A lot has been made of the exchange between Obama and Alito during the SOTU. Obama is dead wrong in saying that the court overturned 100 years of precedent. It is interesting to note that the only reason media outlets, such as newspapers and such, can endorse candidates and make independent political contributions is because McCain-Feingold exempted them. Since when does Congress have the power to endow others with the right to political speech. If Congress could grant them an exemption, Congress could also take it away.
If Congress really wanted to stop the influence of corporations in the political process (and unions for that matter), Congress would stop meddling in every aspect of the economy. McCain-Feingold wasn’t about protecting the political process. It was about protecting Congressmen who want to harass businesses without dealing with the backlash.
Last 3 posts by Taylor
- Obama's Second Act - Very Very Scary - July 16th, 2010
- No Politics in the Goldman Sachs Enforcement Action? - April 20th, 2010
- Moral Relativity Reigns...except - April 9th, 2010
I don’t know fully the details of 100 years of precedence or the details of the McCain-Feingold legislation. And maybe I’d feel differently if I did, but, I don’t agree with the court’s decision. Sure, free speech is essential to any country and to any human being. But free speech is a human right. Corporations, while enjoying many of the same rights as humans, are not humans. This is the age-old complaint about big corporations, but it is true that corporations can get so large that their influence is nearly impossible to combat by actual people. Allowing corporations to donate as much as they want politically only makes the problem worse.
I disagree, respectfully, of course.
McCain-Feingold also applied to non-profit corporations. Also, the expenditures are related to issues, not particular candidates.
If the issue is money and how much is spent, why not place caps on George Soros spending millions of his own money? There are more inherent democratic controls on what a corporation will spend (proxy battles, etc.) in the political process and on what issues than on what an individual like Soros will spend.
The first amendment applies to corporations and other entities just as much as it does to individuals.
I agree with Eric.
1) Among all the protections that corporations have, I don’t think that free speech is one of them. Although it is a recognized legal entity, it is not an physical, emotional, or spiritual entity. It may be a great structure to allow for capital investment and personal liability protections, but as far as being a vehicle to sway complex decision, it sucks. I get that the other side would argue that the government could then restrict what gets put into a textbook or commercial, but its not that simple.
2) Or maybe it is the idea that when a corporation spends money, it should be in the interests of its shareholders. A corporation’s ONLY motivation should be the increase of profits (or creating revenues towards its goal for non-profits).. and therefore any monies spent on lobbying should be toward that goal too… which may directly conflict the personal ideals, goals, and wishes of its shareholders. For example, lets say many citizens want to develop alternative fuels for a cleaner environment, but they choose to invest in an oil and gas company because of the steady dividends, then the company spends funds to make the laws favorable for oil and gas companies, which runs contrary to the personal goals of its citizens.
3) A corporation spending money to influence a politician has the same distaste to me as the electoral college. Its the consolidation of power in a small group who doesn’t necessarily have any accountability to those it supposedly represents (constituents or shareholders).
In summation, in a representative form of government, we need to make sure that the voice of individuals is the loudest.