Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

[dudalb]

Let's see:

Master Plan, 1980-Now:

- Move manufacturing offshore and reduce the influence of labor unions
- Utilize religion and values argument to persuade the now-unemployed, panicking middle class that you represent the "good guys"
- Use declining middle class security and income to argue for lower taxes
- Now lower the taxes, but disproportionately for the wealthiest
- Declare government a disaster
- Blame job losses on unions, blame liberals & media for declining America
- Stack the courts, fund campaigns, lobby massively

- Use government to subsidize big oil, agribiz, and defense contractors
- Declare the government a disaster
- Blame job losses on unions, blame liberals & media for declining America
- Stack the courts, fund campaigns, lobby massively

- Roll back all controls on speculative and dangerous financial finagling
- When now trashy dollar leads oil producers to consider setting prices in non-dollar currencies, invade the first one who does it (Iraq)
- When the finagling creates the inevitable recession/depression, use the government to cover your losses
- Produce record deficit with war and finagling, so no money left to help the non-rich
- Declare the government a disaster
- Blame MASSIVE job losses on unions, liberals & media for declining America
- Use media to fan frenzied discourse and sow mud and FUD

- Get court to grant unfettered, unlimited power of persuasion over the nation you panicked, in the steep decline you created

Win! USA pwned!

Got to admire those patriotic, god-fearing, values-driven Good Guys!

Coming up, party in Bermuda while America burns!

Take it to conspiracy theories, buddy.

 

[johnny karate]

Why should the corporation known as the New York Times endorse him if they weren't getting anything out of it?

There is a difference between endorsing a candidate, and having the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign.

If you don't like the 1st Amendment maybe your ideological brother Hugo Chavez will let you emigrate to Venezuela.

Thanks for the tip. I'll take it under consideration

Why would anyone engage in any political speech if they weren't getting some concession out of it? All those bastards in my neighborhood with political signs in their lawn in 2008 must be on the take!

And to whose needs do you think a politician is likely to be more attentive? Some anonymous shlub who put a sign in their yard, or the giant corporation that funded a $300 million ad campaign?

Or, just maybe, people engage in political speech because they might actually prefer a particular candidate (or position on a ballot initiative) purely due to policy preferences.

I understand perfectly well why people engage in the political process. But we're talking about corporations.

 

[Beerina]

The presidential oath is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing about hidden agendas.

You are correct. But everybody else, Senate, House, and military, all include the "without...purposes of evasion" clause.

Nevertheless, taking a bribe could be argued to not be faithfully executing anything, so I stand by my conclusion in your obtuse example.

 

[Beerina]

And exactly which non-corporate entities have the deep pockets of a large corporation?

The Staggering Size of NGOs

In any case, you're talking about for-profit, conventional corporations vs political parties and PACs, political action committees, that sort of thing. PACs have choked on this rule, too. This frees them up, to say nothing of opening up the ability to donate more money. Or just bypass it and run ads yourself.


And in the final word, so what? It's still censorship, and having a government that can censor is worse because it will be abused, not if, but when. And arguably immediately, for that matter, since the current (now former) rule benefited people already in office by silence criticism of them or praise for competitor candidates.

Hint: If you think silencing corporations is that damned important, and many of you do, you can go through changing the Constitution the official way, and not just "re-interpret" things to authorize government censorship because, whining, you reeeeeeeeeeeeally wannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnt it.

If it's a good idea, most people should agree, and should still agree in the 5-7 years it takes to move an amendment through all the states.

Good luck.

 

[MikeMangum]

There is a difference between endorsing a candidate, and having the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign.

You mean like being one of the primary sources of news for a significant fraction of the population, which fact can be used to act as a gatekeeper for damaging stories about your favored candidate and to play up negative stories about that candidate's opponents?

And to whose needs do you think a politician is likely to be more attentive? Some anonymous shlub who put a sign in their yard, or the giant corporation that funded a $300 million ad campaign?

Ahh, so equality of outcome is all that matters.

I understand perfectly well why people engage in the political process. But we're talking about corporations.

Just like Soylent Green, corporations are people, and constraining the speech rights of a corporation constrains both the free speech and the freedom of association rights of the shareholders of the corporation.

From the Supreme Court's holding in NAACP v Alabama, 1958:

Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 ; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 . It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 ; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the [357 U.S. 449, 461] effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association are both strict scrutiny rights and constraining the speech of an association is necessarily constraining the speech of the individuals in the association.

 

[WildCat]

There is a difference between endorsing a candidate, and having the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign.

Please quote the part of the ruling where an entity is given "the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign".

Thanks for the tip. I'll take it under consideration

No problem, I'm glad to be of assistance.

 

[johnny karate]

The Staggering Size of NGOs

In any case, you're talking about for-profit, conventional corporations vs political parties and PACs, political action committees, that sort of thing. PACs have choked on this rule, too. This frees them up, to say nothing of opening up the ability to donate more money. Or just bypass it and run ads yourself.

