APP - Why Citizens United is a Sound Decision

Yurt said:
since the other thread is just a poppycock by rune and one in which he will not debate. i decided to start a real thread on the issue.

let us examine the first amendment:



are corporations or other organizations denied the right to petition the government for redress? to peaceably assemble? of course not. in fact, YOU and other liberals cry foul when unions tried to organize but were denied at some event in WI. you would not deny unions the right of redress or assembly. therefore, how is it you can deny them the exercise of speech in political campaigns.

FACT: when unions spend millions, liberal have zero problem with it. (except nigel). the only issue is - who - is spending the money.

CONCLUSION: liberals are hypocrites on this issue and cannot support their stance that citizens was a bad decision. corps cannot give directly, they can only advertise their opinions. this is a two way street given their ads must be disclosed. if they make an ad, customers are free to not give their business. if you want to deny corporations the exercise of speech in politics, then you MUST also deny ANY AND ALL organizations the exercise of that right.
Click to expand...

I am not quite as annoyed by CU itself as the case that came about a month afterward that depended on it (and is often confused with it), SpeechNOW.org v. FEC, which authorized unlimited contributions to SuperPACs as long as these SuperPACs are not directly related to the campaign (or, to put it more cynically, maintain a legal fiction of being independent). These SuperPACs are fully free to make statements in favor or against candidates. This case relied on the arguments made in Citizens United that independent expenditures do not create actual or apparent quid pro quo. Logically, if the quid pro quo argument cannot be used to prohibit corporations from making contributions, they shouldn't apply to caps either.

However, while a corporations 5k or so contribution can easily get lost amongst many other contributions, thus creating at least some distance from the quid pro quo, the sheer magnitude of SuperPACs makes it fully possible that you'll have candidates who's electoral success be significantly dependent on a one or two rich individuals. The court is incredibly naive if it believes that there is no clear quid pro quo there, as if, when the rich donor who spent a million on advertising in a candidates favor walks in the door, his opinion is not going to be given many times the weight of a normal voters. It is lochnerizing when it substitutes it's own judgement about the possibility of quid pro quo for that of the legislatures.

We have cases now where, for instance, there've been campaigns that have been relatively even for months, and then a SuperPAC will come in a the last two weeks or so and bombard the area with ads with millions in out of state money from billionaires, significantly swinging things in one candidates favor. Can we pretend as if these individuals are making this spending with no intention of getting it back in some way? Can we pretend as if there is no significant interest created there, or as if society has no rational interest in regulating the creation of such a large interest for candidates and public officials conflicting with that of the voters in their own districts?
 
Dixie said:
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Hmmm... let me seeeeee? AssHate or SCOTUS?
Who is the better authority on constitutionality?
Hmmmmmm.... such a tough choice there! Thinking....thinking....
Click to expand...

This was a recent 5-4 ruling. For the sake of tradition, I think public officials should defer to supreme court judgement's, as the alternative would be the creation of hundreds of different "constitutions" around the country as different branches of governments around the country apply their own interpretations, usually to their own political benefit. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with every supreme court decision. This is especially the case when it's a tenuous, narrow ruling that hasn't stood the test of time. I would give your argument more weight if it were made 40 years ago and hadn't been overturned yet, or if it were a 9-0 ruling. However, that isn't the case. There are 4 perfectly good justices who ruled against it, I assume they have their own reasons and aren't insane, so it's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the courts opinion about the constitutionality of this case, as it's obviously controversial even among supreme court justices.
 
Howey said:
It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's one possible view if you are just trying to be as left wing as possible, but there's little controversy over the idea that, if the government has the right to regulate corporate spending, it has the right to do so with that of unions as well. It's not like such a law could pass in any universe anyway. The left needs to include unions in the whole setup in order to make the law more balanced, as not doing so is obviously going to seem unfair to many in the center and even the left, much less the right. However, the resulting law is still in the lefts favor, because corporations are clearly much more powerful than unions.
 
