To my mind, the strongest argument for restrictions on corporate speech is that they promote political equality. Unlike the far weaker argument that corporations aren’t entitled to free speech because they aren’t people, the equality argument correctly assumes that corporations are actually just tools used by people. It then holds that restricting the use of this tool is necessary to increase equality of political influence. To some extent, the argument is correct. Only a minority of people can effectively use corporate speech to express their views and wield political influence. Eliminating or restricting the use of this tool necessarily reduces inequality, at least in some ways.
The problem with the equality argument is that it considers corporate speech in isolation from other sources of political inequality. If we eliminate corporate speech, those other inequalities will increase in importance. And many of them are actually much greater than the inequality caused by corporate speech, because many fewer people can take advantage of them.
I. Eliminating Corporate Speech Magnifies the Effects of Other, More Severe Political Inequalities.
Consider several categories of people who have vastly greater political influence than the average citizen: celebrities, academics, members of the media, high-ranking government officials and bureaucrats. For example, Curt Schilling’s endorsement of of Scott Brown got extensive public attention and influenced voters because he is a famous athlete. His endorsement had as much or more effect than millions of dollars in corporate expenditures would have. Similarly, I have many times more influence than the average voter because I am a law professor and write for a relatively well-known blog. It doesn’t take nearly as much money for a corporation to offset my influence as Schilling’s; but still probably far more than the average person could afford. If you eliminate or severely restrict political spending by corporations, you greatly increase the relative political power of people like Schilling and myself. Politicians would have even more incentive to seek our support than they do at present.
Moreover, the advantages enjoyed by celebrities, academics, members of the media, and so forth are actually more unequally distributed than the ability to engage in corporate speech. Tens of millions of Americans own stock in corporations, belong to unions (which, as a legal matter, are corporations too), or contribute to nonprofits that use the corporate form (including most charities). Even if you assume that only rich people have enough influence to “really” be able to use corporate speech, there are some 5.1 million millionaire households in the United States. If you’re a millionaire, you can probably exercise substantial influence over the political speech of at least one corporation, if you want to. Even if you aren’t, you can have an impact by donating to one of the many nonprofit corporations that engage in political activism for a vast range of causes, ranging from the ACLU to the NRA to the Sierra Club.
By contrast, only a few thousand celebrities are famous enough for their endorsements to matter. There are perhaps several hundred thousand academics (many of whom work in nonpolitical fields or are too obscure to have disproportionate influence), and about 69,000 media correspondents. Most of the other groups with disproportionately great political power are less diverse in their political views than corporations and the rich. Celebrities, academics and journalists are overwhelmingly liberal. By contrast, commercial corporations have a wide diversity of interests, some of which benefit from liberal policies such as broad regulation and protectionism. Nonprofit corporations are more diverse still. If you (mistakenly) assume that corporate speech simply represents the interests of the rich, they too are more diverse than any of the other groups with disproportionate political influence. For example, exit polls show that Barack Obama actually won a slightly majority of the votes of people with a household income over $200,000 per year (the top 6% of the population). Even among the super-rich, there is a large liberal contingent.
II. Inequality and Merit.
Some resist the analogy between corporate speech and other causes of political inequality on the grounds that the latter are the result of merit. For example, one might believe that people become celebrities, reporters, and academics on the basis of merit, while influence over corporate speech is largely a product of wealth. This is a fallacious distinction. Yes, celebrities and others got where they are in part because of merit. But luck, genetics, family connections, and other morally arbitrary factors play a big role as well. No matter how hard I might have worked on improving my fastball, I could never have made the major leagues, much less become a star pitcher like Schilling. I also don’t have the acting talent, singing voice, or good looks needed to become an entertainment industry celebrity. Similarly, a person with an 80 IQ probably could not become a legal academic, even if he worked much harder at it than I did. Moreover, many of the wealthy also acquired their wealth in part because of hard work and original insights. On average, it’s hard to see why their disproportionate influence is less “deserved” than Schilling’s or mine.
In sum, restricting corporate speech simply exacerbates imbalances of political power caused by other, much greater inequalities. Maybe restricting corporate speech could promote equality if it were part of a much more comprehensive regulatory effort. For example, government could also restrict political advocacy by reporters, academics, celebrities, and others with disproportionate influence. There are, of course, good reasons not to do any such thing. But if you eliminate one cause of inequality while leaving other more severe ones in place, the net impact is actually to increase political inequality overall, not reduce it.
Anonsters says:
I like how the commentariat almost unanimously rejected “the far weaker argument.” Buncha idiutz readin’ ur blogz.
Anyway, now that there’s a shiny new thread on the topic, I’ll post a question I asked previously, because I’m actually interested, even if this is a bit of a threadjack:
What effect will CU have on the remainder of the Term, if any? I ask because that’s about as pissed as I’ve ever seen Stevens in dissent. Anonsters(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
I like how the commentariat almost unanimously rejected “the far weaker argument.” Buncha idiutz readin’ ur blogz.