I think you're missing the point. Your link refers to budgets and income, not profits (which non-profits, of course, don't generate). By contrast, General Electric earned $14.7 billion in profit in 2009. And it was a down year for them.

No non-corporate entities can come close to matching the spending power of $14.7 billion dollars.

And in the final word, so what? It's still censorship, and having a government that can censor is worse because it will be abused, not if, but when.

Yeah, after over 100 years, I'm sure that hammer of oppression was about to drop at any moment.

And arguably immediately, for that matter, since the current (now former) rule benefited people already in office by silence criticism of them or praise for competitor candidates.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Hint: If you think silencing corporations is that damned important, and many of you do, you can go through changing the Constitution the official way, and not just "re-interpret" things to authorize government censorship because, whining, you reeeeeeeeeeeeally wannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnt it.

If it's a good idea, most people should agree, and should still agree in the 5-7 years it takes to move an amendment through all the states.

Good luck.

Thanks. I'll consider that option while I'm packing for my emigration to Venezuela.

 

[WildCat]

I think you're missing the point. Your link refers to budgets and income, not profits (which non-profits, of course, don't generate). By contrast, General Electric earned $14.7 billion in profit in 2009. And it was a down year for them.

No non-corporate entities can come close to matching the spending power of $14.7 billion dollars.

So? Can you point out which part of the Constitution allows free speech rights to be taken away from the rich, and the dollar amount in which one loses the right of free speech?

 

[johnny karate]

You mean like being one of the primary sources of news for a significant fraction of the population, which fact can be used to act as a gatekeeper for damaging stories about your favored candidate and to play up negative stories about that candidate's opponents?

No, I don't. Since the news networks that engage in such behavior yield a direct benefit from that behavior (i.e. revenue generated from ratings), the political candidates they champion aren't necessarily beholden to them.

Since Wal-Mart isn't going to sell more toothpaste and CDs if they spend $100 million on an ad campaign for Candidate X, it stands to reason they must have other motivations.

Ahh, so equality of outcome is all that matters.

I would use the term "equal voice in government", and while I don't think it's all that matters, it is pretty important to a functioning democracy.

Just like Soylent Green, corporations are people, and constraining the speech rights of a corporation constrains both the free speech and the freedom of association rights of the shareholders of the corporation.

I think it's more accurate to describe corporations as businesses. And like all businesses, they have one purpose: to make money. Nothing is stopping any individual member of a corporation from exercising their right to free speech. But to pretend that a corporation is somehow intended to be some kind of advocacy group for them to do so is a bit disingenuous.

 

[johnny karate]

Please quote the part of the ruling where an entity is given "the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign".

The ruling allows for corporations to produce their own political ads, with no limits placed on the amount they can spend.

Marketing is a significant aspect to any political campaign.

Therefore, the ruling allows corporations the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign.

 

[johnny karate]

So? Can you point out which part of the Constitution allows free speech rights to be taken away from the rich, and the dollar amount in which one loses the right of free speech?

I never suggested free speech should be taken away from the rich. I am merely pointing out the disparity inherent in this ruling.

 

[WildCat]

The ruling allows for corporations to produce their own political ads, with no limits placed on the amount they can spend.

Damn damn damn! We must get rid of this "freedom of speech" thing... people might say things we disagree with!

Marketing is a significant aspect to any political campaign.

Therefore, the ruling allows corporations the unlimited ability to finance a significant aspect of a candidate's campaign.

Uh, no. It is not part of the candidates campaign, and the candidate and his campaign have no control over it. The 3rd party ads may in fact hurt the candidate. Imagine the Ku Klux Klan taking out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune endorsing Ron Paul for POTUS...

 

[WildCat]

I never suggested free speech should be taken away from the rich. I am merely pointing out the disparity inherent in this ruling.

So a group of people can't come together to stump for a candidate? If what you believe were true, then Congress could pass a law forbidding newspapers, for example, from endorsing a candidate.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Here's a prediction: Most big corporations will donate reasonably evenly to both parties. It's not bribery; it's more like paying protection money.

Once again I must agree with my respected colleague from across the aisle (had to say it, Brainster - we disagree on much, but I like you )

He's right. Big corporations aren't stupid, they'll spread the dough around in order to cover all of their bases. We already see this in Chicago with The Machine... two former IL governors have been caught up in the corruption. Ryan (Repub) is in jail now and Blago (Dem) is on his way there. The Machine and the big influence-peddling money behind it doesn't care about political affiliation, it cares whether or not you can be bought. If you can't be bought, you'll be politically ejected from the system.

I see a LOT more Machine style politics in the future of our federal elections. Sadly.

ETA: The real effect of this ruling will be in entrenching the established political class while excluding any "outsiders". No more Obamas (who fought against the establishment Clinton), no more Ron Pauls (who fought against the establishment GOP in general), etc. The only way "the little guy" can make it into politics will be to suck up, even more so than now, to the big power-brokers throwing around the money. People on both the left AND right should be concerned about this... it isn't a left/right issue, it's an insider/outsider issue.

