Impact of Citizens United

[Ziggurat]

Seriously, all partisanship aside, it's not hard to understand the objections to Citizens United.

Let's say you're a manufacturer who has been spewing pollutants into the water supplies of a local town, and the local community is demanding a stop to it and asking for a change in the law. Ordinarily, this kind of pressure would induce a politician to act. But what if the CEO meets with the politician and tells him that if he changes the law, the CEO will funnel a million dollars into ads attacking him and will bounce him from his seat. And does anyone doubt that this is a credible threat? Or that huge sums money thrown into a race can tilt the outcome in an era when people have such a crappy news media?

Does anyone doubt that such efforts can also backfire on the company in question? Seriously, such a scenario creates the perfect campaign issue for the politician in question. How many votes is it worth to a politician to be seen standing up to a polluter's efforts to blackmail him? A lot... probably more votes than the blackmail itself could produce.

Now, in this case, the will of the people is clearly on the side of the change in law.

Which makes opposing it an easier sell for the politician, and a harder sell for the polluter. I don't care how much advertising dollars you pour into it, people won't buy dog poo cake.

It's good for the politician to change the law, since the new law would be popular. And yet, in this scenario, it's easy to see the law not being changed or changed to protect the polluter even though all other factors suggest otherwise.

Except that prior to Citizens United, the polluter could still influence that politician. The can work on politicians for years, doing most of it unseen. And the individual citizens? What recourse did they have? Most individuals don't have the cash to buy advertising on their own, and if they only find out about an issue shortly before an election, well, they're screwed: campaign finance law hobbles them right before an election. Now, however, they can easily band together (forming a little something we like to call a corporation) and publish independent adds demanding a stop to the pollution. And they can do so far more effectively, and for far less money, because they're selling something voters actually want to buy.

Remember: Citizens United (the plaintiffs, not the case) wasn't a big corporation.

This is how money corrupts the system in favor of those who have it.

You haven't actually made the case that such corruption will be worse now. It was hardly absent before. And while there may be some new opportunities for "bad" influence, there are also now many more opportunities for citizens to counter such influence.

Again, I can't see how allowing more speech is really a net negative here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes I can. most, if not all, place profit above the common good.

Indeed: most people care more about self-interest than common interest. But you're still wrong, because you're assuming that such interests always conflict. They don't.

But let's examine this idea of selfishness further. How do you think that applies to governments and politicians? Hasn't it occurred to you that restricting free speech through campaign finance laws might also be done in a way which reflects their self-interest more than the common interest? Of course that's going to be the case. How could it be otherwise?

When politicians say that they're going to protect you by restricting your free speech rights (and yes, this DID restrict your free speech rights), what on earth ever made you trust them?

Having a dictatorship wouldn't be a bad thing if that dictator was interested in the common god.

I refer you to my signature.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Restricting corporate funding to political campaigns is not restricting my free speech.

 

[steve s]

Then you don't think the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc etc have the right to comment on political issues, or any other issue Congress decides to restrict them on.

Nice straw man. When the NYT comments on a political issue, I know that it's the NYT that's commenting on a political issue. There is full disclosure. When a foreign interest gives anonymous money to one of these groups to run attack ads, we have no idea who is paying for it because there is no disclosure. That's the purpose of the Disclosure Act. It has nothing to do with suppressing CNN, ABC, or the NYT. It's about full disclosure!

Steve S

 

[SezMe]

You seem to be taking it as a given that this was a bad outcome. But it's not a given. Sometimes corporations should be saved money. And sometimes what voters really want does line up with what corporations want.

The problem, Zig, here and is subsequent posts is that you are arguing that the outcome of corporate influence can be a good thing. Sure, I agree. But I would argue that that scenario is far, far, less likely than the reverse; namely, that the goal of corporate influence is almost always narrowly focused on benefiting a single industry or even single company. Further, I would argue that such a singular benefit is far, far less likely to align with the weal of the broader society.

Advertising of any kind works best when interests align. You seem to be suggesting that political advertisements are capable of brainwashing the population, and we must protect the population from brainwashing. But only corporate brainwashing, of course, because if politicians do it within the arbitrary guidelines of campaign finance law, that's somehow fundamentally different. In other words, you have little confidence in either the democratic principle (that people can be trusted to make up their own minds) or free speech.

There's a lot here. Yes, I think that political ads can massively influence (why use the pejorative word "brainwashing"?) elections and mislead people. If they didn't why would every candidate do advertising? Why would polls show a shift in results after a particularly effective ad run?

No, I don't think ONLY corporations engage in nefarious behavior. Don't put ideas in my head that aren't there.

Finally, the biggest difference I have with you is the last three words. I do not equate money with free speech. That is where I think the Supremes have gone fundamentally wrong and where your argument breaks down. Given that corporations are people in the eyes of the law (another really bad decision but that is for another thread) they have a right to have an opinion. But I don't think they have a right to have a mega-million dollar bullhorn to blast that opinion all over the place.

And you know what else corrupts? Restrictions on free speech. If you think that such restrictions, written by politicians in power, can't be abused to protect incumbents, you're charmingly naive. I'll pick the problem of too much speech over the problem of not enough speech any day of the week.

I see the word "if" but I don't think you mean it. Of course I recognize the fact that politicians can abuse their power. You're charmingly naive to think otherwise - no need for an "if"

 

[SezMe]

Hasn't it occurred to you that restricting free speech through campaign finance laws might also be done in a way which reflects their self-interest more than the common interest?