Maybe the VC commentariat rejected it. But four Supreme Court justices and many other people believe it. So it’s hardly a straw man of my invention. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Anonsters says:
I am clearly among the idiots readin’ ur blogz.
I meant that the commentariat rejected that it was a “weak[] argument.”
That’s what I get for posting comments at 2:00 am. Anonsters(Quote)
TNeloms says:
Aare there other democracies that have severe limits on corporate financing (or just don’t have rich corporations) that we can just examine on this issue? I don’t know a lot about this, but your discussion is mostly speculative — that the inequality would be greater.
I know there’s a large celebrity culture in politics in the Dominican Republic, for example, but I don’t know how common this is, or if this is a more pronounced effect than the hold that corporations have here. If someone has done a study on this, that would be more convincing than the speculation here. TNeloms(Quote)
scattergood says:
It depends on what kind of equality you are trying to maintain. If you are interested in the equlity of affect, the restricting some groups may make sense.
If you are interested in maintaining the equality of access to promote your message, then the restrictions make no sense.
Should we restrict the speech of smart, capable people because they distort the ‘political equality’ of stupid people? How about good looking people, they do much better on TV than ugly people do, regardless of the actual content of their speech. And the list goes on, and on.
If you think you can pick winners, or determine who should win in the ‘political equality’ equation, you are all for restricting speech. scattergood(Quote)
Anonsters says:
@TNeloms:
Any country that relies on public financing of election campaigns? Anonsters(Quote)
anon says:
I find your comparison really odd.
You first say that the argument that corporations aren’t people is weak, and the better argument is that corporations are just tools.
But then you compare a tool, and the right of a tool, whatever that is, to a person, and a person’s rights.
But mostly you make a claim that should be measurable and provide no data for it. Can you provide data for your claim that a corporation’s speech is somehow less effective to Curt’s or Warren’s or Woody’s or Acon’s?
And then you finally seem to say in an idea world everyone would have the same power or effectiveness in their speech — is anyone engaged in campaign finance reform actually saying that?
I think the real issue is Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.
How could Scalia, an originalist, be at all okay with Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific? (I honestly don’t know, I’m an engineer damnit, not a lawyer or historian.) They apparently had a minimal choice of deleting the Wellstone Amendment, but went back 60 years for their decision. Why did they go back past McCain/Feingold to 60 years or so, and not just unzip all the way to Santa Clara? anon(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
You first say that the argument that corporations aren’t people is weak, and the better argument is that corporations are just tools.
But then you compare a tool, and the right of a tool, whatever that is, to a person, and a person’s rights.
No, I compare one tool with other tools (celebrity status, a position as an academic, etc.).
But mostly you make a claim that should be measurable and provide no data for it. Can you provide data for your claim that a corporation’s speech is somehow less effective to Curt’s or Warren’s or Woody’s or Acon’s?
We don’t have precise data on this. But it’s pretty obvious that celebrity endorsements have enormous value, as much as that of hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars. If you were a candidate in Massachusetts, you would almost certainly rather have Schilling’s public endorsement than several hundred thousand dollars of corporate money.
And then you finally seem to say in an idea world everyone would have the same power or effectiveness in their speech — is anyone engaged in campaign finance reform actually saying that?
Of course not, and neither am I. What I’m saying is that restricting corporate speech will increase political inequality overall unless you also restrict other causes of inequality that are more severe. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
Aare there other democracies that have severe limits on corporate financing (or just don’t have rich corporations) that we can just examine on this issue? I don’t know a lot about this, but your discussion is mostly speculative — that the inequality would be greater.
Not only are there other such democracies, the US itself had those kinds of limits until yesterday’s decision. And the effect certainly increased the relative political influence of celebrities, the media, etc. Political power is necessarily a zero-sum game. Any time you eliminate one source of it, you necessarily increase the impact of others. If those others are less equally distributed than the first, you also increase overall political inequality. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Nick says:
The marketplace of ideas is not yet a free market. Established firms (call them “celebrities, academics, members of the media, high-ranking government officials and bureaucrats”) still seek to enforce what economists call barriers to entry.
By restricting competition from other firms, these privileged firms seek to reap the rewards a rigged market provides. By making speech artificially scarce, they make their own speech more profitable than it would otherwise be. Nick(Quote)
orca says:
Sounds eerily like the arguments put forth in favor of lifting the restrictions on savings & loans way back in the 80s. orca(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
I meant that the commentariat rejected that it was a “weak[] argument.”
