So your way of getting money out of politics is to open it to getting more money in politics?
No, his way of getting money out of politics is to make it not worth the investment.
And letting corporations engage in limitless political speech achieves this how?
Total lobby spending in 2008 was $3.28 billion (cite). If we divided that evenly among all Senators/Congresscritters (I know it does not work like that…just for perspective) that is over $6 million per member in one year.
Under what premise do you think that business will not avail themselves of this tool if allowed? Indeed doesn’t this effectively circumvent political donation limits? Just buy all the political ads you want for your guy/gal. It’s free speech after all. The candidate will be abundantly aware to whom they are beholden.
From the article:
It seems that their speech isn’t limited at all, so I don’t know what the problem is. All they have to do is disclose their financial backers and not broadcast it within a reasonable time of the election. The fact that the financial backers feel the need to hide themselves from taking credit, indicates it is unlikely to be a very honest production, and we can’t have people slandering the candidates without allowing time for rebutal. Even if slander is illegal in and of itself, a successful lawsuit wont change the outcome of the election. Ted Stevens was found not-guilty, but he lost the election anyway.
Say a group of people get together to make a movie about a person, and the content of the movie is baldly defamatory. The subject of the movie can sue the people responsible for the movie and hold them liable. On the other hand, if those same people formed a corporation to release the same movie, the corporation acts as an obstacle to holding the individuals liable (it can be done, but it’s more difficult).
It’s the limited liability aspect of corporations that makes extending to them the same rights you or I enjoy problematic. How can you create reasonable limits on political speech and campaign contributions if any number of “artificial people” can be created that hold the same rights?
Bingo. The way to get the money of out politics is to make it not worthwhile to spend it in politics. If the state - and in particular, the federal government - was not so powerful, there would be no incentive to lobby with billions of dollars every year.
Case in point: the recent “stimulus” bill. Lobbyists flooded DC.
So basically hand corporations all the power they want so they have nothing to lobby for.
No, to deny them the use of the government as a way to cheat the free market. By restricting the use of tariffs, you ensure that businesses cannot drive up the cost of their competitors’ products for their own benefit. By combatting pork, you force them to provide a product that is worthwhile to the people paying the bill, not just to the politicians who vote for it.
I want to see an even playing field for everyone. In other words, a free market. In the current system, those companies with the most money can lobby for their own self-interest, harming their competitors, the consumers, and nearly always the taxpayer.
I don’t understand your faith in the state. You seem to be implying that corporations have some ill intent and that we shouldn’t be “handing them power”; what makes you so sure that those in government are any better? Are those people somehow more noble, or just? Why are you so eager to give more power to those with force on their side? At least in a free market, there are choices.
Well, in theory, corporations are and should be selfish, looking out for their own interests and those of a limited number of people (their shareholders). Whereas the government should be looking out for its “shareholders”, i.e., the people.
Whether that works in practice is certainly debatable. However, with government, if it egregiously ignores the people and concentrates on a select few, the elected folks may get thrown out. However, if the people running a corporation concentrates on rewarding its shareholders, they will be rewarded (and rightfully so).
I do not understand the absolute faith you place in the free market.
We have seen where it gets you in real life. If you had a truly free market with no curbs on corporations you end up with oligopolies or monopolies. Those are decidedly anti-competitive and bad for the consumer in a variety of ways. We saw this occur with the railroad barons of old. Without antitrust laws (as a start) the free market will become anything but free.
Then we have the current economic crisis. Even the Ayn Rand loving Alan Greenspan admitted he put too much faith in the self correcting power of the free market (cite).
So of hard things to believe it is your unswerving faith in the free market to solve all that is hard to fathom. The proof is out there and rather glaring it does not work according to the ideal free marketers think it should.
I understand your point*, but you seem to be missing mine. I’m not asking you to defend or attack the free market - which indisputably needs a government in some measures as a “referee” to enforce the rules to prevent some of those situations you describe. I’m asking you to defend your position of faith in the state. You’re ignoring my questions and proceeding with a rant about the terrible free market.
- Do you think that the people that gain government positions are somehow free from the defects of those that take private positions? Do you really think their motivations are far removed from those in the “corporations”?
- Why are you willing to concede power to an authority you cannot lawfully resist?
- Do you at least agree that by limiting the power of the state, the amount of lobbying and bribery that occurred would decrease?
*Which I think is still misguided. I am not advocating complete laissez-faire anarchist capitalism, and am only trying to make the point that restricting speech rights is the wrong approach to removing the huge influx of money into politics: the right way is to lessen the power of the politics.
Not sure what you are asking here (really). Do I think most congresscritters want little more than to enjoy their power and protect their perks? Probably most of them much like a corporation is motivated to continue its own existence and prosper in any way it can.
Thing is to protect their positions congrescritters need to be answerable to their constituents. Corporations need not be worried about the public at large, just their shareholders.
I am not willing to do so. In fact, I see granting corporations constitutional rights diminish my rights. In my view your stance is the one limiting my ability to resist.
Yes but that misses the point of the OP. Granting constitutional rights to corporations does not limit the power of the state. It grants more power to corporations. The state remains as is but now corporations have a new way to get a legislator beholden to them. I suppose that would lessen the need for lobbying because the congresscritter owes their sponsors. No need to go convince that person of anything with a lobbyist. That does not improve anything though and makes it worse.
Thanks for being a good sport and answering my questions. I agree that most in congress have as selfish motivations as those working outside of congress; becoming a “public servant” often means service to none other than oneself.
I disagree that my stance is limiting your ability to resist; you are not forced to listen to a corporation’s speech, in this case, that speech being the Hillary movie. But if congress passes a law saying you cannot see it, as in this case, there is no recourse. Don’t you see how my option gives you a choice of resistance, while yours eliminates any choice, and therefore, freedom? What if watching the movie were an act of resistance; in your scenario, there is none, while in mine there still might be.
I agree with your final point, in that granting corporation these rights does not diminish the power of the state. (But I also take issue with the idea that we must think of this as “granting” them a right. I thought right of speech was not to be abridged - isn’t this law an abridgement of that right?) It seems as if you are framing a kind of titanic battle between the state and corporations. I don’t see it this way. I want to see money out of politics, but more importantly, I want to see less politics, as it is the state that is “limiting my ability to resist” among many other things.
The basic argument that seems to have broken down is this.
Corporations are big and bad, so is the government. The free market lets me “vote” against the corporation, where as I “vote” for the government like normal. I disagree that either is inherently better or worse then the other. The question that now should be asked, is who should have what power.
Obviously we can argue about the exact consequences of either action; giving the government power, or the corporations. One reason I would currently side with the robots logic, is that by not giving the government power over us, we aren’t giving someone else that power automatically.
Also the robot argues that the federal government is already to overreaching in its control. I think this is where his argument is currently the better. The government is bigger and more powerful then any corporation. It has more control over your choices as is. Since I would argue that people are not going to make better decisions simply by being elected, I see increasing that power, as being the most dangerous option.
[hijack]
So, can I form 12 corporations, all with only me as the sole owner, and then get around campaign contribution limits by giving money from not just myself, but from all 12 corporations?
[/hijack]
I do not have definitive knowledge of how current laws work in regards to corporation donations. My response to that question would be that I do not see a corporation as anything other then individuals. What ever rules are put on those individuals should not change.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it doesn’t exactly fit the direction that the argument has taken. No ones arguing that a corporation should magically have rights greater that an individual, or any rights at all. The question(as i see it) is whether or not the control the government would gain in politics is an issue.