« John Edwards (Finally) Admits Paternity and Separates from his Wife
Haiti: Update on Progress of the U.S. “Invasion” (UPDATES) »
Don’t Overread Supreme Court Ruling
As most of you already know the Supreme Court today voted 5-4 to strike down some of the restrictions on contributions by corporations and labor unions. Since there are already a number of discussions on the net regarding the specifics of the ruling I’m not going to go into depth on that area.
Personally though I’ve always been a little reluctant to assign First Amendment rights to legal entities, be they a business or a labor union. It just seems to me that people have the rights not some legal entity. However I do understand and respect the counter argument that the donations reflect the actions of those who make up the entity.
What has been interesting to me today is some of the reaction to the ruling, both in terms of the actual impact and also in terms of the differing partisan viewpoints.
To begin with, this is not that big of a ruling. The decision was relatively narrow and on the main point of one of the litigants (Citizens United) the court ruled *against* them, saying that restrictions on broadcast ads are proper. So it’s not like they threw out the whole law.
In addition, if we look at it from a practical viewpoint, how much has the law been doing anyway ? Do we really think that the law prior to the ruling really stopped the AFL-CIO from doing ads and making contributions on behalf of candidates they liked ? Did it really do much to keep General Mills from doing the same thing on issues they cared about ?
Of course not. These kinds of laws have always been a wink and a nod kind of thing which is why I’ve often thought a better route is to simply require that the ads disclose the actual contributors and not some generic ‘Citizens for this or that’ lobby. People are smart enough to know what various interest groups stand for.
In surfing the net for blogger reaction I’ve been particularly struck by the reaction from the left on this ruling. They are in a panic over the ‘evil corporations’ (or in the case of the more hard line sites the ‘reactionary capitalists’) having more influence over politics.
Obviously this ruling will allow the corporate donors to make contributions more openly (though as I said above I’m not sure they ever really stopped). But what about the labor unions ? They are just as powerful and have tons of money to throw at the campaigns too. Yet somehow for those on the left a huge labor union buying off candidates is somehow ok.
The same seems to be true when billionaires like George Soros pour money into activist groups. Somehow that money being spent is acceptable but a similar move by someone on the right is not. I am sure there are people who look at it from the other side who think the reverse but on this particular issue it seems to come more from the left (IE there were not efforts exempt business from the campaign laws while there were ones to exempt labor unions).
Of course I do understand that for some there really is the image that all businessman are evil and all labor unions are pure of heart. But for most of us we look at both groups as having too much influence over government. Certainly as a resident of California I’ve seen the damage labor union ownership of the state legislature has done.
Each of us has their own political viewpoint and in that each of us thinks we are right (if we didn’t then we wouldn’t have those views). So it is understandable that if a group I agree with is making donations then I’m less upset than when a group I disagree with does.
But if you look at it in a non partisan manner, or as non partisan a manner as we humans can manage, the fact is there are interest groups on all sides and they will always have influence over politics, no matter what the law says.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
66 Responses to “Don’t Overread Supreme Court Ruling”
Your inability to see the small and barely noticeable differences between citizen organizations such as MoveOn.org, the NRA, Greenpeace which people may join of their own free will and depart at any given time and profit making Corporations such as IBM, CitiGroup, GE, GM, Aetna, UAL whose stocks are traded on a daily basis is highly disconcerting to say the least….
I see differences, but I see even more similarities. They're all groups of Americans acting collectively to pursue their interests. “People may join and depart at any given time” and “stocks are traded on a daily basis” sound equivalent.
DQ – OK, got it. Free speech for approved entities.
And you are right – there is no difference in the right to advocate for organizations vs. corporations.
What about newspapers and broadcasters? They are corporations. Do they and their employees lose the right to advocate specific candidates and positions using the assets of the corporation?
What about unions, corporate farmers, oil, dairy farmers, lawyers, the medical industry, heck, even peanut farmers? All those and more have either direct subsidies or laws that favor them over their competitors.
Yes, the government should get firmly out of the business of protectionism in all those forms, and I agree with you that doesn't look easy to do.
If it's possible at all, it starts with we the people showing less tolerance for protectionism. We send decidedly mixed messages about that today. “No subsidies for agribusiness!” we cry, but also “Oh, we must help these poor farmers being squeezed out of their livelihoods!” If you don't like the first, stop calling for the second.
That's admittedly a tall order, as it requires people to sit on their hands in the face of “unfairness” that they look to the government to correct now.
What about newspapers and broadcasters? They are corporations.
Yes, but they're not profit-making ones, you see. At least, not lately.
Stocks are traded by computer programs and can change hands on a second by second basis, not quite the same thing as a member of the NRA…
It'll make great sense for Merck & IBM, for the rest of us, probably not…
People can do whatever they wish, they just can't give money. If that means changing the Constitution to explicitly state that we do not have the legal right to give money to campaigns, then that is what should done. We elect people to public office, NOT parties. If a person can gather enough signatures then they get equal funding. It isn't rocket science.
We change the system and the media will change with it. Everyone wants to be the first to report on the hottest new politician.
…so that they can mock and misquote them. I've seen it happen all too often.
Basically they can run any ads they like, whenever they like, to either support their candidate or attack the candidate they oppose. So long as they are not working directly with their candidate's campaign to coordinate things anything goes. Of course they'll probably create dummy front organizations so that their corporate name won't have to appear on the screen as being responsible for the ad. By the time most people might realize who was really running it the election would be over.
Thanks, shannonlee, that's clearer now. Of course, they do all this already, but now the sky's the limit. Actually, the sky wouldn't be the limit. There are no limits.
Lit, exactly! This is exactly what bothers me about this ruling.
DQ, awesome, AWESOME replies!
I wish you were on the Supreme Court.
Yes, very good response from HemmD.
The most item in my opinion is the text of the First Amendment. It protects all free speech, you have to amend the Constitution to overturn that protection, anything less is not relying on the Rule of Law but on someone's opinion.
Outstanding ruling by the Supreme Court, and a victory for the Rule of Law.