Something I’ve been reading here and at DailyKos is that Conservatives think that the decision made by the Supremes recently is a good decision. But most of the Conservatives that I speak to think it’s appalling. There is this idea that Conservatives are the champions of Corporate Personhood. I don’t know that this is true. Generally in my experience Conservatives are the most against the 14th amendment because of its reduction of states rights and its establishment of Corporate Personhood.
So what’s the deal? Are Conservatives generally in favor of this ruling? I’m not talking about a strict constructionist point of view mind you where people grudgingly accept it as being Constitutionally sound, but more in terms of whether or not they think this is a good thing for America.
this disconnect is a good example of how it’s clear as day that the Republican Party or Conservatives (as parties or movements) have diverging interests to their actual human backers (i.e. actual conservative people), but have managed to retain their political influence and popularity through their exploitation of other wedge issues.
This isn’t something that people in flyover country can really understand or care about, so as long as the political party advancing this ideology is also cool with banning abortions and assassinating abortion doctors, they couldn’t care less.
(another one of these, fwiw, is farm subsidies. republican voters love them, but Republican ideology hates them)
Sorry, but that sounds a little too pat and condescending to me. The people I have spoken to from flyover country seem to get it.
The Supreme Court seems to have come at it from a strict constructionist point of view, that it is constitutional. Maybe the constitution needs to be changed, but it does seem to be consonant with the constitutionality.
What do they get about this? You think they really understand the constitutional analysis regarding free speech and corporate personhood? (I’m not suggesting that Liberals have, en masse, any better understanding). Sure, they may “understand” what they have been told the effects of it will be, but this isn’t understanding in the sense of the term being used here - i.e. understanding why “their guys” would support the purchasing of elections.
Who is they? Yes, I do believe that some Conservatives in flyover states do understand this.
Well I don’t fully understand how it works, I’m not that well-versed in Constitutional law, but I do know that in general I tend to be more informed as a voter than the average voter is. I’ve had conversations about this with my friend who runs campaigns, regarding how he types constituents. He said basically there are three types, insiders like himself, people like me who stay nominally informed, and people who are basically uninformed. And this is a Democratic operative in NYC.
So really, there is limited interest in it for me regarding which side is more ignorant. I am not so interested in discussing what the people who don’t know shit about this issue think, but more in what the people who know a little bit about it think. I haven’t noticed a widespread belief in the good of corporate personhood from Conservatives, though I hear a lot of Liberals making that accusation. So I’m trying to suss out whether that accusation is simply ‘gotcha’ bullshit, or if I am missing something.
and my point is that the people that the Liberals are accusing in that case are not the citizen-voters - it’s the people who run the Conservative Movement (who do not necessarily share in all the beliefs of their voting constituents)
Take another example: shareholder rights versus board of director battles, especially on issues of proxy ballot access. You will generally find that “conservative” think tanks, experts, and professors believe that limiting shareholder access to put resolutions on shareholder voting ballots is a good thing - you will generally find that “liberal” think tanks, experts, and professors believe that expanding shareholder ability to put resolutions on shareholder voting ballots is a good thing. most human voters, liberal or conservative, would probably wince at the stripping away of the democratic process. the human voters in this case are not the people the liberal voters are accusing of being beholden to corporate interest.
As a Republican that would love to see a return of the Bull-Moose as a third national party, I agree with this.
I think corporations do have interests separtes from the individual interests of the shareholders in what laws do and do not get passed so I have no problem with them being able to give money. But to believe that the amount of money given does not somehow violate the “one person - one vote” ideal that SCOTUS feels is the backbone of our republican system is just ridiculous. Bad decision. Not Kelo bad, but close.
I would also argue another point of campaign financing. My elected officials represent me and yours represent you. An entity (real person or corporation) should only be allowed to finance they’re representatives. I’m in Phoenix so I should only be allowed to finance Kyl or McCain or their opponants but not Feinstein or Lieberman. And just like a person has one residence that determines their elected officials, the corporations should be limited to only contributing to the representatives of where their headquarters are.
Are you currently limited to donating to politicians only in your given electoral/congressional district? And of course, this is moot when you’re talking about a presidential election.
To the extent that this current decision deals with direct campaign contributions, I can get on board with what you’re saying. I believe this case deals with generic “political advertising” which is a separate ball of wax.