Dixie said:
So now, in your world... Every union member in America supports Obama and always votes for the democrat candidate, while a company called "Citizens United" is comprised of people who are forced to work for an evil boss who just wants to line his pockets by selling videos about Hillary, which his employees have no opinion on. And also, in Liberal Utopia... Big Fish don't EAT the little fish, they LEAD them! Amazing revelation there, Howey! THANKS!
Click to expand...

With the power to lead comes the power to exploit, and obviously it implies domination. Yes, leaders are can often do good things, and few besides radical anarcho-socialists would disagree that they're necessary at some level. Leaders are necessary to manage those carrots in sticks in societal organizations that make them work for the good of the whole. However, it's often been the case that they choose to take the carrots for themselves and use the sticks on those who complain. The left is rightfully suspicious of big fish, they want to avoid being exploited. The right is more forgiving of the big fishes, in hopes of further progress.
 
Yurt said:
really? when i was younger i was forced to join a union in order to take a job at a great hotel. i did not want to join the union, but if i wanted the job, which i needed, i had to join them.

so no....unions do not always represent their members interests. further, why should a union speak for me politically?
Click to expand...

If the hotel freely entered into that contract with a union, what's the issue?

In any case, current law requires that a union represent everyone at the workplace. Where such contracts aren't allowed (in "right to work" states), you get as much benefit out of joining the union as not doing so anyway, so you obviously wouldn't join them unless you just liked paying union dues. This obviously leads to the collapse of the unions in those states. IMO, unions shouldn't be required to represent those members - they should be allowed to negotiate benefits that only apply to members. Or maybe we should simply move away from the entire legal structure forced upon unions by the Wagner and Taft-Hartely acts, and move to solidarity unions that are simply groups of workers at one employer, that are able to form without the entire complicated unionization process required by law.
 
Yurt said:
actually, i've consistently said they had their time and place. they were good for the country, however, we have laws in place that now protect workers. unions are no longer a necessity.
Click to expand...

We also have laws in place that make it difficult for unions to form. Unions are heavily regulated in a way that would infuriate conservatives if such regulation were applied to corporations.
 
Yurt said:
no it doesn't.....
Click to expand...

It's impossible for any multinational corporation to divorce itself from foreign interests. When the American subsidiary of Sony makes a donation to an American candidate, are they doing so in the interests of Japan or America? How could they, when they have such strong interests in Japan, and take orders directly from Japanese executives? Even when you are talking about a multinational headquartered in America, well, as Jefferson said, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." When they make donations, the only consideration they have is what policies maximize their total profits. The policy that maximizes their profits may not necessarily be the best one for America, as they make money elsewhere too. The interests of American workers certainly won't be taken into account. Really, only companies entirely based in America without any foreign business could be said to be truly independent of foreign interests.
 
Waterfart said:
It's impossible for any multinational corporation to divorce itself from foreign interests. When the American subsidiary of Sony makes a donation to an American candidate, are they doing so in the interests of Japan or America? How could they, when they have such strong interests in Japan, and take orders directly from Japanese executives? Even when you are talking about a multinational headquartered in America, well, as Jefferson said, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." When they make donations, the only consideration they have is what policies maximize their total profits. The policy that maximizes their profits may not necessarily be the best one for America, as they make money elsewhere too. The interests of American workers certainly won't be taken into account. Really, only companies entirely based in America without any foreign business could be said to be truly independent of foreign interests.
Click to expand...

i think you misunderstood my post. the above true. however, CU did not make it happen. this has been happening since day 1.
 
Waterfart said:
I am not quite as annoyed by CU itself as the case that came about a month afterward that depended on it (and is often confused with it), SpeechNOW.org v. FEC, which authorized unlimited contributions to SuperPACs as long as these SuperPACs are not directly related to the campaign (or, to put it more cynically, maintain a legal fiction of being independent). These SuperPACs are fully free to make statements in favor or against candidates. This case relied on the arguments made in Citizens United that independent expenditures do not create actual or apparent quid pro quo. Logically, if the quid pro quo argument cannot be used to prohibit corporations from making contributions, they shouldn't apply to caps either.

