# Should Corporate and Union Political Contributions Be Banned ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598 "2011-03-31T02:54:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/21 "2011-03-31T21:52:35Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > I’d like to see the Constitution amended so that only human type people - as opposed to either corporations or unions - would be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, and that they could only contribute toward candidates in their own state. What if you and your friends got together and combined your contributions? Let’s say your alumni class of 500 all pooled your political contributions ($1,000 each) together and elected a committee of 5 people to determine which candidates got how much. Would that be okay under your proposal? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/22 "2011-03-31T22:26:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Had the FEC forbidden the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 during 2004, as the four justices who voted against Citizens United felt the government had the right to, then they’d have effectively banned it. Well, the FEC rule regulated airing 60 days or less prior to an election. Since F9/11 was released in the US in June, there was no FEC issue. Unlike the…what was it again…the movie about Hillary, I think, that spawned Citizens United. If you have a cite that F9/11 was shown within the 60 day period before the election, you’d have scored. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/23 "2011-03-31T23:00:02Z")
I think freedom of speech is the problem here. I have no problem with banning political contributions, but that is just a system of making it easier to speak. The money could be spent by the individuals to achieve the same result without the creation of a PAC or other entity. The owners of the corporations could take the money out as profits and spend it on campaign commercials. I don’t like the system that makes it so easy to give the money to let someone else speak, but in the end, freedom of speech will include using money to speak by paying for a campaign commercial. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/24 "2011-03-31T23:16:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m not convinced that the First Amendment _does_ protect flag-burning. I _am_ convinced that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) prohibit things which are manifestly not political speech, like donations. Well, since you seem to want to go all Scalia when it suits you, perhaps you can cite to the constitutional provision protecting the right to abortion? No assumptions or interpretations allowed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/25 "2011-03-31T23:28:49Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > I’d like to see the Constitution amended so that only human type people - as opposed to either corporations or unions - would be allowed to contribute to political campaigns, and that they could only contribute toward candidates in their own state. A Presidential candidate could draw money from throughout the country, but a New York candidate for Senate could only draw from NY residents, and an Ohio congressional candidate would have to raise all his funds from Ohio. Could a guy in Ohio spend his own money bankrolling advertisements for someone in New York? So the candidate in question never handles a contribution from out of state, but only ever notices as radio spots and television commercials and full-page newspaper ads pop up on someone else’s initiative? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/26 "2011-03-31T23:51:24Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Well, the FEC rule regulated airing 60 days or less prior to an election. Since F9/11 was released in the US in June, there was no FEC issue. Unlike the…what was it again…the movie about Hillary, I think, that spawned Citizens United. > > If you have a cite that F9/11 was shown within the 60 day period before the election, you’d have scored. Do you? Well it was certainly shown 60 days prior to the Republican primaries, and based on the standards regarding the documentary about Hillary certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to be released during that time period. Remember the Hillary Movie would have aired long before the actual election, but within 60 days of at least one Democratic primary. So, anyway, please answer the question. Why do you think F9/11 should have been banned from release as should the book Unfit for Command, which ripped into John Kerry(remember the government’s position that “a campaign document in the form of a book would be affected”)? Furthermore, how would the banning of Fahrenheit 9/11 and the banning of books criticizing John Kerry and George Bush not have violated the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/27 "2011-03-31T23:55:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I think freedom of speech is the problem here. I have no problem with banning political contributions, but that is just a system of making it easier to speak. The money could be spent by the individuals to achieve the same result without the creation of a PAC or other entity. The owners of the corporations could take the money out as profits and spend it on campaign commercials. I don’t like the system that makes it so easy to give the money to let someone else speak, but in the end, freedom of speech will include using money to speak by paying for a campaign commercial. Ok, this isn’t meant to be critical, but then did you applaud when the FEC hit the Sierra Club for handing out fliers criticizing a Republican Senate candidate’s voting record on environmental issues(which the courts upheld)? Similarly, did you think the NAACP should have been sanctioned for running the anti-Bush ad in 2000 criticizing Presidential candidate Bush for his stance on hate crime legislation(which it would have been if McCain-Feingold had been in affect back then)? ---
**Author:** ![humanafterall](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/humanafterall/32/19654_2.png) [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/28 "2011-03-31T23:56:18Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > * * * > > Congress shall make no law\*\* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or **abridging the freedom of speech** , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\* > > (emphasis added) Yes, but how can money be considered the same thing as speech? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/29 "2011-03-31T23:59:30Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Well it was certainly shown 60 days prior to the Republican primaries, and based on the standards regarding the documentary about Hillary certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to be released during that time period. Remember the Hillary Movie would have aired long before the actual election, but within 60 days of at least one Democratic primary. > > So, anyway, please answer the question. > > Why do you think F9/11 should have been banned from release as should the book Unfit for Command, which ripped into John Kerry(remember the government’s position that “a campaign document in the form of a book would be affected”)? > > Furthermore, how would the banning of Fahrenheit 9/11 and the banning of books criticizing John Kerry and George Bush not have violated the First Amendment. I didn’t mean to come across as snarky as this response would imply. Apologies. