# Supreme Court to Rule on Corporate Financing of Political Campaigns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881 "2010-01-14T03:33:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/101 "2010-01-23T07:05:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > **Villa** captured one part of this but I’ll give an example of your proposal in action. > > Say you started a company and built it from the ground up. At some point, to raise cash, you go public and sell a 40% share in your company via stocks. You still own 60%. Now you want to spend your money a certain way but despite you owning 60% of the company the kid who got one share as a gift has the same say as you do in how you choose to spend your company’s money. > > Not gonna happen. I’m assuming here that this is ONLY with regards to spending the money on electoral campaigns. The more money (shares), more votes dynamic would prevail in all other cases. Basically, the requirements would be deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it effectively impossible for a corporation to approve campaign contributions. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/102 "2010-01-23T07:10:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But what you’ve got there is largely the result of the Clintonista “third way” centrist menshevik business friendly Republican Lite traitors to the working class. I don’t think it is. If you [look here](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php), you can get the numbers broken down by industry in each of the election cycles. If you look at 1990, before Clinton even came on the scene, the percentages by sector are like this (With Democrats first, then Republicans) Agribusiness 43% 57% Communications 58% 42% Construction 39% 60% Defense 47% 53% Energy 43% 57% Finance 52% 48% Health 51% 49% Lawyers 69% 31% Transportation 47% 53% Misc Business 41% 59% Labor 93% 7% Ideology/Single Issue 67% 32% Other 34% 66% So the Republicans had an advantage in 7 of the 13 sectors, and the Democrats in 6 of the 13. In only 4 of the sectors was there a pronounced difference (which I’m defining as more than a 20% difference…ie. a more than 60/40 split), and in three of those four, (labor, ideology, and lawyers), the split favored the Democrats. Financial giving is a bipartisan thing, and both parties benefit from it, because no industry can afford to alienate either of the two parties. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/103 "2010-01-23T09:07:40Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’m assuming here that this is ONLY with regards to spending the money on electoral campaigns. The more money (shares), more votes dynamic would prevail in all other cases. Basically, the requirements would be deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it effectively impossible for a corporation to approve campaign contributions. FTR I hate the recent SCOTUS decision on this. I would love to find a way to end-run around the fuckers on this. Often I disagree with the SC but on this one I think they went waaay too far. Legal Eagles here have opined that while they dislike this decision they think it is the legally correct decision. I am contemplating a whole thread on that notion (lots of angles though…trying to make it coherent). So, on the face of it I am all for making it a practical impossibility to do what they want. That said, and again IANAL, I wonder if that would fly legally. Lord knows in the past people/government have tried to end-run various laws (e.g. things like “separate but equal”) that the courts stopped for the bullshit hi-jinks they were. Can that notion be extended here? Dunno but seems fishy to me so I reamin dubious (again noting that in this case I am all for the hi-jinks to circumvent it). Or maybe not…much as I’d like any end-run here I’d scream bloody murder if it was something I opposed and that was done. Gotta play by the rules. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/104 "2010-01-23T17:30:25Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I don’t think it is. If you [look here](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php), you can get the numbers broken down by industry in each of the election cycles. If you look at 1990, before Clinton even came on the scene, the percentages by sector are like this (With Democrats first, then Republicans) > > Agribusiness 43% 57% > Communications 58% 42% > Construction 39% 60% > Defense 47% 53% > Energy 43% 57% > Finance 52% 48% > Health 51% 49% > Lawyers 69% 31% > Transportation 47% 53% > Misc Business 41% 59% > Labor 93% 7% > Ideology/Single Issue 67% 32% > Other 34% 66% > > So the Republicans had an advantage in 7 of the 13 sectors, and the Democrats in 6 of the 13. In only 4 of the sectors was there a pronounced difference (which I’m defining as more than a 20% difference…ie. a more than 60/40 split), and in three of those four, (labor, ideology, and lawyers), the split favored the Democrats. > > Financial giving is a bipartisan thing, and both parties benefit from it, because no industry can afford to alienate either of the two parties. Well, I think it’s relevant to look at \*how much \*each party actually gets from corporate contributors, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dems currently get more than the Pubs–they are in power in all 3 branches of government, after all. **'luci** ’s statement would have been more accurate if he’d said “conservatives,” rather than Pubs, since there are a number of congressional Dems who are conservatives, but not a single Pub who is a liberal. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/105 "2010-01-23T17:36:12Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > And I don’t know that this does hand the Republican party a pot of gold. If you put aside ideological corporate donors (Right to Life is going to give to the Republicans, the ACLU is going to give to the Democrats), for profit corporations give pretty much equally to Republicans and Democrats, with the bias going to the party currently in power. Even corporations were to give equally to both parties to carry favor, we’re still in for a new favor in which politicians owe favors to corporations. There is essentially no upside to this, and plenty of downside. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/106 "2010-01-23T17:38:48Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The movie was made by a group called “Citizens United”, not Fox. It’s a conservative non-profit founded by Floyd Brown, a Republican political consultant who was behind the Willie Horton ads. It has nothing to do with Fox. > > I don’t know how you define “corporate attorney”, but Alito doesn’t fit the definition however you define it. Alito was never in private practice. After law school, he spent a year clerking for a judge on the third circuit. After that, he was an assistant US attorney in New Jersey. Then, he was Assistant to the Solicitor General, and then after that, Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General, then US Attorney for the District of New Jersey, and then judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. > > And it’s not fair to say that stuff about Thomas. In fact, he and Scalia disagreed on this decision, with Thomas not joining into part four of the decision. You declare the love affair over on that basis. Nice try. