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.
I don’t think it is. If you look here, 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.
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.
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.
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.
You declare the love affair over on that basis. Nice try.
Just so, the lack of clarity is entirely my error.
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.
So how is Alito a corporate attorney?
As usual, I agree with Glenn Greenwald.
And Eliot Spitzer, for that matter.
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.
I agree with Greenwald’s analysis.
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.
I just came across it this morning. Thirded.
Oh, and the first article (from Friday) is worth reading before the above-cited followup article (from Saturday), if only for additional context.
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.
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.
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.
I know what you did.
Ideology? Perhaps if faith in the remote chance of hitting PowerBall may be considered so.