is our written Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. The latter is the principle of judicial review, first asserted explicitly by our fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, and ever since accepted by our other branches of government.

The notion of a corporation having the rights of a person dates from 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company <http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html>. It is a good example of how constitutional law is developed through interpretations and decisions of the Court, as the Constitution itself does not anticipate every situation explicitly. The theory behind this particular interpretation is that people do not lose their individual rights when they come together in associations. (A corporation is merely one form of association, as stated in the present USSC case.)

This is a different view of corporations than exists, for example, in Canada (I provided a link to a comparison of Canada with the US on this subject in a previous thread.) That may be unfortunate, but that's the way it is. The division of the Court was 5-4, however (as it so often is), indicating that the matter of regulating corporate expenditures is not exactly cut-and-dried. (That's an American idiom, I suppose; perhaps it means something else in UK.)

To regulate corporate expenditures in the US for political purposes, it is not sufficient that everybody be worried about the consequences of large corporations spending their money in this way; it is necessary that the law be changed. Because the law is built on several Supreme Court precedents, this would require a constitutional amendment -- not an easy thing to do.

Ref. 13, squirrelist:

"Anybody know if this just applies to US-based companies..."

No, all foreign entities are barred from trying to influence American elections in any way. In the case of corporations, it would have to be registered with a state to take part (that act is what makes it a corporation), and even Delaware requires that the corporation be based in the U.S., which means it comes under U.S. tax and other laws and has to submit to U.S. government regulation.

To add to my previous remarks, the document to which I linked in #17 contains not only the USSC decision, but also a brief introduction. The introduction likens the ownership of a corporation by its stockholders to slavery, which is of course illegal. This is nonsense and not worthy of being given any consideration. By linking this document, I do not imply any endorsement of the introduction (or for that the matter the decision).

More of the same. Joy.

I'm an ex-pat, married to an american, and living in Michigan. I dread election time...every commercial is from some special interest group or candidate promising the end of the world if you vote for the other guy...or that the other guy will eat, has already eaten, or will allow others to eat your children etc etc.

It wouldn't be so bad...but 'election' season here runs for months and months. I've already seen ads for some senate re-election campaigns as early as October of last year...13 months before the election ! Most of them run fast-and-loose with the truth, twisting the facts to suit their case, and avoiding those that contradict...

Now we potentially have a huge new reservoir of funding for more of the same.

What's next -

Congressman Jim Republican R-TX (bought to you in part by Exxon, put a tiger in your Oversight Commitee)

Senator Bill Democrat D-NY (bought to you in part by Phenoxinudrug, same results, new formulation, from your friends at GlaxSmithBeechSquib)

Maybe they can wear Advertising placards on their business suits...

Andy Post (#11), that is the conservative position, but you are avoiding the crux of the matter. The question is whether when Madison (and others) used the word "people" (or "persons") they meant to include corporations as an individual entity along with living, breathing people.

Corporations are formed by people, of course, and these people naturally retain their individual rights, but the substantive question is whether, when governments grant charters permitting the formation of corporate entities which allow money to raised and held separately from the assets of the shareholders, the use of money so raised can be regulated. I don't believe the answer to this question is so trivial as you make it seem.

Ref. 22, zaphodian:

"But it does, those corporations aren't giving those millions away due to homespun charity, they're doing it because they're getting something for it,"

No kidding. Corporations always act in their own self interest. It's illegal for them intentionally not to do so. The American people have a legitimate interest in having the government help corporate America. Corporate America creates jobs.

" & now they can get more, & unless you're a shareholder you wont be considered at all. This decision is utterly ludicrous & it's not going to help at all."

What they get is a place in line. They get their lobbyists accepted. It's pretty much a case of the government taking a chunk off the top of corporate profits just because it can. It's really a virtual tax. This decision will result in a big increase in that tax.

The big corporations have unfettered access to politicians already. Now they have to pay for our elections. Before this it was much cheaper for them.

26. At 8:21pm on 21 Jan 2010, squirrelist wrote:

I propose a new version of Godwin's Law, to be called "Squirrel's Law":

All internet discussions on America inevitably end praising the American Constitution irrespective of whether it's common sense or not.

:) It does cause some trouble doesn't it? I'm still undecided as to whether America is better off for having concrete documents to argue over or we are for assuming our rights exist regardless of proof. I'm swayed by all the semantics involved here & now though, as soon as there's any kind of confusion about what was meant when what was written was written everything that was at stake has gone, it's an odd world.

Ref. 34, zaphodian wrote:

"...we are for assuming our rights exist regardless of proof."

Having very near a millennium of history does make a difference, yes. In fact I would say a huge difference. America doesn't have that kind of anchoring influence. We're still trying to find out just who we are. It keeps changing.

