America agrees that campaign money is free speech

[abe23]

Interesting poll. I wonder what would happen if you changed the wording slightly... "Should corporations receive the same constitutional protections that citizens enjoy" or "Should there be limits and regulations on corporate money in political campaigning".

The thing that really irks me about this decision is that if we give corporations and special interests first amendment rights, do they also benefit from other constitutional rights designed for individuals. Can a corporation or a union invoke it's right not to incriminate itself and refuse to make any statement to law enforcement or regulators?

And by the way, I know some of you want to think of this as a left vs right issue, but it really isn't. Conservatives need to be up in arms about this as much as liberals. All you constitutionalists on here should be as well.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Interesting poll. I wonder what would happen if you changed the wording slightly... "Should corporations receive the same constitutional protections that citizens enjoy" or "Should there be limits and regulations on corporate money in political campaigning".

The thing that really irks me about this decision is that if we give corporations and special interests first amendment rights, do they also benefit from other constitutional rights designed for individuals. Can a corporation or a union invoke it's right not to incriminate itself and refuse to make any statement to law enforcement or regulators?

And by the way, I know some of you want to think of this as a left vs right issue, but it really isn't. Conservatives need to be up in arms about this as much as liberals. All you constitutionalists on here should be as well.

As long as we are doing imaginary push-polling, I've got one:

Should political speech be suppressed by the government?

It's a yes or no question.

 

[abe23]

As long as we are doing imaginary push-polling, I've got one:

Should political speech be suppressed by the government?

It's a yes or no question.

I don't think that would be push-polling any more than the question in the actual poll, but yea, that was my point. The wording plays a huge role...

So let's hear it Johnny, I'm curious. Should interest groups and corporations be treated the same way as individuals as far as constitutional rights are concerned?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I don't think that would be push-polling any more than the question in the actual poll, but yea, that was my point. The wording plays a huge role...

So let's hear it Johnny, I'm curious. Should interest groups and corporations be treated the same way as individuals as far as constitutional rights are concerned?

Taxing an entity, but depriving it of the right of free speech is not acceptable.

In answer to your question: Yes, which brings me to an interesting point.

You are aware that McCain-Feingold did exempt certain corporations from its restrictions are you not?

James Taranto writes:

McCain-Feingold, in other words, granted a small group of companies, including the New York Times Co., the privilege to speak freely about politics, while denying it to all other corporations--not only "companies . . . that exist to make money," but also taxable nonprofits that exist to represent a point of view, including the advocacy arms of the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html#printMode

Fair is fair, Abe.

 

[figtree]

I'm not sure if anyone has thought of this but what about foreign corporations? this new law does not make a distinction for foreign corps. can a foreign corporatation also make political contributions to our government and in turn now run our gov?

 

[abe23]

Taxing an entity, but depriving it of the right of free speech is not acceptable.

In answer to your question: Yes, which brings me to an interesting point.

You are aware that McCain-Feingold did exempt certain corporations from its restrictions are you not?

James Taranto writes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html#printMode

Fair is fair, Abe.

Mccain-feingold made exemptions for public advocacy groups but that's what made it work. The point of that legislation was to limit the influence of corporate money on elections and it did that fairly well. What has been gained by this bullshit decision. Whose rights are protected?

So if Exxon-Mobil, BAE and Blackwater have the same rights as you and me, can they invoke their fifth amendment right not to incriminate themselves if asked about corruption, murder or oil spills? It's insane to go down that road of saying that corporations should be treated like people...

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Mccain-feingold made exemptions for public advocacy groups but that's what made it work. The point of that legislation was to limit the influence of corporate money on elections and it did that fairly well. What has been gained by this bullshit decision. Whose rights are protected?

So if Exxon-Mobil, BAE and Blackwater have the same rights as you and me, can they invoke their fifth amendment right not to incriminate themselves if asked about corruption, murder or oil spills? It's insane to go down that road of saying that corporations should be treated like people...

