# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 7
**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:** [February 8, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/121 "2010-02-08T22:32:14Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > 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. Seems historically the Reps do a lot better than the Dems. That said corporate America will seek to gain favor with whoever is in power and, as the below shows, Dems look to have closed the gap very recently. > [@](#): > > Obama has helped to change the direction of corporate giving. By late July, the political action committees of American companies had contributed almost $214 million to the Democrats and Republicans. For the first time in over two decades, the cash was evenly divided: Each party received roughly $107 million. > > Traditionally Democrats have always lagged in attracting money from business. During the 1996 election cycle, for instance, Republicans received almost 73 percent of corporate donations while Democrats received 27 percent, according to the Federal Election Commission. > > This uneven ratio persisted almost up to the present. In the last presidential election, in 2004, Republicans received close to 68 percent of the money that businesses gave. > > SOURCE: [http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/379678\_campaignfundsonline19.html](http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/379678_campaignfundsonline19.html) ETA: What is sickening is if you divide that $214 million among all the members of Congress it amounts to $397,770 each. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/122 "2010-02-09T01:31:33Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I know what you did. > > Ideology? Perhaps if faith in the remote chance of hitting PowerBall may be considered so. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the widespread American belief-system in which the rich are rich and the poor are poor because they deserve it, because of life-choices they’ve made, and in which even such a moderate regulatory-welfare state as the New Deal is an instance of Stalinism. It’s not only the rich who believe all that. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/123 "2010-02-09T04:40:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the widespread American belief-system in which the rich are rich and the poor are poor because they deserve it, because of life-choices they’ve made, and in which even such a moderate regulatory-welfare state as the New Deal is an instance of Stalinism. It’s not only the rich who believe all that. So we say. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/124 "2010-02-09T05:52:15Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > 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. I don’t see why people would find these articles persuasive. The Greenwald one is almost entirely fluff. The first huge paragraph is devoted to pointing out that people tend to favor analysis that favors their position. Duh. The next four paragraphs (plus a quote) make the point that while detractors complain that corporations are treated as persons not a single dissenting justice takes this stance. In the final sentence of this section he concludes that this doesn’t prove the detractors wrong… then why devote the bulk of your article to such a digression? Corporate personhood is firmly ingrained in our jurisprudence. It would be jaw droppingly suprising for one of the Supremes to have disputed it. I didn’t click the Countdown link so perhaps there is some substance there but in his paragraph on it Greenwald only includes vague assertions about the conclusions of others. The final paragraph is just whining about detractors bemoaning a legalistic method of interpretation. I agree with him but it does nothing to support the decision itself. Fluff, pure and simple. Spitzer’s analysis is ridiculous. He believes that there is a _quid pro quo_ issue if someone gives money to a candidate to help them get elected but that there somehow isn’t if someone spends the money themselves to get the candidate elected. Dumb. He also ignores the real people/corporation distinction. Individuals don’t lose their right to voice their opinion when corporate money is limited. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2010, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/125 "2010-02-09T06:21:55Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > The Greenwald one is almost entirely fluff. I’m not sure if you noticed (perhaps you did), but the one you linked to is a follow-up. The original was published [the day before](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html). Greenwald also links (in one of the updates) to a direct response/rebuttal by [Kevin Drum](http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/money-politics). Just in case you missed them, in the chance that you’d find them more substantial. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881/126 "2010-02-09T06:47:57Z")
I didn’t notice, thanks. That article was much better. I didn’t like how he waved away _stare decisis_ concerns or failed to consider that outcome based objections here may be legitimate “compelling state interests” but overall he made a good job of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-to-rule-on-corporate-financing-of-political-campaigns/524881.md?page=6)