We have so many cultures within our borders. The only thing that really binds us together is the rule of law. If that goes, it's game over.

  17. At 8:04pm on 21 Jan 2010, GH1618 wrote:

"The theory behind this particular interpretation is that people do not lose their individual rights when they come together in associations."

I don't see the relevance. If all the shareholders in a company were identifiable individuals, I can see how the theory would equate to practice. But in big corporations, or multi-nationals, in the latter 20 years or so at least, that .hasn't been the case. And it's those that will be spending on political campaigns; not the mom-and-pop business with 20 shares spread around the family.

Ref. 35, zaphodian :

"Maybe so but surely the more they pay then the further up the line they get,..."

Nope, the recently replaced CEO of the corporation I work for (not even 500 employees) got an invitation to the White House to discuss how the stimulus money should be allocated for our business sector. You don't get much higher up than that! The CEOs of the biggest corporations can even talk with the President if need be. It isn't instant access, though, and they'd better have a really good reason.

"...yes there'll be more money if there's a bidding war but it's going to make it harder to say no as the sums of money go critical."

The government relies on lobbyists to do a lot of the work for it. Politicians are mostly lawyers. Smart guys, but they don't really know much about anything but the law. When it comes to setting standards and creating regulations for emerging technologies for instance, they're clueless. How could they not be? All fields of endeavor require expertise of some sort. That expertise is required to make decent laws.

I also have a feeling that Americans are approaching saturation when it comes to political ads.

"... appreciate that the corporations have to act in their best interests but remain unconvinced that they'll ever act in yours."

They already do for me and for just about all of my friends. They pay us very well and then pay for our health care to boot, which is really of very high quality. I wish the rest of the country had access to it.

They also rely on us to get stuff done. Corporate slaves we are not... ahem, but I do have to get some work done today.

This ruling disgraces every soldier and veteran who is/has served, been injured or died for the sake of freedom and democracy in our country.

I am very distraught and heartbroken over this awful ruling. It is as if the Bush cronies are still at it, in the form of the two justices Bush elected during his term.

A corporation is not a person. A person is a living, breathing being that is born and dies. A corporation is a network of investors (sometimes foreign) with their own agendas. Yes, they pay taxes. But this still does not make them a person. Corporations are not alive and they are not a US citizen.

I am praying that President Obama and Congress will pass a new law stating that a corporation is not a person and does not deserve the same rights as a person.

This ruling is not about freedom of speech. It is about greedy corporations legally taking over our country and destroying democracy.


What's next, computers and robots? Will artificial intelligence be allowed to be classified as a person?

Ref 28, GH1618

"Corporations are formed by people, of course, and these people naturally retain their individual rights, but the substantive question is whether, when governments grant charters permitting the formation of corporate entities which allow money to raised and held separately from the assets of the shareholders, the use of money so raised can be regulated. I don't believe the answer to this question is so trivial as you make it seem."

Very true, particularly when we are talking about small business, but when it comes to large conglomerates and multi-nationals we are not dealing with individuals interested in a specific policy or legislation, but a large interest group interested in shaping policy to support its interests...which sometimes conflict with the interests of private citizens.

Incidentally, this issue is not limited to corporations and labor unions, churches and other institutions, many of them non-profit and tax-exempt, often influence policy to achieve specific social or religious goals.

This issue is, obviously, very complex, which is one of the reasons it has not been solved, but it is infuriating when you see a large group with huge financial resources get their way and influence policy that is often detrimental to the little guy.

28 GH1618

You are exactly right about the "Corporation as person" fallacy. 1886 was in the midst of the "gilded age" of untrammeled commercial power in the U.S., the age of monopolies, an era in which it was generally acknowledged that politicians, from presidents to Congress, represented the interests of big business. So it is ironic indeed that so much of subsequent American law is based on a situation that was quickly checked at least in part by the original Progressive Movement (Republican Teddy Roosevelt included) and the brave muckraking journalists.

Still- what else can this Court reverse? Perhaps direct election of senators?

The voice of the individual is drowning, and this is another step down the long road toward hereditary oligarchy.

Another shockingly bad decision by the right wing on this court.

The Founding Fathers meant to protect the speech of the individual and freedom of the press. They did not mean to protect corporations and unions from spending huge sums of money on their candidates...

It's ironic that the right wing are always using "originalism" and "textualism" of the US Constitition...i.e. "where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to healthcare?" A fair point...but perhaps the right wing can tell me where in the Constitution it says that corporations and unions paying money to politicians is "speech."

What happens if the corporation has China as a majority shareholder? Interesting.