Protecting free speech serves my rights just fine regardless of the target of government suppression: Larry Flynt or Citizens United.

So let me get this straight....

It's okay for the New York Times Co. to express opinion of a political nature, but it is not okay for the ACLU or the Sierra Club?

If corporations should not be treated as individual entities under the law then that means they should not be taxed, or sued.

You're not saying that are you Abe?

I say rights are inseparable from responsibilities in a free and just society that values the rule of law.

 

[Man o' the green]

This "dead law" is one more example of government knowing better than the individual : We trust our government to keep us safe from harm. The laws we have and the military we have are to protect us as individuals and maintain our rights.
These powers given to the government by the people do not include protection from everything, only life, liberty and property.
This is just like healthcare in its philosophy, that the government knows best and can protect us. Protect us from evil corporations, insurance companies, our own stupidity.
Arrogant and foolish.
In addition, any group, whether profit-driven or not, is a reflection of one person or many people's opinions. Just because the playing field is not level in terms of money does not mean that the message is less valid.
But, above all, the people are not "too stupid" to understand what is going on around them. If news or political advertising is inaccurate or biased, then it is the individual's right and responsibility to decide if that information is valid, not the government. If the message is suspect, find another source. With the government making the decision of what is "fair" or "correct", your free choice of source is no longer free. Government does not offer you choice. Government allows you to choose what is acceptable.
"The government knows better" has been tried many times, with the same result.
Healthcare, Campaign finance, The fairness doctrine. All good examples of transferring rights from the individual to the government. Something tells me that the constitution prohibits this.

One other thing : Of course every politician would prefer the old way of manipulating the public with these campaign laws, they favor incumbents

 

[abe23]

Protecting free speech serves my rights just fine regardless of the target of government suppression: Larry Flynt or Citizens United.

So let me get this straight....

It's okay for the New York Times Co. to express opinion of a political nature, but it is not okay for the ACLU or the Sierra Club?

If corporations should not be treated as individual entities under the law then that means they should not be taxed, or sued.

You're not saying that are you Abe?

I say rights are inseparable from responsibilities in a free and just society that values the rule of law.

I think you've gotten a good enough grasp of my politics to know that I'm most definitely NOT saying that, Johnny.

Individuals and corporations don't have the same legal status and that's a good thing. The press obviously has a special status, as do 'civil society' type organizations like the nra, aclu, sierra club. There is a line somewhere and it does get blurry, which is why we need the supreme court to decide where that is. But to say that there should be not limits on corporate money in politics on the basis that it's free speech and protected under the first amendment is abhorrently wrong in my view. It's almost self-evident why there needs to be a curb on corporate money in politics and our nation's brief history is a perfect case study to illustrate that point. I'm gonna go with that rather than trying to find the broadest possible interpretation of the bill of rights....

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I think you've gotten a good enough grasp of my politics to know that I'm most definitely NOT saying that, Johnny.

Individuals and corporations don't have the same legal status and that's a good thing. The press obviously has a special status, as do 'civil society' type organizations like the nra, aclu, sierra club. There is a line somewhere and it does get blurry, which is why we need the supreme court to decide where that is. But to say that there should be not limits on corporate money in politics on the basis that it's free speech and protected under the first amendment is abhorrently wrong in my view. It's almost self-evident why there needs to be a curb on corporate money in politics and our nation's brief history is a perfect case study to illustrate that point. I'm gonna go with that rather than trying to find the broadest possible interpretation of the bill of rights....

Abe I think you misunderstand. McCain-Feingold prohibited those 'civil society type' organizations along with corporations. Look up the Wellstone Amendment. Senator Wellstone (RIP) could not muzzle only the groups he opposed so he chose to silence them all. And Congress agreed with him. President Bush did, too.

The Wellstone Amendment offered a select few corporations privileges not available to others under the Act. There is a reason why freedom of speech and the press are included together in the same clause within the First Amendment.