I think the balance of comments was much more even than that. Regardless, none of the rejectionists were actually able to show that the “corporations aren’t people” argument works. Most of them in fact relied on other arguments to justify restrictions on corporate speech, such as the one addressed in this post. Ilya Somin(Quote)
anon says:
See, I don’t know if that’s the right comparison. My own personal experience is that endorsements are interesting but mostly ignorable. What’s not ignorable is seeing a 30-second commercial appear dozens of times a night all saying that Candidate X is a traitor.
(I’m also not sure of your comparison of a corporation to a tool to celebrity as a tool — I think you’re stretching it, but I do appreciate your response.)
Is there some principle of law that says restricting one tool that may increase some form of inequality means that other tools also must be restricted as well? (Again, I plead ignorance, but it seems that lawyers if they are good at anything is splitting the atom and finding why one case is different from another case.) I’d say before other tools must be restricted you would have to produce that evidence that corporate speech is less effective than the Amy Winehouse endorsement. anon(Quote)
LarryA says:
That point works if the corporation is General Motors, and the speaker is the CEO. OTOH one of the main targets for campaign finance reform was the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, as you later note a corporation specifically designed to give large numbers of people political influence.
Even if true, I fail to see how most celebrity merit (particularly sports and entertainment) translate into knowing enough more to earn special influence. Indeed, the evidence says otherwise. As you note, “Celebrities, academics and journalists are overwhelmingly liberal.” ;-)
My view of campaign contributions is that almost all of the effort is spent on advertising the candidate’s qualifications or the opponent’s deficits. How is providing voters more information a bad thing? LarryA(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
Is there some principle of law that says restricting one tool that may increase some form of inequality means that other tools also must be restricted as well?
Of course there isn’t, nor does my argument rely on any such thing. Rather, I’m claiming that if you restrict one tool that causes political inequality, that necessarily increases the relative impact of the others. That’s true in any zero-sum game. For example if you eliminate 3 point shots in basketball, thereby reducing the importance of inequalities in outside shooting ability, you exacerbate the impact of differences in rebounding skill, free throw shooting, etc. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Nick says:
I can’t pass up the chance to quote Keynes on this point:
“The community as a whole cannot hope to gain by making artificially scarce what the country wants.”
Making speech artificially scarce is good for a guild or cartel or a monopoly, true, but not for the country, not for all of us outside the privileged circle. Not in the aggregate.
No restrictions on exchange ever are. Nick(Quote)
LN says:
This is just getting weird now. These new arguments boil down to:
1. Without corporate speech we will be ruled by movie stars and professional athletes.
2. The only way to combat inequality is through more inequality.
I fondly remember that trenchant libertarian critique of government action... you know, that the government will tend to pursue policies that provide large benefits to a few while imposing small costs to a much larger group.
Does that insight have any relevance to this debate? I have two words for you: Matt Damon. Matt Damon! These are not the droids you are looking for. Also, Curt Schilling.
Restrictions on corporate speech will be good for some people and bad for other people. A priori it is not necessarily clear that “good” people will benefit while “bad” people will suffer; life is complicated, people have many interests, things are not black and white. This is an interesting question.
But if we are going to have distinguished academics discussing this issue, is it too much to ask to move from abstract arguments to concrete arguments about what actually happens in the real world? Whose interests are being served in different scenarios?
The pure abstractness of this debate is just bizarre. Somin is clearly invested in this debate, and yet it appears from his posts that he has never bothered to look for real-world examples that illustrate how different regulatory schemes might change the world.
Corporations have very narrow interests — they are supposed to maximize returns to their shareholders. Even though a corporation is a bunch of people in some sense, most people have a broader set of interests. On top of that, there is considerable inequality of wealth in this country, and so it is misleading to think of a corporate shareholder as an “average person” with exactly the same interests as everybody else (and of course it is also misleading to imply that everyone has the same interests, and that there are no disagreements). Somin’s abstractions all seem designed to obscure these basic facts. LN(Quote)
LarryA says:
But this is true positively and negatively. When Sara Brady endorsed candidate Obama I was really impressed, but not the way she intended. LarryA(Quote)
LN says:
Of course not. That’s why laws against bribery are bad for the economy’s efficiency. LN(Quote)
Anonsters says:
And as for the “marketplace of ideas:”
Stevens’ dissent, p. 85. Anonsters(Quote)
tvk says:
Descriptively, this is just wrong. Ask any politician whether he would prefer the endorsement of name-your-biggest-celebrity, or $100 million in campaign financing from Microsoft (pocket change for MS). Moreover, celebrities may get some psychic pleasure from seeing their preferred liberal policies enacted, but corporations pose the problem that they have much more tangible and direct interests at stake. I am not aware of Curt Schilling or any other celebrity lobbying for the government to write him a check. tvk(Quote)
anon says:
How is it a zero-sum game? There isn’t a limit to how much speech we hear in a campaign. And there seem to be enough alternatives to corporate speech (especially if you believe corporations are just organizations of people and nothing more) that removing corporate speech doesn’t necessarily reduce the amount of speech we hear in a campaign. (I don’t think your basketball analogy is valid either.)