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/30 "2011-04-01T00:58:30Z")
> [@humanafterall](#): > > Yes, but how can money be considered the same thing as speech? Would printing my own newspaper count as “freedom of speech”, or would that be “or of the press”? How about pamphlets? Or leaflets? Maybe posters? Possibly billboards? Publishing a book? Filming a movie? Can we put slogans on bumper stickers? T-shirts? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/31 "2011-04-01T03:14:50Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Ok, this isn’t meant to be critical, but then did you applaud when the FEC hit the Sierra Club for handing out fliers criticizing a Republican Senate candidate’s voting record on environmental issues(which the courts upheld)? > > Similarly, did you think the NAACP should have been sanctioned for running the anti-Bush ad in 2000 criticizing Presidential candidate Bush for his stance on hate crime legislation(which it would have been if McCain-Feingold had been in affect back then)? I didn’t applaud, but I didn’t boo and hiss either. I would prefer that money could not be given to political campaigns in any form, but I would rather maintain freedom of speech, and definitely want to see the laws applied equally. The particular political cause is irrelevant to the principle. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/32 "2011-04-01T03:40:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > T-shirts? [Cohen v. California wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California) is about a jacket…but I, apparently unlike **Really Not All That Bright** , would interpret that to also cover t-shirts. I guess that’s pretty risky position to take, though…involves some assumptions and all. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/33 "2011-04-01T03:47:09Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I didn’t applaud, but I didn’t boo and hiss either. I would prefer that money could not be given to political campaigns in any form, but I would rather maintain freedom of speech, and definitely want to see the laws applied equally. The particular political cause is irrelevant to the principle. So then did you support sanctions being imposed on the Sierra Club for handing out fliers criticizing a political candidate or not? Again, not challenging just asking. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/34 "2011-04-01T04:03:09Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Well, the FEC rule regulated airing 60 days or less prior to an election. Since F9/11 was released in the US in June, there was no FEC issue. Unlike the…what was it again…the movie about Hillary, I think, that spawned Citizens United. > > If you have a cite that F9/11 was shown within the 60 day period before the election, you’d have scored. Do you? Well, it’s only [IMDB](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/business), but… $119,194,771 (USA) (28 October 2004) $119,078,393 (USA) (3 October 2004) $118,877,529 (USA) (26 September 2004) $118,561,908 (USA) (19 September 2004) $118,334,272 (USA) (12 September 2004) $118,002,561 (USA) (5 September 2004) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/35 "2011-04-01T04:03:50Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then did you support sanctions being imposed on the Sierra Club for handing out fliers criticizing a political candidate or not? > > Again, not challenging just asking. Sorry, but I don’t recall the details of that incident, so I can’t speak to it directly. If the sanctions were enforced as a matter of law, then I could only have objections if the law was unfair, or unfairly enforced. What are you asking exactly? Do I favor unfair laws? No. I don’t see how the particular political issue involved matters. I do object strenuously to anything that denies anyone freedom of speech. But I don’t personally believe gifts of money are free speech, I consider them bribes. So you tell me since you brought it up, what was the Sierra Club case about? Were they in violation of any laws? If so, what law was violated? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/36 "2011-04-01T13:12:38Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Well, since you seem to want to go all Scalia when it suits you, perhaps you can cite to the constitutional provision protecting the right to abortion? No assumptions or interpretations allowed. I am on record here multiple times as saying [Roe v. Wade was bad law](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13451436&postcount=69). But nice try. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/37 "2011-04-01T14:30:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Could a guy in Ohio spend his own money bankrolling advertisements for someone in New York? So the candidate in question never handles a contribution from out of state, but only ever notices as radio spots and television commercials and full-page newspaper ads pop up on someone else’s initiative? Under my amendment, no he couldn’t. We have a representative democracy, so each citizen should only be able to vote for or against, or try to influence, his own representative or senator. The current rich and/or powerful will never allow such an amendment, of course. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/38 "2011-04-01T15:00:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but there are assumptions and there are wild-assed leaps. Corporate personhood is a wild-assed leap. The concept that money equals speech, equally so. Yeah, as well as the idea that free speech extends to radio and TV and whatnot. You’re free to _say_ whatever you want, but Congress has every right to prevent you from \*broadcasting \*your opinions. It’s a wild-ass leap to say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/39 "2011-04-01T15:12:30Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > One unique distinction on Corporate PACs and Union PACs is that corporations cannot make PAC contributions mandatory for employment at the company. In fact there are rules on how PAC contributions can even be solicited and from whom. Union PAC’s however can make contributions a part of the annual dues of the union. And if you work in a closed shop, that makes union membership mandatory, then you can be required to contribute to the PAC whether you want to or not. This. Imagine that corporations mandated that a certain percentage of all employees pay went into a fund that they used to contribute to Republican candidates. The left wouldn’t have any difficulty seeing the unfairness of that. However, since the shoe’s on the other foot and it’s the Democratic candidates who benefit from these forced contributions there is no objection. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/40 "2011-04-01T15:34:15Z")
Back to the point of the thread. This is in Canada. Do they have a Supreme Court in the pocket of big business like we do? Do they have a constitution that gives human rights to corporations? Ours does not either. It took a biased court to make it so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598.md?page=3)