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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights keeps the camel's nose on the outside of the tent. A broad interpretation best protects a diverse population; but most of all, it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

A narrow view of the Fourteenth Amendment would state that abortion is not a privacy issue. Regardless of my personal views on abortion, I understand it is a privacy issue.

With the Constitution, sometimes we must accept things with which we do not agree. The Constitution is not selective. It protects all of us, or none of us.

 

[jeff f]

Interesting poll. I wonder what would happen if you changed the wording slightly... "Should corporations receive the same constitutional protections that citizens enjoy" or "Should there be limits and regulations on corporate money in political campaigning".

The thing that really irks me about this decision is that if we give corporations and special interests first amendment rights, do they also benefit from other constitutional rights designed for individuals. Can a corporation or a union invoke it's right not to incriminate itself and refuse to make any statement to law enforcement or regulators?

And by the way, I know some of you want to think of this as a left vs right issue, but it really isn't. Conservatives need to be up in arms about this as much as liberals. All you constitutionalists on here should be as well.

unions always could contribute as well as there members.

if walmart wanted to contribute for its employees, you are saying they shouldnt be able to? but your "union" can contribute without so much as a vote from its members? the union equals walmart. get it? thats the main difference.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Libs think unions, acorn and illegal aliens have every right to be involved in politics, but corprorations as groups of citizens do not. What a surprise.

 

[Mcgician]

All the McCain/Feingold BS did was create more creative, more preposterous, and even more sadistic, fucked up loopholes for so called "non-profit" groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org. They've been caught red-handed with trying to get illegals to vote, prostitution rings renamed as tax deductions, and and human smuggling aided in every possible sense. All the while, Americans with common sense that feel such things are WAY out of the realm of what the American dream and free speech are about have stolen from them one of their powerful voices. Corporations are easy targets, especially by the "stoner" crowd. Hate and and uneducated opinion on something more complex than "corporations are bad" is obviously prominent among the masses. Thank God for the electoral college! Lol.

 

[abe23]

Abe I think you misunderstand. McCain-Feingold prohibited those 'civil society type' organizations along with corporations. Look up the Wellstone Amendment. Senator Wellstone (RIP) could not muzzle only the groups he opposed so he chose to silence them all. And Congress agreed with him. President Bush did, too.

The Wellstone Amendment offered a select few corporations privileges not available to others under the Act. There is a reason why freedom of speech and the press are included together in the same clause within the First Amendment.
A broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights keeps the camel's nose on the outside of the tent. A broad interpretation best protects a diverse population; but most of all, it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

A narrow view of the Fourteenth Amendment would state that abortion is not a privacy issue. Regardless of my personal views on abortion, I understand it is a privacy issue.

With the Constitution, sometimes we must accept things with which we do not agree. The Constitution is not selective. It protects all of us, or none of us.

I hadn't really looked into the details of mccain-feingold to be honest and I wasn't aware of the distinction, which is pretty arbitrary and an overreach but what I posted wasn't about that specifically. I just meant that free-speech isn't a 'one-size-fits-all" type deal.

I don't see how it benefits the rights of individuals' free speech when this ruling basically give business interests a green light to drown out OUR voices. Everyone who works for walmart, goldman sachs or exxon can make contributions to political campaign just like you and me.

Also, just putting all constitutional issues aside for a moment, in the age of lobbying firms, PACs and gigantic political campaigns, do we real need MORE money and BETTER representation for business interests?

 

[abe23]

unions always could contribute as well as there members.

if walmart wanted to contribute for its employees, you are saying they shouldnt be able to? but your "union" can contribute without so much as a vote from its members? the union equals walmart. get it? thats the main difference.

Yea, but walmart represents the interests of it's shareholders not those of it's employees. Unions ostensibly represent the interests of their members directly (you might argue that they suck at doing that but that's a different story...), which is also why it's different for NORML, the NRA or similar advocacy groups.