I still do think the real issue is Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. And claiming corporations are nothing more than organizations of people seems contradictory to that. And I still don’t understand how Scalia can abide by Santa Clara.
Anyway, I’m not buying your claims of zero sumness or the importance of celebrity endorsements or the unfairness of your writing an op-ed and yet I’m way out of my league. I’ll bow out and let you get on with the conversation. anon(Quote)
LarryA says:
This is a common misperception in this debate. Remember, political action committees are also corporations, as are non-profits, most social clubs, and so forth. They aren’t all commercial businesses. LarryA(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
Corporations have very narrow interests — they are supposed to maximize returns to their shareholders.
–Yes, but different corporations do this in very different ways. So the interests of corporations as a group are quite diverse, even if the interests of any one corporation are narrow. Moreover, as I pointed out in the post, many nonprofit entities such as unions and advocacy organizations are also corporations.
Even though a corporation is a bunch of people in some sense, most people have a broader set of interests. On top of that, there is considerable inequality of wealth in this country, and so it is misleading to think of a corporate shareholder as an “average person” with exactly the same interests as everybody else (and of course it is also misleading to imply that everyone has the same interests, and that there are no disagreements). Somin’s abstractions all seem designed to obscure these basic facts.
Far from “obscuring” these facts, I actually pointed them out in the post. I also noted that celebrity, academic status, etc., are also very unequally distributed, and that eliminating inequality caused by corporate speech is likely to exacerbate the impact of those other inequalities. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Sean O'Se says:
This is, unfortunately, not a spectacular effort–which is okay, because Professor Somin generally has excellent posts, and I thank him for being one of the influences who keeps me in touch with my libertarian roots (even as I move on).
For every case of restricting corporate speech (assuming arguendo that corporate speech is inegalitarian), the total proportion of egalitarian speech in society increases. Thus, restricting corporate speech is egalitarian, to first order. Prof. Somin touches on other issues (do we mind having *fewer* remaining inegalitarian speakers once we’ve stopped corporations from talking?), but does not actually argue them.
Consider the general sources of speech by the percentage of speaking they do. Say, Egal%, Corp%, Other%, where Egal is egalitarian speech (flyers! town meeting speeches!), while Corp is corporate speech (putatively inegalitarian), and Other is all other sources, such as celebrities, law professors, rich folk, and so forth, also putatively inegalitarian by the definition of Egal.
Here, we’re talking about case law (Austin and McConnell) which tamps down on Corp, corporate speech. To determine if such case law (now overruled) is egalitarian, we’d need to find out if Egal is a greater or smaller percentage of total speech when the case law is preserved.
Say that Egal = 50%, and Corp = 30%, and thus Other = 20%. Recall that Other is all the other inegalitarian speech, *excluding* corporate speech. If we set Corp -> 0, then the ratio of egalitarian/nonegalitarian speech goes from 50% to 5/7, which is more egalitarian.
It is not hard to see that any numbers one chooses above similarly makes restricting corporate speech a winning proposition, assuming corporate speech is inegalitarian, and unless one makes additional arguments.
Prof. Somin states that “If we eliminate corporate speech, those other inequalities will increase in importance. And many of them are actually much greater than the inequality caused by corporate speech, because many fewer people can take advantage of them.” The first sentence is only true if he means “increase in importance relative to other types of inegalitarian speech.” But who cares about this latter point? I’m sure there are arguments, but Prof. Somin doesn’t do more than hint at them.
Of course, I don’t agree with the substantive result of my argument above. Reading the NYT, I was somewhat embarrassed that my government was banning a political “documentary,” just because of its funding source. But Prof. Somin’s post should be rethought. Sean O’Se(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
How is it a zero-sum game? There isn’t a limit to how much speech we hear in a campaign.
Political influence is a zero-sum game, not speech as such. If I have enough clout to completely determine the outcome of an election, then everyone else has zero influence. If I have 50% of the necessary clout, that restricts the pool available to everyone else. The argument for restricting speech that I’m addressing is based on the notion that inequalities in speech cause inequalities in influence. If that’s so, then eliminating one source of inequalities in speech exacerbates the impact of others. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Anonsters says:
By the way, it’s a red herring to talk about eliminating corporate speech.