However, while a corporations 5k or so contribution can easily get lost amongst many other contributions, thus creating at least some distance from the quid pro quo, the sheer magnitude of SuperPACs makes it fully possible that you'll have candidates who's electoral success be significantly dependent on a one or two rich individuals. The court is incredibly naive if it believes that there is no clear quid pro quo there, as if, when the rich donor who spent a million on advertising in a candidates favor walks in the door, his opinion is not going to be given many times the weight of a normal voters. It is lochnerizing when it substitutes it's own judgement about the possibility of quid pro quo for that of the legislatures.

We have cases now where, for instance, there've been campaigns that have been relatively even for months, and then a SuperPAC will come in a the last two weeks or so and bombard the area with ads with millions in out of state money from billionaires, significantly swinging things in one candidates favor. Can we pretend as if these individuals are making this spending with no intention of getting it back in some way? Can we pretend as if there is no significant interest created there, or as if society has no rational interest in regulating the creation of such a large interest for candidates and public officials conflicting with that of the voters in their own districts?
Click to expand...

speechnow was about individuals
 
Yurt said:
midcan:

is it your claim that corporations cannot seek redress against the government? what about freedom of religion?

now...let us change "corporations" with "groups"? do you feel the same way?

as to your union example (yours or the link??) it is completely false. unions spend heavily to influence outwards. and they are not all merely local. in fact, many corporations are only local. to deny that is to deny reality.
Click to expand...

Yurt, your questions exemplify a few issues that cloud most debate today. Religion is not a for profit organization, but it is true that they too use (as you do) the rhetoric of civil rights or individual rights. Religious freedom is written into our laws - irrelevant point or meaningless distraction. I am not arguing against corporations having the ability to argue for themselves, I am arguing against them being in bed with government and in a real sense owning government - at least the republican conservative libertarian side of government and even many braindead democrats. Corporate stooges all.

The problem with your (non) argument is that it is unrealistic in the real world. American Democracy today has come to support corporate BS about free markets and other nonsense that has no real meaning outside linguistic loop de loops. Consider any issue you like, healthcare for one, and you can easily see the pernicious influence of CU. Should a democracy legalize pernicious nonsense by allowing corporations the power to buy congress and the media sphere? You argue yes, I say no. But instead of my trying to convince you of the deleterious effect of Citizens United passed 5-4 by five justices that operated their whole life outside the real world (a very experienced lawyer I know, mentioned this in conversation recently), I'll list two examples of the power corporate propaganda has over congress even though these examples have (or had) majority American citizen support. The question becomes does government operate for the wealthy corporations or does it operate for the nation and its people? I'm for the latter.

Example one: The sub prime mess and the lack of regulatory, or even sound economics, given the influence of wall street money.

"Abstract: Despite the considerable media attention given to the collapse of the market for complex structured assets that contain subprime mortgages, there has been too little discussion of why this crisis occurred. "The Subprime Crisis: Cause, Effect and Consequences" argues that three basic issues are at the root of the problem, the first of which is an odious public policy partnership, spawned in Washington and comprising hundreds of companies, associations and government agencies, to enhance the availability of "affordable housing" via the use of "creative financing techniques." Second, federal regulators have actively encouraged the rapid growth of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives and securities by all types of financial institutions. And third, also bearing blame for the subprime crisis is the related embrace by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board of "fair value accounting." After reviewing the Bush administration's proposed solutions as flawed, this article recommends a strategy for subprime crisis resolution. Job one is to rebuild market confidence in structured assets by going back to "first principles" on issues such as market transparency, standardization of contracts, and accounting treatment. By reducing complexity on the trade of structured assets through simple deal structures and providing investors with the information they need to analyze collateral, for example by requiring SEC registration and public pricing of assets, much of the current liquidity problem is ameliorated." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113888

Example two: Paul Ryan's attempt to destroy Medicare. This review is OT but the issue is the power of Insurance corporations to control Ryan and others. UHC in America is the example, once popular hurt by CU.