 

[WildCat]

Once again I must agree with my respected colleague from across the aisle (had to say it, Brainster - we disagree on much, but I like you )

He's right. Big corporations aren't stupid, they'll spread the dough around in order to cover all of their bases. We already see this in Chicago with The Machine... two former IL governors have been caught up in the corruption. Ryan (Repub) is in jail now and Blago (Dem) is on his way there. The Machine and the big influence-peddling money behind it doesn't care about political affiliation, it cares whether or not you can be bought. If you can't be bought, you'll be politically ejected from the system.

I see a LOT more Machine style politics in the future of our federal elections. Sadly.

ETA: The real effect of this ruling will be in entrenching the established political class while excluding any "outsiders". No more Obamas (who fought against the establishment Clinton), no more Ron Pauls (who fought against the establishment GOP in general), etc. The only way "the little guy" can make it into politics will be to suck up, even more so than now, to the big power-brokers throwing around the money. People on both the left AND right should be concerned about this... it isn't a left/right issue, it's an insider/outsider issue.

The proper term is the combine. There's the Dem machine, and the GOP machine, but when they work together to screw the citizens of Illinois they are the combine.

Be sure to vote Feb. 2 MM!

 

[Magyar]

interesting take on this on MPR today - I didn't catch the guys name, but he was saying how seeing the adds or having corps run tha adds isn't ther really scary part.

It's all the back door deals that will come from corp's going to candidates and saying IF you don't vote the way we want we will "let loose the dogs of war" on you.

I ahe to agree with this, considering all the back room stuff going on as is, if politicians KNOW that corps could unleash unlimited amounts of money.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The proper term is the combine. There's the Dem machine, and the GOP machine, but when they work together to screw the citizens of Illinois they are the combine.

Really? I'd never heard of this term before. But then I live in the 'burbs.

Be sure to vote Feb. 2 MM!

I'll be there

 

[gnomon]

Let's see. Prior to this ruling any corporation could form a PAC and essentially use their massive resources to campaign away, except right before an election as defined by McCain-Feingold, as much as they wanted.

Also prior to this decision, smaller grass roots organizations, non-profits or other organizations faced a near insurmountable task in engaging in politics if they did something as much as fail to disclose the occupation of every person who donated more than a $100 or failed to fill out the proper line on the most obscure legal paperwork. If they could afford the high priced attorneys to navigate campaign finance reform maybe they would be okay. But when a campaign, such as an attempt at an election recall or to mobilize against a local referendum, can be halted in the face of criminal sanctions and exorbitant fines then quite frankly the situation has changed for the better.

McCain-Feingold was not aiding smaller organizations. The people we have put in office are not any better. Incumbents still sit in office term after term. Is that what all this regulation was supposed to fix? It didn't work.

Now, since this decision was about political campaigns let's take a brief look at the power of corporations and unions in lobbying. The concessions to hospitals, pharmaceuticals and unions in this latest round of so called health care reform shows that these groups maintain far more influence in legislation than any private citizen or any organized citizen group.

And the "end of democracy" rhetoric from the Washington Post, New York Times...pretty much all across the net is just frightening of the level of awareness of politics and rights in this nation. Our version of 'democracy' was hardly remarked upon by the same groups complaining now when the Supreme Court handed down Raich v. Gonzalez, Kelo v. New London or Hudson v. Michigan. I think more people are concerned in maintaining the status quo of political malfeasance in our nation than those decisions which directly effect the commerce or property rights in this nation.

It should also be noted that this is relevant to campaigning. Not lobbying, which matters more to corporations and unions, nor does it apply to direct contributions.

I would much rather see what the lack of such restrictions which exists in certain State's has done for campaigns in those states.

Until then I'll recognize that the same fools which were in Congress a few decades ago are the same fools in there now.

So call me skeptical about the chicken little aspect of this decision. Especially when new laws and heck, maybe even a Constitutional amendment, are already being discussed less than 24 hours after the decision. Of course, if the response is the same lackluster response from the Fed's and the States after Kelo v. New London than there will be no laws of import soon.

edit: Although, I do dislike the notion of corporations being considered the same as private citizens. And there is something about this whole thing that does disturb me. But my cynicism of my fellow Americans involvement in the political process and complete ignorance outside of the MSM and their bland news stories tells me that this decision practically changes nothing from the status quo.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

#1) This is a great decision

#2) It will have nowhere near the effect the Chicken Little's think it will

Take a deep breath and relax.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

I reject the idea that this is a free speech issue in the first place. Most investors buy stock to make money, not to make a political statement. The political apathy with which market participants make investment decisions is extremely relevant here because the assets and the executives belong to them.

Mandate that shareholders vote to approve any political endorsement and I may change my tune. Right now though I foresee the free speech of a large number of shareholders being laundered through a small number of executives who may or may not serve the interests of the owners of the assets being spent on the political theater.

Turns out the shareholders couldn't trust the executives of AIG, good thing those execs weren't also speaking for them the whole time, right?.... right?