 

[buddha sack]

I agree with Jeff F

 

[PadawanBater]

Someone explain to me how exactly, or why any big corporation would contribute money to any candidate set on serving the American people's best interest? Issues like cleaning and keeping the environment clean, improving the nations public education, rebuilding the infrastructure, etc.. Don't these issues go contrary to the goals most corporations have, which is profit? What would any corporation gain from possibly putting a president in the White House whose going to eliminate or severely weaken the way that corporation does business? It seems obvious to me they wouldn't. Just like we saw with what happened to Ron Pauls campaign this last election, and to a lesser extent Nader.

Say goodbye to being able to tell your kids "you can be anything you want to be if you try hard enough", because that's not the case anymore for a lot of elected offices.

 

[RickWhite]

The question poses a dilemma. On one hand, we don't want politicians to be beholden to special interests or being influenced by them. We want politicians free to do what their conscience dictates.

The problem is, how do we ensure that everyone has the same voice. The answer isn't easy. If we say corporation X can not give money to a politician's campaign, what about other groups. What about Michael Moore and his far Left crockumentaries. People like Moore have a big voice as do talk show hosts on the Right. And what about those lobbying for good causes. Clearly we don't want to stop people from lobbying for good causes.

Unless we can come up with a solution that answers all these questions it looks like the free market is going to be our best bet.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I hadn't really looked into the details of mccain-feingold to be honest and I wasn't aware of the distinction, which is pretty arbitrary and an overreach but what I posted wasn't about that specifically. I just meant that free-speech isn't a 'one-size-fits-all" type deal.

I don't see how it benefits the rights of individuals' free speech when this ruling basically give business interests a green light to drown out OUR voices. Everyone who works for walmart, goldman sachs or exxon can make contributions to political campaign just like you and me.

Also, just putting all constitutional issues aside for a moment, in the age of lobbying firms, PACs and gigantic political campaigns, do we real need MORE money and BETTER representation for business interests?

What really torqued me when this was enacted was that Bush said he knew parts of it were unconstitutional, but he was willing to let the courts sort it out later.

In my opinion that was a violation of the Presidential Oath of Office. He chose not to protect and defend the Constitution.

In answer to your last question: They will figure a way to do it anyway legally. Build a better mousetrap and they develop and deploy a more advanced mouse. Political Action Groups are a perfect example.

Meanwhile the system gets more complex and convoluted, which makes it harder for the little guy to see what is really going on while simultaneously makes it easier for the big players to game the system.

And worst of all, it gives incumbents more leverage.

That is why I disagree with McCain-Feingold beyond the fundamental Constitutional issues.

Someone explain to me how exactly, or why any big corporation would contribute money to any candidate set on serving the American people's best interest? Issues like cleaning and keeping the environment clean, improving the nations public education, rebuilding the infrastructure, etc.. Don't these issues go contrary to the goals most corporations have, which is profit? What would any corporation gain from possibly putting a president in the White House whose going to eliminate or severely weaken the way that corporation does business? It seems obvious to me they wouldn't. Just like we saw with what happened to Ron Pauls campaign this last election, and to a lesser extent Nader.

Say goodbye to being able to tell your kids "you can be anything you want to be if you try hard enough", because that's not the case anymore for a lot of elected offices.

That restriction remains in place. McCain-Feingold was not completely overturned. Corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates. This ruling reversed the 60-day blackout period prior to an election prohibiting organizations and corporations from airing ads.

 

[tinyTURTLE]

The question poses a dilemma. On one hand, we don't want politicians to be beholden to special interests or being influenced by them. We want politicians free to do what their conscience dictates.

The problem is, how do we ensure that everyone has the same voice. The answer isn't easy. If we say corporation X can not give money to a politician's campaign, what about other groups. What about Michael Moore and his far Left crockumentaries. People like Moore have a big voice as do talk show hosts on the Right. And what about those lobbying for good causes. Clearly we don't want to stop people from lobbying for good causes.

Unless we can come up with a solution that answers all these questions it looks like the free market is going to be our best bet.

repealing corporate personhood would eliminate this problem altogether. you wanted an answer. that is the answer.