As an Ohio liberal Democrat, I heartily second this motion. I should only be able to contribute to Ohio candidates, not ones in other states. People should only be able to contribute to candidates running in their own state.
That doesn’t answer the corporate contribution question though.
I don’t think it’s a good thing for America; it’s not a wise social policy at all. I have reasons, but I doubt anyone here will be swayed by them since the vast majority of readers already agree with my conclusion.
I do, however, believe the Court reached the correct legal result.
Sure it does. I have a corporation headquartered in Phoenix lets say with offices in Seattle, Boston, and East Davenport. As a corporation, I should only be able to support Phoenix/Arizona statewide politicians. Same holds true as a private citizen since I’m registered in Phoenix although I do care what happens in Colorado Springs since my some lives there or Los Angeles since I own property ther.
I’m a libertarian First Amendment absolutist and I strongly support this ruling. The First Amendment isn’t a “grant” of “rights” to selected individuals or entities, but rather a restriction on the power of government. The government has no power to restrict speech. Laws which prohibit certain associations (corporations) from broadcasting certain opinions (commentary about political candidates) at certain times (within 60 days of an election) restrict speech. Good riddance.
I agree with this completely. I also think that as a matter of practicality, McCain-Feingold has had all sorts of unintended consequences that are worse than simply allowing corporate contributions. Corporations still contribute - they just do it through the back door. It makes the process less transparent. ‘Bundlers’ collect individual donations from corporate employees, or corporations step up lobbying efforts or otherwise affect control on the government through other mechanisms.
In addition, there seems to me to be a fundamental imbalance here - the most influential outside parties on government, and especially the Democratic party, are the big unions. Teachers, lawyers, teamsters, the public employees unions. I don’t see anyone working very hard to eliminate their influence.
McCain Feingold was also supposed to eliminate ‘big money’ so that less money would be spent on elections and so that people who weren’t connected to the current halls of power would have a chance to get elected. That didn’t work at all. Every election sets new records for spending, and the result of Campaign Finance Reform is tha the system is increasingly being controlled by very wealthy individuals. Make it harder to raise money, and you wind up biasing the field towards people who don’t have to raise money. Michael Bloomberg bought his election with his own funds. John Edwards and John Kerry spent a lot of their own money on their various election campaigns.
Finally, if the purpose of McCain-Feingold was to restrain the influence of corporations in public life, well… how did that work out? It looks to me like the influence of corporations has grown dramatically in the last 20 years. Goldman Sachs walked away from the financial meltdown without a scratch, largely beccause it had tremendous influence inside government. General Electric is busy collecting as much stimulus money as it can. The auto companies were bailed out. Corporate influence is stronger than ever - perhaps because Campaign Finance Reform actually has made it harder for the ‘little guy’ to run for election in the big leagues without the ability to gain sponsorship.
If you want to look at pernicious influences in the electoral process, how about the role of the mega-rich like George Soros, who funds all kinds of political speech on the left? I support his right to do that, but I have a hard time seeing why corporations should be prevented from donating to politicians when we live in a world where there are ultra rich individuals who have more disposable money than most corporations have, and who also have very low transparency requirements.
Finally, let me ask this basic question: Does anyone think the quality of the political class has improved since McCain-Feingold was passed? Do you think government is running better, and is more responsive to the will of the people than it was in the past? Sure doesn’t look like it to me. Show me where the benefit has been, then you might convince me that something has been lost.
Corporations still can’t donate directly to political campaigns. That part of the law was left intact. They can, however, produce ads on their own advocating for candidates, but they can’t coordinate such ads with a candidate or his campaign staff.
I disagree with this entirely. This is a large country, and if we want to maintain our integrity and not break up into little fiefs, we shouldn’t be so regional in our politics. It only encourages pork and “backstabbing Oregon for the sake of Virginia” legislation.
In fact, if we want our politicians to focus on the good of the whole country and not their own little backwater at the expense of others, we should apportion our representatives alphabetically instead of by district. Last names Aa-Al vote for Senator #1, Al-Az vote for Senator #2, and so on.
Okay, I wouldn’t actually go that far, I only used it for illustration, but I definitely wouldn’t go the other way and ban support of all the politicians outside of your own little geographical region.
