eman623:
You make very good points. I reason it boils down to the degree of partisanship in the organisation. For example the NYT might run a pro-Democratic editorial on Monday but could run a pro-Republican editorial on Wednesday and a pro-independent editorial on Thursday. Lions Gate could release a Michael Moore picture one year and a right leaning film like Starship Troopets the next. The NYT and Lions Gate do not have as their primary objective as the influencing of a political race. They are profit making enterprises which cater to the public's appetite. So long as the NYT follows the fairness doctrine and gives a balanced editorial position from writers on all sides of the political process, then that is not interference in the electoral process. Likewise, so long as Lions Gate does not release a wholely partisan picture in the middle of an election campaign, then I see nothing wrong with releasing such films as works of art. The problem is that America has drifted into an almost three-year long election cycle, so it may be time to limit thee electoral process to a fixed period of time.
Citizens United was created as a vehicle to channel money specifically to influence elections. It is not a profit making enterprise which tangentially and secondarily impacts the electoral process but is rather a purpose-built driver and influencer of the political process. Therefore, in my opinion, Citizen United and similar organisations should not be allowed to fulfill such a purpose, be they left, centrist or right leaning organisation. Their purpose is to influence the election process, period.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Well, for like a hundred bucks you can create one with yourself as the CEO.
Pretty cheap for a supersuit and immortality.
But I'm sure you knew this because in order for you to be acting consistently with your stated beliefs you must have already created one.
Which group should have control of government?
Which group should have control of government?
Corporations may be made of people but they are not people nor do they act in the public interest. Corporations, unions, and any other organization should have as little influence as possible in Western democracy as they are not the people, the only the people themselves should have a say. Political parties should be funded exclusively by individual donations capped at a low amount (e.g. $100 like Quebec) to ensure a level playing field for all citizens.
Obviously in a democratic society control of government should rest with the people.
If "corporations are people" is meant to suggest that corporations as entities should enjoy an actual level of independent personhood justifying direct participation in democratic governance, that's an obvious absurdity. I don't see any compelling argument that corporations should vote or that corporate treasury dollars should be available for electioneering activities.
If instead it's the relatively banal observation that people work at corporations, that's different. If you look at donations by industry at something like Open Secrets, those are just totals of people making personal donations categorized by where they happen to work. Maybe their candidate choice is influenced by considerations specific to their employment and industry, maybe not, people make contributions for all sorts of reasons. Doesn't matter, they don't have to justify it.
One step beyond that is allowing individuals associated with a particular corporate entity to pool personal donations via a separate segregated fund. Given that we allow individuals to associate and organize to amplify their voices under our system, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. There are all kinds of connected and non-connected PACs out there using personal donations to push all sorts of issues and interests. Given that's arguably the point of having our form of government and protecting freedom of association, I'd group that under the "people controlling government" category.
Aren't there people in corporations as well?
No, but the money generated from IBM can be used to leverage politicians into manipulating policy for their benefit over that of the American people.
Corporations are not themselves people
Curious: do you believe as the SCOTUS of 76 did that political spending is speech and should thus be unlimited? What about limits on professional lobbying? What about in general the grossly uneven playing field between the rich and the poor which is exacerbated in the States by its relative wild west in terms of political (including lobbying and PACs) and campaign finance?
Which group should have control of government?
Corporations are not themselves people
People do not lose their inalienable rights when they come together to form voluntary associations like corporations and trade unions.
They sure don't. And the individuals who make up the corporation possess all their rights. But Corporations themselves are not people, and Corporations themselves have no rights.
They derive rights from the people who come together to form the corporation.
People do not lose their inalienable rights when they come together to form voluntary associations like corporations and trade unions.
Political spending is a form of expression, as with any right the only question has ever been whether there are legitimate grounds for curtailing it. I don't personally believe that politics should be left to politicians and that rest of us should be content to participate only vicariously through candidates. "People controlling the government" means more than just popping up to vote every couple years.
Tying political spending with speech and giving it first amendment protections just puts what is essentially buying favors and speaking speaking up under the same umbrella. It also makes the wealthy have more “expression” than the poor. Money is not the same thing as speech and political spending is not the same as speaking out.
Political spending is a form of expression, as with any right the only question has ever been whether there are legitimate grounds for curtailing it. I don't personally believe that politics should be left to politicians and that rest of us should be content to participate only vicariously through candidates. "People controlling the government" means more than just popping up to vote every couple years.
Buckley upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates precisely because it recognized the danger of even the appearance of impropriety in giving cash to those running for office. And there are limits on how much you can give a candidate. Nobody believes "buying favors" should be legal. And it isn't. But to jump from that to arguing you shouldn't be able to spend your own money on the things you care about is a big leap.
The New York Times Editorial Board has more "expression" than me because their thoughts on the issues reach millions more people than mine do. Should the government bust up their printing presses to make sure we're on an even footing? There are thousands of students and retirees knocking on doors in New Hampshire to push their preferred primary candidate right now. Is it fair that they have more time than I do to engage in retail politics because I have work to do? People will always have different allocations of time, money, organizational skills, talent, etc. I don't see how that unequal distribution determines whether or not you ought to get to use those things to advocate for what you care about in a representative democracy.
It is precisely because money doesnt = speech that your strawman is hilarious and the notion that you should get more say because of your riches is ridiculous. If you dont think corporations are buying politicians, i dunno what to tell you. Yeah they limit contributions from you and me but left wide open contributions from PACs and super PACs and corporations thats the problem. What you are saying is the rich having more say because of their riches is fine and dandy because people like you bastardized the first amendment which NEVER before gave credence to such notion. Those people are engaging in expression when they knock on doors which is nowhere near the same thing as giving money to a politician.
If you take all the people out of a corporation, what can it possibly control?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?