"So consider: elderly people of limited means in the United States who are dependent on Medicare for their basic well-being—there are tens of millions of them—are rather clearly “vulnerable people.” Why, then, is it not equally problematic when a powerful congressman, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, advocates effectively eliminating the program that benefits these vulnerable people, indeed, keeps them alive? “Hatred,” after all, is not the issue as Waldron says, and no one, I assume, thinks Rep. Ryan “hates” the elderly or the poor. He may simply be stupid, or in thrall to an ideology, or defective in empathetic capacity, or beholden to special interests; whatever the explanation, it is clear that his proposals, if enacted, would eventually result in elderly people in need being unable to afford essential healthcare." Brian Leiter review of 'The Harm in Hate Speech' by Jeremy Waldron, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2101401


PS My union comment was addressed to another poster. I know of no Americans unions with foreign employees? They operate in America for Americans. Local for me.
 
Crashk said:
Citizens United allows foreign interests to give slush money to influence American elections. That's the bottom line... and Mudhut, you are for it. Very American of you.
Click to expand...

do people read their own minds and have no idea that others may think differently? http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ted-is-a-Sound-Decision&p=1032226#post1032226


"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups."
http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2011/01/20/citizens_united_-_one_year_later


"Corporate America has always sought to have government be considered a subordinate function within their realm. Just as they have a marketing division, a manufacturing division, and a finance division, they have always wished for a “government division” that could legally direct the public to suit their corporate needs. Soon they will have their wish."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comments are now censured for minor insult? Who is Owl? I wish everyone would maintain their original identity, been here a long time and would like to know who's who? Anyway Harper's April has an excellent piece on the more complex issue of CU and some of the history of money and politics. Check it out if you can find a copy.

'It’s A Rich Man’s World - How billionaire backers pick America’s candidates'

"Here we begin to see the real consequence of all this getting and spending. It’s not that campaign money has direct power over the public mind—that one advertising dollar can be counted upon to yield one vote. Nor is it true that the public is invulnerable, that we judiciously weigh these messages and see through the lies. The problem is that by putting such a price tag on the White House, we have imported market logic directly into our politics. Yes, even the village socialist will still get to vote, not to mention the village idiot. But in order to be a candidate—to be the kind of person who can make those calls to billionaires and get them to “double down”— Americans will have to undergo a far more rigorous process of ideological winnowing and executive training. And anyone who isn’t an absolute zealot about maximizing shareholder value will fail to make the cut." Thomas Frank (Harper's 04/2012)
 
Waterfart said:
It's impossible for any multinational corporation to divorce itself from foreign interests. When the American subsidiary of Sony makes a donation to an American candidate, are they doing so in the interests of Japan or America? How could they, when they have such strong interests in Japan, and take orders directly from Japanese executives? Even when you are talking about a multinational headquartered in America, well, as Jefferson said, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." When they make donations, the only consideration they have is what policies maximize their total profits. The policy that maximizes their profits may not necessarily be the best one for America, as they make money elsewhere too. The interests of American workers certainly won't be taken into account. Really, only companies entirely based in America without any foreign business could be said to be truly independent of foreign interests.
Click to expand...

A Jefferson quote on economics isn't really worth all that much. He wasn't a Federalist.
 
Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!" Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity"

"Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma." http://truth-out.org/index.php?opti...lections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult


"There was a time, not so very long ago, when perfectly rational people ran the Republican Party. So how did the party of Lincoln become the party of lunatics? That is what this book aims to answer. Fear not, the Dems come in for their share of tough talk — they are zombies, a party of the living dead." Mike Lofgren 'The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted' (see down too) http://www.amazon.com/Party-Over-Re...less/dp/0670026263/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8


"Gerstle argues that the civil rights movement and Vietnam broke the liberal nation apart, and his analysis of this upheaval leads him to assess Reagan's and Clinton's attempts to resurrect nationalism. Can the United States ever live up to its civic creed? For anyone who views racism as an aberration from the liberal premises of the republic, this book is must reading." http://www.amazon.com/American-Crucible-Nation-Twentieth-Century/dp/book-citations/0691102775
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top