USA now officially a Plutocracy, huzzah! Effect on SL?

It makes no difference what you call it. Constitutional Republic, Representative Democracy, or just plain old Democracy, it's worked for nearly 2 1/2 centuries. It's the base that keeps it that way.........the base is the Constitution. The problem is that people tend to want to change the base to suit their personal wishes or wants. There is a process to change the Constitution..........it was perposely made to be very difficult to do (thank god). Making a law is not changing the Constitution if it is outside what the Constitution allows. The Supreme Court is in place to rule on what does or does not fall into the protections or provisions of the Constitution..........not what we, as citizens want it allow. If something needs changing start the process (like Women's Rghts)........make a Constitutional change. The process is long and complicated......so if it needs changing someone needs to start the process now so our children may benefit.

On this subject I don't think it needs changing. But no one has offered up a bill in amend the Constitution on this either.

It is a severe problem in the United States that a few wealthy individuals and corporations can use their money to wield a disproportionate amount of power over the federal government.

However, ruling in favor of the FTC would have made that problem even worse. Even with campaign finance reform, the wealthy still are able to extert vast influence over the federal government. The Supreme Court ruling limits what the federal government may actually do.

At least when the politicians are bought by the wealthy, there is only a limited amount of damage those politicians can do to our lives. The Big Corporation's wealth may be scary, but unlimited power for Big Government is terrifying.

Back to your original question, the Supreme Court ruling was based on the fact that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution trumps what the federal government believes to be good policy. Therefore, the opinion does not lead to the nightmare scenario that:



It doesn't matter how many corporate-bought legislators pass laws that infringe on the ability of the citizens to excercise free speech (and associate), the Supreme Court would have to strike down every one for the same basic reasons it struck down some of the FTC restrictions on campaign finance.

To show how your reply (in post 116--it begins below with "Copy and pasted" is NOT a reply to the question I asked you, I want to show the sequence of posts:

from post 88 by Peggy Paperdoll and quoted by PL in post 91:



my reply in post 91:



Peggy Paperdoll's response in its entirety, in post 116:






This makes clear that either you misunderstood the sentences I posted in #24, or are pretending to misunderstand them. Obviously those sentences have nothing to do with your rather out-of-left-field claim that what they mean is

"Your mention of individuals being able to contribute was equating their contributions to corporations. Unless you are Bill Gates or some other personally extremely wealthy person you, as an individual, can not match any corporation."


In case you genuinely did misunderstand what I wrote in post 24, I was replying to your statement in post 23:



In my reply in post 24, I was pointing out that the individuals who work at Microsoft (being used as an example of a powerful corporation) DO have just as much right to Freedom of Speech as does any OTHER American individual. And therefore the claim that Microsoft has some constitutional right to use "money as a form of free speech" is purest sophistry.

That's what I was saying. There is no reasonable interpretation of my words that could come close to "equating their [individuals] contributions to corporations", etc, as you wrote in post 88.

Thus you failed my challenge to you in post 91 (to back up your Post 88 claim as to what argument I had "thrown out".)


In a larger sense: don't you realize that when you resort to fallacious argumentation such as the Strawman you attempted here, your readers become aware of how weak your position really is?

The Second Amendment is there for a reason.

Possibly. It would depend on the makeup of the Supreme Court at the period in question.

Frankly this Roberts court has given evidence, most recently in the decision that inspired this thread, of a tendency to judicial activism. Specifically, the Roberts court hasn't been shy about making law---basing their decision NOT on what's in the Constitution, but on what I suppose they wish were in the Constitution (that a Corporation is a Person).

This is judicial activism in its purest form.

So I wouldn't care to bet the fundamental liberties of the USA on what the Supreme Court does. I really wouldn't. (Admittedly I was positing an extreme scenario for our future under the Unlimited Corporate Spending on Elections system. But the genuine possibilities do merit some hard thought.)

Let's make me Peggy Paperdoll, Inc. I own and maintain a business of running yard sales at my home.......my annual income from this business is a net 0 (zeo). However, I'm as independently as wealthy as any human being in the world. I can contribute as much as I desire to any candidate I choose. That's the way the law is now. Yes the individual limit is still in place.........that does not mean it will stand the test if ever challenged. I happen to believe it won't.........but contributing $1,000 to any person (candidate or otherwise) is about $999 more than I would even consider. In short I don't care. I'm sure someone does care though (George Sorosos comes to mind). It will be tested...........and if the Supreme Court tosses it out then so be it.

