Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Shareholders vote for a board of directors to represent their interests.

Mandate that shareholders vote to approve any political endorsement and I may change my tune.

Should we mandate that shareholders vote on every board decision?

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.

Then the owners shouldn't have voted for them.

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?

AIG is one example. Can you speak to the thousands and thousands of other corporate boards who didn't bankrupt the company?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Then the owners shouldn't have voted for them.

My point is that politics was not the average investor's motive in the first place. Shall we color-code stocks so investors will know what "free speech" will be exercised in their stead, using their assets? Only seems logical if this is the road we're to follow.

Shareholders vote for a board of directors to represent their interests.

Unfortunately for current shareholders, up until just now they had no idea they were voting for their political representatives. Apparently the entire mentality of investment must now change, as business and politics begin to merge openly.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, or of free money for everybody; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[corplinx]

Hillary shows why spending tons of money to influence elections can be most destructive for the people who produce them. Hillary was produced on the assumption that Hillary would be the Dem candidate. Oops!

 

[Frank Newgent]

Hillary shows why spending tons of money to influence elections can be most destructive for the people who produce them. Hillary was produced on the assumption that Hillary would be the Dem candidate. Oops!

If money is speech... you owe me twenty bucks.

 

[corplinx]

Also, UPS has been coddling high ranking democrats for years now to regulate Fedex (insert Wesley Mouch/Orren Boyle metaphor here) to use the government to undermine their competition.

Corporations are already spending money to influence politics. I would say the current backdoor access is worse than ad copy. The ads might let corporations who don't have access to the current leadership to fight back.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Also, UPS has been coddling high ranking democrats for years now to regulate Fedex (insert Wesley Mouch/Orren Boyle metaphor here) to use the government to undermine their competition.

Corporations are already spending money to influence politics. I would say the current backdoor access is worse than ad copy. The ads might let corporations who don't have access to the current leadership to fight back.

The First Amendment is not a “loophole” for big business and those of us who want freer money—without bureaucrats deciding who gets to spend when and how much—are not corporate shills. Free money is the very foundation of our democracy, and we are the stronger today for the Supreme Court decision.

 

[WildCat]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, or of free money for everybody; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What's unbelievable is that 4 Supreme Court justices see an asterix in there.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press, or of free money for everybody; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What's unbelievable is that 4 Supreme Court justices see an asterix in there.

Free money guarantees you the right to spend what you want, within reason. It does not guarantee you a market to spend your money in.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Free money guarantees you the right to spend what you want, within reason. It does not guarantee you a market to spend your money in.

What about free money from the government/taxpayers? Will organizations who have been saved by taxpayers be prohibited from diverting taxpayer money into political campaigns? And as has been mentioned, what about foreign-owned corps? Freedom of speech, in America, for non-Americans not in America is not guaranteed. Ask users of Google China until recently.

 

[Frank Newgent]

What about free money from the government/taxpayers? Will organizations who have been saved by taxpayers be prohibited from diverting taxpayer money into political campaigns? And as has been mentioned, what about foreign-owned corps? Freedom of speech, in America, for non-Americans not in America is not guaranteed. Ask users of Google China until recently.

You will still have to pay for hard-core pornography.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Take it to conspiracy theories, buddy.

From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained
"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]

From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006." Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf. Page 5.

On Clinton's watch, but under a Republican controlled Congress (1994 "Contract With America" mini-revolution), the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed concentrating media assets, and in 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act once again allowed commercial and investment banking to once gain join hands was passed.

Then, Bush II continued Round II of massive deficit spending. See graph. See also the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2005, reducing capital gains taxes, which disproportionately decrease the taxes on the wealthiest (also had perverse effect of increasing taxes on ex-pat earned wages.)

Iraq started pricing oil in euros in 2000. Though it had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, the country was invaded under a pretext of collaboration with 9/11 terrorism.

The SCOTUS majority that supported the latest ruling on corporate free speech was appointed under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Conspiracy? Hardly. All part of the Republican platform, all on public record.