The statutory provisions that were struck down did not eliminate corporate speech. Stevens points out how misguided the majority’s opinion was in assuming that’s what this case was about, with the string cite to end all string cites (on p. 23 of his dissent):
See Stevens’ dissent at 23–26 for an explanation of the various mechanisms available for corporations to “speak” during election campaigns. But if you insist on focusing on what BCRA § 203 precisely targeted (pp. 26–27 of Stevens’ dissent):
So perhaps we can move past the “eliminating corporate speech” stuff, mmkay? Anonsters(Quote)
anon says:
I would like to know where you buy your measurement devices. And can you measure these things with a barometer? anon(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
Say that Egal = 50%, and Corp = 30%, and thus Other = 20%. Recall that Other is all the other inegalitarian speech, *excluding* corporate speech. If we set Corp -> 0, then the ratio of egalitarian/nonegalitarian speech goes from 50% to 5/7, which is more egalitarian.
It is not hard to see that any numbers one chooses above similarly makes restricting corporate speech a winning proposition, assuming corporate speech is inegalitarian, and unless one makes additional arguments.
The flaw here is the assumption that what we want to measure is inequality of total amounts of speech rather than inequality of political influence derived from speech. If you eliminate corporate political speech, you are left with a much narrower range of people who can engage in speech acts likely to attract significant public attention. Thus, the power to engage in such speech will be more narrowly concentrated and thereby more unequal.
You also have to consider the numbers of people involved. Let’s say that 10% of the population have enough clout to significantly influence corporate speech, while only 1% have enough access to other assets enabling them to engage in speech acts likely to have a significant political impact (figures that very roughly approximate the truth, for reasons discussed in the post). If you eliminate corporate speech, you concentrate speech-derived political power in a much narrower set of hands than before, thereby accentuating inequality. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Wayne says:
I don’t think the comparison between celebrities and corporations is apt. When an individual makes an endorsement, everyone knows who it is. An endorsement by Curt Schilling is hardly comparable to a situation where, hypothetically, the tobacco companies set up an astroturf organization called something like “Americans for Freedom” and dump a billion dollars into attack ads the last week of a campaign.
Corporations aren’t people, and they aren’t just groups of people either. They are separate entities created by statute and have distinct rights from the individuals that own stock or control them. People can vote, corporations can’t, for example. Since government creates these distinct entities, I don’t see why it can’t control how those entities interact with the political system.
You can certainly argue that the Constitution supports the decision in Citizens United, given the unequivocal nature of the First Amendment, but I don’t understand how anyone, except tobacco companies for example, can believe this decision will improve our political system. Wayne(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
By the way, it’s a red herring to talk about eliminating corporate speech.
The statutory provisions that were struck down did not eliminate corporate speech.
They didn’t eliminate it, but did significantly restrict it, since the restricted it with respect to political endorsements using electronic media close to an election day — exactly the time and type of speech that is of especially great political importance. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Ilya:
They restricted corporate speech paid for with general treasury funds, not all corporate speech per se.
The corporation could have set up a PAC if they wanted.
And oh by the way, “[D]uring the most recent election cycle, corporate and union PACs raised nearly a billion dollars.” (Stevens’ dissent at 24, footnote omitted). Anonsters(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
They restricted corporate speech paid for with general treasury funds, not all corporate speech per se.
The corporation could have set up a PAC if they wanted.
As the majority explained, the rules for this are extremely burdensome and beyond the resources of most corporations. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
I don’t think the comparison between celebrities and corporations is apt. When an individual makes an endorsement, everyone knows who it is. An endorsement by Curt Schilling is hardly comparable to a situation where, hypothetically, the tobacco companies set up an astroturf organization called something like “Americans for Freedom” and dump a billion dollars into attack ads the last week of a campaign.
This might justify disclosure laws (which the Citizens United majority upheld, by the way). But it doesn’t justify speech restrictions. Moreover, people may know who Schilling is, but they generally know very little about how much he really knows about policy, what material stake he may have in the outcome of an election, and so on.
Corporations aren’t people, and they aren’t just groups of people either. They are separate entities created by statute and have distinct rights from the individuals that own stock or control them. People can vote, corporations can’t, for example. Since government creates these distinct entities, I don’t see why it can’t control how those entities interact with the political system.
Note that this applies to media corporations as much as to any others. Thus, by this logic, the government could censor the NY Times or Fox News. Moreover, just about all groups of people have some sort of distinct legal status in the sense that government establishes a law recognizing it and regulating it in some way. That’s true for charities, political parties, advocacy organizations, universities and so on. So by this logic, government could censor pretty much any speech except that by completely uncoordinated individuals. Surely the better stance is that the fact that government creates a legal framework defining privately owned entity does not by itself create any justification for abridging the constitutional rights of those entities as a result. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Anonsters says:
As the majority explained, the rules for this are extremely burdensome and beyond the resources of most corporations.
And yet an 8–1 majority upheld the disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements. So clearly the Court doesn’t endorse absolutely free corporate speech, either.
And I reiterate, the class of speech § 203 targeted was pretty small to begin with.