Actually I guess I did sort of misunderstand what you said...........but not by much. I still maintain your argue is pretty stupid. Almost your entire agrument centers on Corporations having more rights now than they did 3 days ago.........that's true. But then you say "because of this new law". That, my friend, says how much you really do know about what happened. Campaign finance is the law that got partially struck down..........campaign finance is the law that, for nearly 40 years, grew into what a portion of the law that was inacted in 2002 that was challenged. It failed the test and was struck out. There is no "new law".........that "new law" (the McCain Feingold provision of 2002) is now null and void. We are operating on an "old law" that came into being in 1974 (I believe). You can throw out every argument you want to "prove" you are right........you will fail. There are people much smarter than you who tell you that you are wrong. In case you want to know who those people are Google the US Supreme Court.

And your comments concerning Facist Italy are really out there. You are saying that corporate Amerca can take the place of the Government by this "new" (which is no where new) law. This country has a written Constitution that the citiizens can use to stop any such thing from ever happening.........even if it was possible (those big bad corporations still have a government to contend with..........and they can't buy them all). You are talking about decades for any corporation to get enough politians in their pockets to enfluence enough to get started on a "take over". You just saw what can and will happen when the government over steps in MA last Tuesday evening. You don't give the population of this country much credit...............I sort of recent that but I've gotten used to it.

My take is that you are European? You sound like it anyway.

Here's another example of a question I asked, in response to a claim made in the thread (by Briana Dawson in this case), being 'answered' with a non-sequiter--that is, not answered at all.

In post 44, Briana Dawson wrote:



My reply, in post 85:



Then comes your reply, post 96, quoted here except for the embedded quotes (which are already quoted above):





...???

Look at my question (post 85). In that post I actually quote the claim of yours (that "Liberals sure don't mind Unions giving $70+ million but sure as hell mind a single corp donating that" for which I'm asking a source.

Instead of giving me your source for the claim about "Liberals sure don't mind", you post your views on Unions.

I'm still curious: what's your source for your claim about what Liberals don't mind?



I know it's certainly nothing I've posted: not once in this thread (or any other!) have I said 'Unions should have no restrictions on campaign spending' or anything akin to it.

So...????

Personby, taking things out of context is catching up with you. Take a look at post #44.
This time read the whole thing.

and amendments can be added and removed with the right people in office

I sort of think you are joking. But in case you are not and to make it clear that no single Congress, President, or Supreme Court can change the Constitution you might want to read what it takes, how long it takes and how it must be done:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

It's that way for a very good reason. No matter what corporation, union or other entity "buys" with their contributions they ain't going to change the Constitution of the United States in shor order. It's a long sustained, very exact procedure (actually several different procedures that can be pursued but each is as difficult as the other).

Adding Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a monumentus effort.

#1 - It takes 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress vote to even propose an amendment or 2/3rds of the state legislatures have to ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments - which has never happened in history.

#2 - To ratify a proposed amendment, 3/4ths of the States (38!) have to approve it. (This has only happened once in history, 21st Amendment).

#3 - There are all kinds of extra guidelines to go along with the process mentioned above to prevent a "siege" type of Amendment ratification campaign lasting months or years.

#4 - Out of thousands of proposals to amend the constitution only 33 got the 2/3rds vote of Congress, and out of those 33 only 27 amendments -including the Bill of Rights- have been ratified.

So, no, even a unified President and Congress can't amend the constitution willy-nilly and are stopped by the requirement of 3/4th (38!) of the states needed to pass an amendment.

We are safe.

Nothing in 'the whole thing' negates or explains the claim

"Liberals sure don't mind Unions giving $70+ million but sure as hell mind a single corp donating that -"*

IF that sentence had been a quote from someone else, say, then you'd have a point about context.

But since it wasn't, you don't.









*Note that this claim remains un-sourced, despite several challenges to provide a source.

In what way does my argument "center on" the timing ("right now" as opposed to "3 days ago"...?

I can see no statement or claim I've made that centers on the timing.

Since there does seem to be a propensity to misunderstand at work here, I'll summarize the argument I actually AM making:


1) The Constitution contains no wording that could possibly be interpreted to mean "A Corporation is a Person".

2) Therefore the argument that the recent SCOTUS decision is justified by the First Amendment, or is in some way an advancement of Freedom of Speech, is sophistry.



and

( 3) This decision, if not properly counteracted, will ultimately have a negative effect on SL.)

So groups of people pooling their money for a common cause, lose their right to collectively speak. Ok, gotcha now.