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/107 "2010-01-23T18:27:40Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > … **'luci** ’s statement would have been more accurate if he’d said “conservatives,” rather than Pubs, since there are a number of congressional Dems who are conservatives, but not a single Pub who is a liberal. Just so, the lack of clarity is entirely my error. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/108 "2010-01-23T18:27:51Z")
The reason many politicians discuss campaign financing laws is because they know how corrupting the corporate and big money influence is. They feel bad about the access to politicians that money can get. They have lobbyists beating on their door every morning demanding they vote for their interests . They often write the bills that the legislators offer. It has been ugly and getting uglier. Now it will be out of control. Anybody who suggests this decision corrects a wrong , that corporations were being denied their rights ,is crazy. Corporations are not people. I signed a petition for an amendment yesterday. There is a movement already working. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/109 "2010-01-23T19:11:05Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You declare the love affair over on that basis. Nice try. So how is Alito a corporate attorney? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/110 "2010-01-23T19:30:09Z")
As usual, I agree with [Glenn Greenwald.](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html) And [Eliot Spitzer](http://www.slate.com/id/2227239/), for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/111 "2010-01-23T19:31:56Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > **'luci** ’s statement would have been more accurate if he’d said “conservatives,” rather than Pubs, since there are a number of congressional Dems who are conservatives, but not a single Pub who is a liberal. I don’t know. Is there a big difference between corporate contributions to conservatives vs corporate contributions to liberals? I’m not sure there is, but I don’t have time to do the research now. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/112 "2010-01-23T19:36:58Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > As usual, I agree with [Glenn Greenwald.](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html) I agree with Greenwald’s analysis. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/113 "2010-01-23T20:10:00Z")
Justice Stevens wrote: “This threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.The path taken to reach its outcome, I fear ,will do damage to this institution” Real damage to fair elections and loss of respect for the court itself. That sure is a good thing.Money will corrupt the electoral process. It always has. ---
**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:** [January 23, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/114 "2010-01-23T20:25:47Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > As usual, I agree with [Glenn Greenwald.](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html) > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I agree with Greenwald’s analysis. I just came across it this morning. Thirded. Oh, and the [first article](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html) (from Friday) is worth reading before the above-cited followup article (from Saturday), if only for additional context. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/115 "2010-01-24T02:17:29Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html) Here is a more scholarly analysis. The court made rulings that were beyond the scope of the trial. No party asked for some of the ruling . The Justices took an opportunity ti press their own agendas and tossed precedent and reversed a couple more decisions. They way over stepped. Yet the Repubs dare to talk about an activist court. This is beyond activist. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/116 "2010-02-07T23:08:08Z")
Here’s something interesting: there are also Tea Party people who are opposing this decision: > [@](#): > > Shane Brooks, a Texas-based Tea Party activist, told TPMmuckraker in an email: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > This decision basically gives the multinational corporations owned by foreign entities [the right] to pour unlimited funds into the pockets of corrupt corporate backed politicians to attack everything this country stands for. We might as well be able to vote for Disney or the SEIU as President of the United States of America. > > > > ``` > > In a [recent blog post](http://imr.toliberty.com/2010/02/01/the-tea-party-and-corporate-personhood/), Kevin Smith of the Nashville Tea Party wrote that the ruling “puts corporations in a position to crowd out smaller competition and buy politicians from the local sheriff to the President himself.” > > In a [statement](http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/01/supco-campaign-cash-decision-reactions/)provided in the wake of the ruling to the Reid Report blog, Dale Robertson, the Houston-based leader of [TeaParty.org](http://TeaParty.org), took the same view: > > > [@](#): > > > > It just allows them to feed the machine. Corporations are not like people. Corporations exist forever, people don’t. Our founding fathers never wanted them; these behemoth organizations that never die, so they can collect an insurmountable amount of profit. It puts the people at a tremendous disadvantage. > > [http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/some\_tea\_partiers\_are\_expressing.php?ref=mp](http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/some_tea_partiers_are_expressing.php?ref=mp) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/117 "2010-02-08T20:53:07Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Here’s something interesting: there are also Tea Party people who are opposing this decision: No surprise there, really, the Tea Partiers are mostly paleoconservatives – who are economic populists, as hostile to Wall Street as to Washington. Sometimes they’re hostile to Wall Street for completely insane reasons, e.g., perceiving a sinister “New World Order,” or the Fed sticking us with unconstitutionally nonmetallic “fiat money,” or a conspiracy of “International Bankers” (if you know who I mean, and I think you do ;)); but the result is more or less the same as if they were leftists. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/118 "2010-02-08T20:56:23Z")
I don’t think anyone likes this except politicians and the corporations that own them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/119 "2010-02-08T21:26:32Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t think anyone likes this except politicians and the corporations that own them. You’d be surprised. There seem to be an awful lot of non-rich Americans who **sympathize** with the corporations, for ideological reasons, or whatever. Plus many who would disavow such sympathy but still would support this decision, again for ideological reasons. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/120 "2010-02-08T21:53:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You’d be surprised. There seem to be an awful lot of non-rich Americans who **sympathize** with the corporations, for ideological reasons, or whatever. Plus many who would disavow such sympathy but still would support this decision, again for ideological reasons. I know what you did. Ideology? Perhaps if faith in the remote chance of hitting PowerBall may be considered so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881.md?page=7)