There you go again. So let me ask you straight out: Do you equate money with free speech?

 

[steve s]

And you know what else corrupts? Restrictions on free speech.

How does full disclosure restrict speech.

Steve S

 

[Ziggurat]

There's a lot here. Yes, I think that political ads can massively influence (why use the pejorative word "brainwashing"?) elections and mislead people.

I use the pejorative because you mean it to be pejorative. There's no "good" misleading of the public.

If they didn't why would every candidate do advertising?

"Influence" and "mislead" are not synonymous. Sometimes candidates try to mislead with advertising, but much of the time they're trying to do two other things: inform and persuade. And there's nothing wrong with them doing that. But why should they be the only ones allowed to do so? You have yet to make the case that they alone should have that power. Your arguments against corporations doing so are so categorical that I don't see why you're in favor of allowing political adds at all.

Finally, the biggest difference I have with you is the last three words. I do not equate money with free speech. That is where I think the Supremes have gone fundamentally wrong and where your argument breaks down.

When money is used to buy speech, then yes, money becomes free speech. When it is used to buy something other than speech, then it is not free speech. The supreme court doesn't have that wrong, you do.

Given that corporations are people in the eyes of the law

Why do you think that question is at all relevant to Citizens United? I don't think it is. The first ammendment doesn't protect people, it restrains government. Government can't restrict free speech. Not free speech of people, free speech period.

I see the word "if" but I don't think you mean it.

Of course I mean it.

Of course I recognize the fact that politicians can abuse their power.

Your position on campaign finance restrictions doesn't reflect that understanding.

 

[Ziggurat]

How does full disclosure restrict speech.

Steve S

How does the Citizens United decision prevent full disclosure? It's my understanding that the Supreme Court upheld such disclosure requirements in that case.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When money is used to buy free speech, it becomes free speech. So tell me why you think corporations should have more free speech rights than individuals? The fact that corporations can funnel unlimited amounts and I can't means that my free speech is greatly diminished. I don't agree that corporations should have more rights than individuals.

 

[Ziggurat]

When money is used to buy free speech, it becomes free speech. So tell me why you think corporations should have more free speech rights than individuals?

They don't. What on earth made you think they did?

Constitutional rights are negative rights, not positive rights.

The fact that corporations can funnel unlimited amounts and I can't means that my free speech is greatly diminished.

What on earth makes you think that this is the case? It isn't. You can spend as much money as you have (which is not unlimited), just as corporations can now spend as much as they have (which is likewise not unlimited).

I don't agree that corporations should have more rights than individuals.

They don't.

 

[WildCat]

Seriously, all partisanship aside, it's not hard to understand the objections to Citizens United.

Let's say you're a manufacturer who has been spewing pollutants into the water supplies of a local town, and the local community is demanding a stop to it and asking for a change in the law.

Er, wouldn't that still be illegal under state and federal laws?

At any rate, if the local community was outraged then all the advertising in the world wouldn't get their candidate elected, would it? You really expect someone to run on an "I'm going to keep polluting our water supply" platform and win?

 

[WildCat]

Wait, zig's arguing that this isn't a bad ruling because sometimes corporations' interests sometimes coincide with the people?

My argument is that I don't want the government reserving the right to regulate the content of corporate news media. This was also a big concern of the majority of the SCOTUS justices.

A ruling the other way would have affirmed that the government has that right, and a free corporate-owned news media exists only by the good grace of the government.

I don't think any potential problems with corporate money influencing elections are anywhere near the harmful effect that the government reserving the right to censor 99% of the news media would have.

 

[WildCat]

Yes I can. most, if not all, place profit above the common good.

Would a profitable GM be a "common good" for the state of Michigan?

 

[WildCat]

Restricting corporate funding to political campaigns is not restricting my free speech.

Can you cite any part of the Citizens United ruling that precludes limits on funding political campaigns?

Hint: you won't, because Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign finance law.

Please stop confusing the issue.

 

[WildCat]

Nice straw man. When the NYT comments on a political issue, I know that it's the NYT that's commenting on a political issue. There is full disclosure.

Completely irrelevant.

And it's not a strawman, it's the logical conclusion of the premise "the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to corporations". And this very thing was mentioned in the Citizens United majority opinion.

 

[WildCat]

The first ammendment doesn't protect people, it restrains government. Government can't restrict free speech. Not free speech of people, free speech period.

A good point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hint: you won't, because Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign finance law.

You're right (and ken is wrong) that it's got nothing to do with donations to political campaigns. But I think it still falls under the general heading of "campaign finance" (I'm not sure what else to call McCain-Feingold), though the term applies only loosely here.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well good luck with United States of America Inc.

I wonder who will be nominated as the first CEO.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Well good luck with United States of America Inc.

I wonder who will be nominated as the first CEO.

TAM

TAM, at the end of the day this won't make one bit of difference. Corporations will have no more or less influence than they have now.

And remember my Target example? Do you really think companies will want to get that publicly involved in politics?

They'll do what they do now, lobby behind the scenes. Lend the Congressman the company jet for a week. Use the CEOs vacation home in Costa Rica. Things like that, they'd much rather bribe lobby the politician the voters elected than piss off half their customers by actually getting involved in elections.