You do realize that the corporation that was party to this case was a non profit? Also, this law was used againt "progressive" icon Mikey Moore in a previous election. Should he have had his speech infringed upon? After all, his movie was released by a corporation for the dual purpose of swaying an election and making Mikey some donut money.

Are you claiming that this is what I'm calling for?

If so, on what do you base such a claim?

That is what you said right here. A corporation is a group of people pooling money for a collective purpose.



"1) The Constitution contains no wording that could possibly be interpreted to mean "A Corporation is a Person".

2) Therefore the argument that the recent SCOTUS decision is justified by the First Amendment, or is in some way an advancement of Freedom of Speech, is sophistry."

No comment on Mikey Moore's film being restricted?

There is a failure of logical thinking here. A position about corporations (particularly about corporations being unlimited in their spending) is not a position about all collections of human beings.

If you are thinking that "collection of human beings" has one and only one definition (namely "corporation", then let me hasten to assure you that that is an incorrect definition of the phrase.

As for Mikey Moore: I'm not familiar enough with the case you reference to post a position on its disposition. This was something about "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

Ok, so just some collections of people lose their rights. What if we use some other way of grouping besides pooling money. Can we strip those groups as well?

Yes, it was concerning "Fahrenheit 9/11".

How?

Are you saying that employees and executives of corporations have a right to unlimited spending on elections, but self-employed people do not have a right to unlimited spending on elections?

The position you're arguing isn't clear--could you state it?

They both have the same right to spend what ever resources are legally earned how ever they wish. And if the self employed want to form a group, pool their money and form a corporation, they have that right. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Association. Freedom of Contract. All rights every human has simply by being born.

Okay, thanks for stating that.

But that's not what the Supreme Court decided, so I'm curious as to why you're posting in support of the decision (or at least against those who decry the decision).

Because that is what the Supreme Court decided. The law limited corporations from speaking about a candidate within XX number of days of the election. That is morally wrong.

But I will let someone better with words explain it.



http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/

Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics

Posted by Timothy B. Lee

As several of my colleagues noted yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. While I regarded the decision as a victory for free speech, a large number of folks on the left — many of whom support free speech in other contexts — were aghast at the decision, arguing that it would vastly enhance the influence of large corporations in the political process.

Part of my disagreement with these guys is that I’m just a free speech zealot. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” and I don’t see how that language can be squared with a statute that limits the distribution of a political documentary. The best you can say, I think, is that limiting corporate influence is a “compelling state interest” sufficient to overcome the First Amendment’s ban on speech abridgment, but that’s just another way of saying that you don’t care about free speech very much.

Second, I think it’s important to remember that “corporations” encompass much more than large, for-profit businesses. They also include a wide variety of non-profit and advocacy groups, including the ACLU, the NRA, and NARAL, that are, by any reasonable definition, grassroots organizations advocating the views of large numbers of voters. Indeed, as the ACLU pointed out in its amicus brief, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited the ACLU from running ads criticizing members of Congress who voted for the awful FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Even if you think it’s appropriate for Congress to regulate the speech of Exxon-Mobil and Pfizer, I think it’s awfully hard to square the First Amendment with a law that limits the ability of NARAL or the NRA to advocate for its members’ views.

But more fundamentally, I don’t buy the idea that limiting corruption is a state interest sufficiently compelling to overcome the First Amendment interest in free speech. I think supporters of BCRA misunderstand how corporations wield influence and dramatically overestimate the power of television advertisements. It’s true, of course, that a corporation prepared to spend $1 million on ads criticizing a particular legislator will get that legislator’s attention. But there’s nothing unique about this. It can also get his attention by hiring a lobbying firm that employs a former staffer. It can get his attention by arranging $100,000 in bundled contributions from executives, clients, and friends of the company. It can get his attention by creating astroturf organizations. And there are probably lots of other mechanisms I haven’t thought of.

The key difference between independent expenditures and the other mechanisms is that independent expenditures are the most open and transparent. To run an effective “issue ad,” a corporation has to make an argument that is persuasive to voters. I don’t want to sugar coat the situation; sometimes independent expenditures finance ads that are sleazy and misleading. But given a choice between corporations spending their money on ads about how Senator Smith hates America or spending their money on K Street, I’ll take the ads, because at least voters still get the final decision.

Moreover, I think we’re moving toward a world in which traditional high-dollar advertising campaigns will become increasingly ineffective. One smart liberal compares the post-Citizens United world to a debate in which “you get 10 seconds to make your case. I’ll take an hour.” This description of the world had a certain plausibility when most people got their news from newspapers and television — media characterized by severe, technologically imposed bottlenecks. These bottlenecks meant that those willing to spend more money could get a significantly bigger soapbox.