If corporations want to be treated as indivduals when it suits them, perhaps they should be treated like individuals for all purposes. Perhaps they can also be criminally prosecuted and given the death penalty where appropriate, or given a long "prison sentence" where the corporation is not allowed to do business for 25 to life!

The whole idea of "corporate personhood" is a legal fiction.

The Supreme Court has probably already been 'bought' by big business interests and tragically, it's probably just a matter of time before American influence on the rest of the world doesn't make Britain follow suit.

My belief is that the CEOs of today are the emperors and tsars of tomorrow. They will own everything, the judiciary and army will be controlled by a minority of rich men and the people will no longer have democracy.

Basically, a return to the dark ages.

The portion of the McCain-Feingold Law which was struck down by the Supreme Court is a reasonable judgment. (The entire Law was not struck down in the decision.) If anyone thinks that the wording struck out of the Law was actually inhibiting the flow of campaign funding from corporations, I have a bridge and a tunnel in Detroit I will sell to you at markdown prices. (Bill of Sale and Deeds printed on authentic, high-quality copier paper.) Campaign funding has grown since the law was enacted, not decreased. From where did that money originate? Now it may become easier to track who is giving how much to whom so that we may become a better informed electorate.

Politicians and their campaign committees are the ones deciding how those contributions are spent in support of their campaign. We get bombarded by media advertising throughout the campaign that is usually annoying. Attack ads used by candidates against each other always convince me the candidates are hopelessly corrupt and complete idiots, as stated in the attack. I find it very easy to believe all the attack ads. They do such a good job attacking one another, they lose my vote.

What if a candidate who was campaigning that they will "Rebuild America" actually demonstrated that they would do so by physically rebuilding something, of public interest, using campaign funds for the renovation?

McCain raised 352 million dollars for his campaign. Michigan was written off early in the campaign as an Obama State. We saw very little of Candidate McCain in this State throughout the Presidential election campaign. What effect might it have had if the McCain Campaign came to Detroit and stated their candidate was committed to "Rebuilding Detroit" and put people to work renovating the Belle Isle Conservatory on the public park of Belle Isle? The public structure is old and in need of repairs.

McCain could have kicked off the renovation in person, then made regular trips to monitor the renovation throughout the campaign. Plenty of news coverage. People would gather to see and hear him speak each time he returned to monitor progress. A tasteful sign would designate "McCain is Rebuilding Detroit" as a constant reminder of McCain rebuilding America. $100-150 thousand would have done a lot of badly needed renovation to a public structure. Voters would go to Belle Isle to watch progress.

$100 thousand dollars would not have bought much media advertising time nor space. $100 thousand dollars working to renovate a public park structure would stay in the hearts and minds much longer than a 30 second sound byte.

Now expand these small projects across the Nation. Each project another beacon of McCain "Rebuilding America". Each project getting local, regional, and National news coverage.

Would it equate to votes at the polls?

Would the gesture have remained as a positive reminder of what a Republican candidate had done for the people of the City of Detroit and the many people from outside the city who visit the park and the Conservatory?

If candidates were to do something on this order I would welcome every cent a corporation donated to the political campaigns and encourage them to give through buying their products and services.

Just an idea.

 Ref 50, David

"Surely this a backwards move, giving more power to corporations, who are at leastly partially foreign owned?"

I agree, but in an oblique way it simply legalizes something that was going on anyway. The McCain-Feingold Law, while well intended and desperately needed, was unenforceable. The system is so corrupt that making it legal may be the only way to achieve transparency and give it a semblance of morality.

At least we may now hear first hand what the CEOs of Exxon-Mobil, AIG, the head of the Teamsters, and advocates of divine intervention have in store for us mortals. Personally, I plan to vote for whomever is not endorsed by any interest group.

Ref 83 squirrelist-

"Would it? Seems to me it would be perfectly easy to set up a "Polar Bears for Palin as President Inc." subsidiary, put in a few nonentities on the board and a few million into its bank account and it's "Roll cameras! Action!"."

That was what was taking place to circumvent the portion of the McCain-Feingold Law that was just struck down by the Court. The 527 organizations grew in number once McCain-Feingold became law.

McCain-Feingold was just a poorly written law that has been steadily shot full of holes through a number of legal actions because it was so poorly written. People reacting to this latest decision by the Supreme Court have not been paying attention. McCain-Feingold was little more than a shell after Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. in 2007.

There are other ugly aspects beyond advertising. For example attempts by a major political party (which I will not name) to prevent Ralph Nader from running for office by trying to bankrupt his campaign via litigation.

The BBC doesn't really help either. It's always just a case of bouncing between Democrats and Republicans. Politics should be much wider than this. Where are the BBC articles exploring the idea that neither the Democrats or the Republics actually have the the best interests of the US public at heart?