And oh yeah, the majority’s assertion about the burdensome rules, and the resources of corporations, was based on... nothing in the record before the Court. The only citation? Kennedy’s dissenting opinion in McConnell. Anonsters(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Moreover, just about all groups of people have some sort of distinct legal status in the sense that government establishes a law recognizing it and regulating it in some way. That’s true for charities, political parties, advocacy organizations, universities and so on. So by this logic, government could censor pretty much any speech except that by completely uncoordinated individuals.
And that argument fails because the Court does in fact restrict speech in certain instances on the basis of the speaker’s identity. So, if you want to claim that, your argument goes through regardless of the outcome of this case. Which means your argument proves exactly nothing. Anonsters(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
As the majority explained, the rules for this are extremely burdensome and beyond the resources of most corporations.
And yet an 8–1 majority upheld the disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements. So clearly the Court doesn’t endorse absolutely free corporate speech, either.
Setting up a PAC requires a lot more than that. In any event, the disclosure and reporting requirements upheld were those for direct corporate political speech, not those imposed on PACs. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Setting up a PAC requires a lot more than that. In any event, the disclosure and reporting requirements upheld were those for direct corporate political speech, not those imposed on PACs.
I know. I was saying that they didn’t unburden corporate speech entirely. Corporations still have to comply with the disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements under BCRA. Or they would have had to use a PAC. Administrative burdens either way.
And you’ll say, but the PAC route would have been too much of a burden. And I’ll say: evidence? (Because the only evidence cited in the majority opinion for that particular proposition was Kennedy’s McConnell dissent.) Anonsters(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
I know. I was saying that they didn’t unburden corporate speech entirely. Corporations still have to comply with the disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements under BCRA. Or they would have had to use a PAC. Administrative burdens either way.
And you’ll say, but the PAC route would have been too much of a burden. And I’ll say: evidence?
If there is no significant difference between setting up a PAC and using the corporation itself to fund political speech, there would have been no point to the regulations in question. They could just have been easily circumvented by setting up a PAC. The fact that those regulations existed and weer considered to be important is a sign that there was a substantial burden. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Arkady says:
I guess this is what some of us are afraid of:
Any reason to suppose that this won’t happen? Arkady(Quote)
Chris says:
What about a Burkean position that says your (IS’s) arguments are compelling but there is a reason we enacted these restrictions in the first place and you are opening a Pandora’s box.
Not that this has anything to do with the decision since presumably policy arguments are anathema to originalists. Chris(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.
“We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.
...
It is expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements from outside groups aiming to sway voters, without any candidate having to take the criticism for dirty campaigning. The biggest beneficiaries might be well-placed incumbents whose favor companies and interests groups are eager to court. It could also have a big impact on state and local governments, where a few million dollars can have more influence on elections. [Source]
Any reason to suppose that this won’t happen?
at least two reasons, actually:
1. Diminishing marginal returns. Beyond a certain point, additional interest group ads are unlikely to have much impact, because there are so many others. Moreover, corporations have to weigh the benefits of political expenditures against those of other investments. Often, the latter will have a higher return.
2. Competition between rival interest groups. The politician doesn’t have to knuckle under to this hypothetical lobbyist because there are lots of opposing interests he can go to instead.
That said, I agree that interest groups can often influence political outcomes in harmful ways. But I don’t see why selectively burdening interest groups in the corporate form while giving free reign to other types of interest groups will make things better. It just strengthens the latter at the expense of the former. Ilya Somin(Quote)
Ilya Somin says:
What about a Burkean position that says your (IS’s) arguments are compelling but there is a reason we enacted these restrictions in the first place and you are opening a Pandora’s box.
I’m not a Burkean. I believe that many regulations were enacted in the first place for bad reasons, and that these are among them. If this is a Pandora’s box, I want to see some proof of that claim beyond simply stating that “there is a reason” why we enacted these restrictions in the first place.” There were reasons for the enactment of just about every other speech restriction struck down under the First Amendment too. Ilya Somin(Quote)
D says:
The problem is corporate speech can be massaged to meet regulatory guidelines and even then can be frequently . . . well, BS!
I give you one prime example of why corporate speech is unlikely to generate meaningful political speech or even if it does in some instances, why it is more likely to hurt than help: U.S. Fidelis extended car warranties. Note that U.S. Fidelis was NOT its original name, but in fact changed from its robocall warranty call days so that it could be separated from its past reputation.
Fidelis says: car breaks down, never have to pay for a repair bill again. . . yada yada yada
Look at the contract and they only pay for internally lubricated parts that break (and they are never the ones that break) and further: any purchased contract’s maximum value cannot exceed the market value of the car even if the contract payments are higher than the market value.
It took months and years before the extent of this scam was well known. Now U.S. Fidelis, with the same level of forthright truthiness can now make political speech in the days and weeks before an election?