This is a lot less true online where users have practically unlimited choices. The web is littered with lavishly funded corporate propaganda that gets a fraction of the traffic of grassroots blogs like Boing Boing. When people have lots of choices, they aren’t likely to stick around very long at a site that dishes up corporate talking points. So while deep pockets will always be an asset in politics, they won’t give 21st century corporations the huge advantages they gave to 20th century corporations.

So I’m not thrilled at the idea of Fortune 500 companies spending a ton of money on bogus “issue ads.” But I think the dangers of such ads are frequently exaggerated. I’m far more worried about preserving the right of organizations like the ACLU to spread their message. And I don’t see any plausible way to stop the former without seriously restricting the latter. So I’m glad to see the Supreme Court take the words of the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law” — literally.

Interestingly, this is NOT what your Cato Institute essay says.

But, to return to what you wrote:

Is it your claim that individuals who work for a corporation are--what, threatened with prosecution if they say or write anything about a candidate with X number of days of an election?

If so, I'd agree that is wrong.

Is it your claim that the number of days before an election in which some sort of restrictions are part of the law, is what the SCOTUS decision is about?

Also:

I'm still curious: Since the decision did NOT make it lawful for individuals to spend unlimited amounts, but did make it lawful for corporate profits to be used for spending in unlimited amounts..

Then why are you defending a decision that gives corporations so much more 'freedom of speech' than individuals have?

If that individual using the pooled money of the corporation did run an ad attacking candidate 1 within XX days of the election, they did face fines or jail time. Under YOUR claim, the ACLU could not run an ad criticizing a candidate within XX days of the election. But NBC News could run all the hit pieces they wanted. SNL could spread their falsehoods.

What is a corporation but a collection of people? We all have the same "freedom" Do we all have the same resources? No, but government action can never make us all equal in that regard.

Personby, I'm really having a hard time understanding why you keep harping on the individual vs corporation (which you continually, perhaps conveniently, define as different from organizations such as unions) being able to contribute more than an individual can. As the law is now, technically you are correct. There are laws on the books that limit an individuals contribution (I believe that amount is $1,000). That law is probably (actually I'll say it is) unconstitutional............and if challenged in the Supreme Court would also go the way of the recent decision. There are (and, sadly, will always be) laws that have been enacted by our legistators that are unconstitutional. Until those laws are unchallenged they remain law........that's the nature of our Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot see a law that Congress has enacted that they believe or know is outside the Constitution and overturn it. That would be what you have accused this Supreme Court of being.......an Activist Court. Legislating from the bench (it does happen but in the lower courts of the country...........The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has often done so in recent years). The Supreme Court of the United States is the final decision maker......that's why nominees for any justice position is so heavily argued in our Senate confirmation hearings. It is certainly posible that our Supreme Court could be infected with that disease but this one (and as far as our history goes to date) is not one such Court. There are remedies for that too.....though probably as difficult to get completed as it is to amend our Constitution.

But back to my point. An individual is just not equiped financially to compete dollar for dollar with a large corporation like Exxon-Mobil. Individuals who are that wealthy incorporate themselves (you know that don't you?). Therefore they can, once again (remember the law that was overturned is less than 10 years old) contribute whatever they desire to any candidate they choose for whatever reason they want...........just like Exxon-Mobil. But lets just say Jack Deepockets has a worth of $5,000,000,000 (that's trillion) and he wants to contribute $2,000,000 to Senator Buy Me. He can't...........that's more than the limitation that an individual can contribute. He challenges the law and because he can afford it takes it before the Supreme Court. He's likely to win. Then that restriction would be removed.........that would make you happy (and probably me too). But, it's not very likely to get that far. There's so many easier ways for Jack to contribute that are much cheaper...........incorporates himself. He gets his contribution to Senator Me and he's happy.

Me? I get stuck with the limitation. But I too have a way around that if I want to contribute $2,000,000 to Senator No Sale. I go online, create a website, get 2,000 people who also want to contribute more than the limitation allows and we decide to contribute $1,000 each. We get what we want..........we are happy.

That's the way our system works. You don't have to like it. You don't have to think it's fair. But you won't change it. It's a cultural thing in this country. We have a Constitution that is pretty solid in it's foundation.......it's worked pretty damned well for nearly 250 years. The other day we saw it work again.