I heard about thirty seconds of a radio show last night in which the host said that one bit of evidence the recent campaign finance ruling was a bad one is that even the corporations which stand to benefit from the ruling have registered misgivings about it.
Does anyone here know what he was referring to?
Well, it’s possible that large corporations feel they already have all the access they need, so all the ruling will do is make them look bad. I’d say each corporate officer probably feels differently about it, though. Just my WAG.
The next step IMHO is then to make any donations by non-voters a matter of public record. (Can’t do that for voters since privacy or freedom from intimidation over your vote is an element of free speech). This just means more rules and regulations to be met. Ask any NYSE-listed corporation exec what they think of Sarbanes-Oxley. Who needs more? Likely iit will result in the lobbying disclosure rules being even more open than before.
Plus, then every nut job with a share will be asking - demanding!! - that you help finance thier favorite cause, or boycotting you for not doing so. Also, every politician with an palm that needs greasing will be knocking at the door with an implict “cough up or else” message. It’s a no-win situation. You hand out money - as do all of your competitors - and you are probably right where you are now. Unless your business needs to be lobbying, why stick your corporate nose into politics?
It’s even worse than that. Now that the market is unregulated, the price of a senator will only go up.
Corporations want to have influence with the issues that concern them.
But when it comes to supporting specific candidates, choosing A over B in a primary election, when both are leaning toward your position anyway, is nothing but trouble.
For that matter, non-profits are in the same boat. If Republican candidate A has always supported my organization’s goals, contributing to his campaign might be logical, but might also cause highly partisan Democrat donor B to take their charitable contributions somewhere else.
They might be unhappy because it basically means they have to spend more on politics: if one of your main competitors or a trade union is spending $100 million campaigning for a candidate or issue you don’t like, it means you have to plunge in with $100 million of your own to oppose it. Whereas before neither of you were allowed to spend anything.
Congress has promised to “fix” the “problem” caused by the Supreme Court.
Anyone who knows anything about Congress knows that the fix is always worse than the problem.
Donations by corporations are still controlled. This ruling addressed ONLY the question of independent expenditures to express a point of view.