HAH!
Until lies or distortions are immediately taken off the air, corrected, and the organizations encouraged not to engage in false or extremely misleading characterizations, corporate speech will have the capacity to harm the debate more than anything because people have their word and reputations and it matters because they can’t escape it: they live and die with their word and reputation. On the other hand, a business organization can dissolve and another can rise up in its place — free of the entanglements of its bad reputation — to prey on the people again. I note that disclosure guidelines were upheld in this case and disclosure can be an effective way to deal with some of these issues, however, it does not reverse the damage of folk knowledge (e.g., “I heard somewhere that Obama is from Kenya! Not a natural born citizen.”) D(Quote)
Arkady says:
Actually, I should have bolded this
I know it’s sexier to theorize about the effect of the ruling on federal elections, but, really, state and local governments have far, far more influence over our everyday lives than the feds ever will. And I think this is where the ruling might create the most mischief. Further, I’d think that someone who repeatedly stresses the deleterious effects of political ignorance would show a little more skepticism about the freedom-enhancing results of the decision. Arkady(Quote)
We live in a political world « tim gier says:
circularfish says:
I know it has been said many times, but it bears repeating — if we equate the marshaling of corporate ad budgets as speech, and if we stick to the marketplace of ideas metaphor, then those (I hesitate to say “people”) capable of spending the most will either get to speak more or command disproportionate “market power,” depending on how you construct your metaphor. That result may be required under the constitutional interpretation adopted by the US Supreme Court, but given the economic makeup of this country, it is in no way egalitarian — at least to the vast majority of us who will now have to shout louder to be heard over Brad Pitt AND Goldman Sachs. circularfish(Quote)
Hocking Hick says:
I don’t think this will effect large elections at all...
But what about the example of a state representative who gets on the bad side of “Big Whatever”, and “Big Whatever” then buys their own candidate the election?
You can scream 1st Amendment all you want, but in these days of conglomerates, “Big Whatever” is likely owned by people who live outside the state. Not that this hasn’t been happening already and all-over, but this makes it even easier for non-constituents to affect an election. Hocking Hick(Quote)
Chris says:
@D: The argument that corporations are not the same as people since they can dissolve and escape negative marks on their reputation seems at first convincing. I wonder if this is really true. Most corporations care a fuck of a lot about their reputation. The one’s that don’t probably don’t have much reputation to begin with. Is this an empirical question? I know Coca Cola cares more about their reputation than I do and I care more about my reputation than Fly By Night Thieves LLC. Chris(Quote)
Fedya says:
we won’t have any politicians on the airwaves. :-) Fedya(Quote)
Hocking Hick says:
Maybe they can add an addendum, that for every 100K contribution, the Politician has to tattoo the corporate logo on his/her face.
Makes it easy to know who’s really talking... Hocking Hick(Quote)
Chris says:
OK fair enough. Fiddlesticks to stare decisis in this case. Still, I hope you don’t agree with Roberts’ take on the issue. Chris(Quote)
Crust says:
What about arguments based on agent-principal issues? The point being that the speech of a company or a union is controlled by a few insiders and will often be weakly — or even inversely — correlated to the views of the stockholders or union members. Doesn’t it seem a little strange to ground the free speech right for a corporation in the collective free speech rights of natural persons who may — and frequently will — disagree with that speech? (While I think this argument is quite strong for companies and unions, it doesn’t apply or at a minimum is very weak for corporations whose principal purpose is advocacy e.g. the Sierra Club or the NRA.) Crust(Quote)
egd says:
I think that the best argument against this new decision (which I support) is that it is going to unfairly benefit incumbents who will now have a higher incentive to send government money to corporate friends, who may then turn around and spend that money on the candidate’s reelection campaign.
“I’ll give you $10M if you agree to spend $5M on my reelection campaign.”
Does anyone seriously think that General Motors, propped up by government funds, is going to spend money on ads for opponents of ARRP/TARP?
This lessening of regulation on speech, coupled with the anti-capitalist rent seeking that the government has enabled, is going to create more incentive for rent-seeking.
There are two ways to handle this, either restrict speech of all corporations (unless they have a lot of money to work through the loopholes of the regulations) or stop corporate rent-seeking. Most of these objections would have gone out the window if the SCOTUS had found (e.g.) the GM Bankruptcy shenanigans unconstitutional use of Congress’ spending power. egd(Quote)
Some dude says:
A celebrity is accountable for his own speech, if only to his on conscience. Who is accountable for corporate speech? Not the strawman corporate “person” that is built up as a means of giving (real) people limited liability. The strawman corporate “person” isn’t even accountable to its own conscience, since it doesn’t have one. Some dude(Quote)
steve s says:
Since corporations are composed of people, your corporate CEO can also be a celebrity. A celebrity with the clout of corporate money.