Finally, if you care to research it, most analysts are wary of the dollar's mid and long-term future, given large current account deficits that have no prospect of reversing. The major factors holding back a shift away from the dollar as a reserve and pricing currency are the large dollar-denominated reserves held by China (which would devalue), and the up-until-now need for a consumer market of first resort (US) by export-oriented economies.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My point is that politics was not the average investor's motive in the first place. Shall we color-code stocks so investors will know what "free speech" will be exercised in their stead, using their assets? Only seems logical if this is the road we're to follow.

Doesn't seem logical at all. Should we also color code shares based upon how much each investor wants the board to spend on R&D?

Unfortunately for current shareholders, up until just now they had no idea they were voting for their political representatives. Apparently the entire mentality of investment must now change, as business and politics begin to merge openly.

Perhaps. I know it won't affect my investment decisions.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, I see a silver lining in all this... the Internet. It helped to fight against establishment candidates in the recent past, and now more than ever I'm sure it will do so again.

 

[Eyeron]

Just what we need, more negative campaigning.

 

[corplinx]

UPS, the Unions, Health Care Lobbyists, and energy companies have been writing law/regulations for the past year. We even had the unions step in and alter the conference version of a bill! Now all of a sudden people are feigning outrage at the reach of special interests in politics? The difference being, this about limiting the first amendment?

Beam me up Mr. Speaker.

 

[MikeMangum]

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?

This is where that little piece of paper you get in the mail that allows you to vote a proxy comes in handy.

 

[Dunstan]

Just what we need, more negative campaigning.

Actually, negative campagining was already pretty easy under the law. A PAC could put together an ad with darkening skies and ominous music in the background while a stern-voiced announcer lists a parade of horribles that will occur if Policy Proposal X is passed. They couldn't go as far as to say "kick Smith out of Congress" or "vote for Smith's opponent," but the message would be pretty clear.

It wouldn't bother me if negative campaigning was made easier. I like negative campaign ads. They at least carry some information content. I would love it if negative ads replaced each and every one of the "positive" ads showing Congressman Smith and his lovely wife and daughters in which he promises to continue to fight for me and my family against special interests.*

Even when the negative ads contain lies and distortion, that tells me something, too. Who's telling those lies, and why? And how does the candidate respond to those lies -- with a hard-hitting expose and counterattack, or with whining about "negative ads"? (Hey Congressman Smith, if you whine and cry every time someone says something mean about you, how are you going to take on those Special Interests for me and my family?)

*"Special interests" are any group to which you don't belong and who is not particularly popular in your district. Bankers who oppose taxes on the banking industry are Special Interests looking after their own financial interests. The AARP lobbying for increases in Social Security or Medicare benefits are not. Automakers lobbying for subsidies may or may not be a Special Interest depending on whether there is an auto or oil and gas industry in your state.

 

[Beerina]

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

If you feel amending the Constitution is so problematic you want to do an end-run around it to censor people, good riddance.



I know in the memeplex in your mind, the hoooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriblenes of corporations spending money on ads is so god, god, god-damned bad that you want the government to be able to censor it. But guess what? There's a process to do that, and it's called amending the Constitution to grant Congress that power.

See, we created a government and granted it certain powers and none others. And we were so worried about abuses that we enshrined certain principles by calling them out explicitly and said, "In spite of all those powers, Congress shall not do anything with them that affects these things."

Now if you've got your god god god-damned good reason to let Congress affect one of them, please amend the Constitution.


Guess what? A corporation creating a hack movie on Hillary, then trying to run it just before an election, and the government saying "No!", well, sorry! You, the government, authorized to point guns at people, don't get to decide that.

Umm, in spite of the hyperbole, a government empowered to censor is, indeed, worse than a corporation running political ads.

"Heh heh heh," thinks the politician in office. "Only private people can do this. That will benefit me." True? False? Irrelevant! The government is not authorized to weigh political speech against things, and to decide, well, it's Ok to censor that speech right there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Though it had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, the country was invaded under a pretext of collaboration with 9/11 terrorism.

No. Read the Congressional authorization for the invasion. If there's a "pretext", that's it. The authorization doesn't say that they collaborated with 9/11 terrorism (a rather strange phrase, btw).