# 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:** 3
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/41 "2011-04-01T15:53:21Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. You do realize that Congress _does_ have the right to prevent you from broadcasting your opinions, right? ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/42 "2011-04-01T15:59:12Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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. Corporations currently mandate that a certain percentage of profits be directed toward political campaigns. The stockholders through their representation can change this just as union members can change the way the union operates. Union members are not employees, the relationship to the union is closer to the relationship between a corporation and it’s stockholders. BTW: I think both activities should be banned. Let the individuals speak with their money. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/43 "2011-04-01T18:50:30Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > 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. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld spending limits from a [constitutional challenge brought by Stephen Harper](http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc33/2004scc33.html)(pre-Prime Ministerial period). The Court held that the goal of spending limits was to create a level playing field, so that individuals with money could not dominate the political discourse. [QUOTE=Bastarche J. for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada] Section 350 is justified under s. 1 of the Charter. While the overarching objective of the third party advertising expense limits is electoral fairness, more narrowly characterized, the objectives of the scheme are threefold: (1) to promote equality in the political discourse; (2) to protect the integrity of the financing regime applicable to candidates and parties; and (3) to ensure that voters have confidence in the electoral process. In view of the findings of the Lortie Commission, the central piece of the evidential record in this case, these three objectives are pressing and substantial. Section 350 also meets the proportionality test. First, the third party advertising expense limits are rationally connected to the objectives. They prevent those who have access to significant financial resources, and are able to purchase unlimited amount of advertising, to dominate the electoral discourse to the detriment of others; they create a balance between the financial resources of each candidate or political party; and they advance the perception that the electoral process is substantively fair as it provides for a reasonable degree of equality between citizens who wish to participate in that process. [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [April 3, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/44 "2011-04-03T03:48:06Z")
I pledge association to the Flag, Of the Corporate States of America, And to the Plutocracy for which it stands, One merger, under the present CEO, With liberty and justice for sale. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/45 "2011-04-03T04:05:48Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld spending limits from a [constitutional challenge brought by Stephen Harper](http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc33/2004scc33.html)(pre-Prime Ministerial period). The Court held that the goal of spending limits was to create a level playing field, so that individuals with money could not dominate the political discourse. That is so unAmerican. We love our corporate masters. They care about each and every one of their little children. They will well us who to vote for. They can be trusted. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/46 "2011-04-03T04:11:54Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > That is so unAmerican. We love our corporate masters. They care about each and every one of their little children. They will well us who to vote for. They can be trusted. Then you, too, are an associate of USACorp? Well, then long live the present CEO! ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/47 "2011-04-03T05:36:31Z")
> [@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. No this is wrong. In the US unions can not use membership dues for political contributions. None of my fees or union dues go to any canidate. I do get letters asking me to give to the union’s PAC and the union paper will have articles explaining why we should give to the union’s PAC. By I can not be forced to pay into the union’s PAC, and I do not. And Closed shops are against the law in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/48 "2011-04-03T15:22:12Z")
> [@humanafterall](#): > > I pledge association to the Flag, > Of the Corporate States of America, > And to the Plutocracy for which it stands, > One merger, under the present CEO, > With liberty and justice for sale. LOL!!! ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/49 "2011-04-03T16:09:43Z")
(Forgive me for furthering the non-Canadian hijack, but you Canucks are used to that by now, right?) I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand, I would certainly like to see less corporate influence over our government. On the other hand, simply put, corporations can’t vote - only citizens can vote. The corps can always try to influence us, as they are so used to doing, but it is ultimately in our control whether or not to allow their campaign contributions and resulting advertisements/etc to sway us. I’m pretty sure this was a large part of the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision. (Though I only read a couple articles and not the whole decision.) We the people have all the voting power, and it’s free. The corporations/special interests have no voting power, but they can spend millions to try and influence us, and unfortunately, our politicians. Seems kind of shitty in practice, but in principal it does somewhat strike a balance that _should in theory_ still leave control ultimately in the hands of the citizens. (If only most of actually voted, and those who do don’t vote like sheep.) All that said, the day corporations get the right to vote is the day I decide either to revolt or emigrate. (but yeah, that’ll never happen…I hope!) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/50 "2011-04-03T16:30:03Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > (Forgive me for furthering the non-Canadian hijack, but you Canucks are used to that by now, right?) > > I can see both sides of this issue. On one hand, I would certainly like to see less corporate influence over our government. On the other hand, simply put, corporations can’t vote - only citizens can vote. The corps can always try to influence us, as they are so used to doing, but it is ultimately in our control whether or not to allow their campaign contributions and resulting advertisements/etc to sway us. I’m pretty sure this was a large part of the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision. (Though I only read a couple articles and not the whole decision.) > > We the people have all the voting power, and it’s free. The corporations/special interests have no voting power, but they can spend millions to try and influence us, and unfortunately, our politicians. Seems kind of shitty in practice, but in principal it does somewhat strike a balance that _should in theory_ still leave control ultimately in the hands of the citizens. (If only most of actually voted, and those who do don’t vote like sheep.) > > All that said, the day corporations get the right to vote is the day I decide either to revolt or emigrate. (but yeah, that’ll never happen…I hope!) Corporations can not vote because they are not people. The Supreme Court is the only one who thinks they are. It is profoundly unfair for corporations to back political campaigns because they use money that belongs to the stock holders, who may or may not agree with their stances. Your money may be used to back political ads, that you disagree with. Doesn’t seem fair to me. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/51 "2011-04-04T20:00:34Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Corporations can not vote because they are not people. The Supreme Court is the only one who thinks they are. Well, if that were true, then corporations _could_ vote. > [@](#): > > It is profoundly unfair for corporations to back political campaigns because they use money that belongs to the stock holders, who may or may not agree with their stances. Your money may be used to back political ads, that you disagree with. Doesn’t seem fair to me. Any stock holder is free to sell their stock if they disagree with _anything_ the company does. That seems fair enough to me. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/52 "2011-04-05T08:04:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Corporations can not vote because they are not people. The Supreme Court is the only one who thinks they are. > It is profoundly unfair for corporations to back political campaigns because they use money that belongs to the stock holders, who may or may not agree with their stances. Your money may be used to back political ads, that you disagree with. Doesn’t seem fair to me. Worse than that, privately-held/family-run corporations can do their damage without needing investors (except for each other). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/53 "2011-04-05T15:23:08Z")
So - the crux of this is whether corporations have First Amendment rights. All other questions break against this one. And the First Amendment has never been read to restrict the First Amendment when groups of people are involved - indeed, several First Amendment freedoms (freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom to petition, etc) are properly understood as fully or partially corporate rights. So this seems to be an answered question - and the question ought not to be banning corporate political activity but dealing with it with the understanding that it is expressly permitted by the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/54 "2011-04-05T15:50:11Z")
No it has not be answered. Today we would not return Mr. Scott to his owners. Rights in America do change or evolve over time. It would take a Constitutional amendment, but that isn’t impossible. ---
**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 5, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/55 "2011-04-05T16:27:59Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > So - the crux of this is whether corporations have First Amendment rights. All other questions break against this one. And the First Amendment has never been read to restrict the First Amendment when groups of people are involved - indeed, several First Amendment freedoms (freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom to petition, etc) are properly understood as fully or partially corporate rights. A corporation isn’t a group of people. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/56 "2011-04-05T17:35:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A corporation isn’t a group of people. Even though the corporation has a legally separate identity, it is still made up of individual shareholders who together invest in the corporation and participate in its governance. This is true of nonprofit and for-profit corporations alike. And though it is not unheard of for a single individual to hold all of a corporation’s stock, in general a group of people hold these shares. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/57 "2011-04-05T17:36:44Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > No it has not be answered. > > Today we would not return Mr. Scott to his owners. Rights in America do change or evolve over time. It would take a Constitutional amendment, but that isn’t impossible. As a practical matter amending any of the Bill of Rights is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/58 "2011-04-05T23:56:11Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You’re splitting hairs. > > 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. > > Anyway, why do you think the government should be able to do that and how does that not violate the First Amendment? Dude, thanks to Citizens United, corporations OWN the US government’s top officials. We got bigger fish to fry. We’ll sort out the censorship issues later. We gotta get the government back in the people’s hands. What’s the point of free speech when the only speech that matters is that of corporate honchos? We can natter on this message board all we like, for example, and until the corporations are pried loose from Congress and the Presidency, it makes not a damn bit of difference what we say. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/59 "2011-04-06T00:14:39Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Dude, thanks to Citizens United, corporations OWN the US government’s top officials. We got bigger fish to fry. We’ll sort out the censorship issues later. We gotta get the government back in the people’s hands. What’s the point of free speech when the only speech that matters is that of corporate honchos? We can natter on this message board all we like, for example, and until the corporations are pried loose from Congress and the Presidency, it makes not a damn bit of difference what we say. Damn right! I’m a little tired of the “People with the most money get to make all the rules” routine. Did you know that Harry S. Truman was the last President actually elected by the American People? Since then, elections have been held, but each one was specifically engineered to put people that CEO’s could trust to fill their coffers with more of our money than they deserve. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598/60 "2011-04-06T02:53:13Z")
Well, hell yeah. I finally got the final word in on something! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-corporate-and-union-political-contributions-be-banned/576598.md?page=4)