The bigger issue for remains the special protections we give shareholders and officers of corporations. To have both those special protections and the privileges usually reserved for individuals tilts the playing field way too far. I would prefer preserving free speech whenever possible, so my preference would be to reduce those protections for shareholders of corporations who choose to engage in political speech. Make them an LLS(peech)C. steve s(Quote)
Howard Gilbert says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition ...
The wording of the First Amendment does not establish a human right of free speech. It places a limit on the subject of legislation. Without arguing whether Freedom of Religion is a human right (people have freedom of religion, churches don’t) it bars legislation that interferes with organized religion. Freedom of the press is clearly an organizational/corporate right. Note that the end does not talk about the right of a person to assemble (one hand clapping) but the right of the people to assemble (an act that by definition can only be exercised as a group). However, in all these cases the text is not about the rights themselves but rather a prohibition on Congress to legislate on certain matters.
Therefore, the actual text that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech does not limit its application to citizens or even people. The text does not talk about “freedom of people to speak”. Congress cannot pass a law abridging speech. Any kind of speech.
Therefore the title of this post, which refers to “Restrictions on Corporate Speech” is directly aligned with the text while philosophical questions about whether artificial persons enjoy rights is unrelated to the text of the amendment. The Constitution prevents Congress from blocking speech and does not qualify that prohibition by depending on the the speaker having any specific legal status. Howard Gilbert(Quote)
Where I disagree with Clarence Thomas « The Tiger on Politics says:
pc says:
It will be interesting to see what happens when sovereign wealth funds get into the game. The CIC has about $300 billion it can throw around. I’m sure they could dump some of the US debt they hold and get some real bang for our bucks. pc(Quote)
Buddy Hinton says:
1. The campaign finance problem is a vote buying problem in substance, if not form.
2. The problem of vote buying is essentially the same whether we are talking about individuals, about corporations, or about individuals organized into corporations.
3. The legislative branch is fundamentally incapable of drafting effective laws to counter vote buying type problems because they want to continue to buy votes.
4. If there is hope with the vote buying problem, it lies with the courts because they are not elected.
5. Hopefully now that the distraction of “campaign finance law” is out of the way, the Court can move on to the more important task of dismantling the current, permissive system of campaign finance as a violation of the Constitutional provisions that say that elections must be one person one vote and not one dollar one vote. Buddy Hinton(Quote)
Crust says:
pc raises an interesting point:
Shareholders of US corporations need not be American citizens or even American residents. So even if you buy the “tool” model that free speech of a corporation is just a pass-through for the free speech of the shareholders, the right to spend money on speech is flowing through in part to foreigners and even foreign governments. By this standard, the Government of Singapore for example (via Temasek and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation) has greater opportunity for paid political speech in the US than all but a handful of Americans.
(Like I said above, I have serious reservations with what I’m calling the “tool model” of corporate speech, because of agency/principal issues. But here I’m just exploring the consequences.) Crust(Quote)
Oren Reich says:
It seems both arguments focus on the merits behind having an influential political voice. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who run large corporations are incredibly intelligent people, even if a large portion Americans would disagree with that statement.
The major issue nonetheless is whether they will use that political influence for personal gain, rather than for altruism (IE, supporting policies and politicians you feel will lead to general prosperity). Even those who don’t think corporations are filled with intelligent people are most likely more afraid of the corruption that results from their influence, and not from their potential stupidity. Oren Reich(Quote)
Mark Buehner says:
Aren’t media companies corporations, big ones? Wasn’t there a fundamental conflict there to begin with? I think there is a quasi-equal protection issue here. If Time-Warner can use CNN to editorialize and promote its issues, what about those that don’t happen to have a cable news network?
The unintended consequence of that law was actually to consolidate power into bigger corporations and give them a huge incentive to use their media arms to shill. In my opinion that is a bigger threat to the welfare of the country than the alternative. Mark Buehner(Quote)
JRinDC says:
Ilya responds to the issue of corporations setting up PACs thusly:
Have you ever set up a PAC? I have. While the rules are complex, they are no more complex than setting up a corporation itself. This proposition, quite frankly, is absurd. (You want a federal PAC? Fill out an 1120 POL form with the IRS, register as 527, file periodic disclosures with the FEC).
If the majority believes this to so burdensome, then it truly has no idea what it is talking about. This argument deserves no merit.
Here’s something else I haven’t seen addressed: giving corporations more latitude to spend money is really an assault on contribution limits. This is especially so in Scalia’s Mom-and-Pop corporation example. Mom and Pop can each max out direct contributions to candidates, and they can each spend significant personal funds on independent expenditures. Allowing them to do so through a corporation (made up, presumably of them and perhaps a few other members who can also max their individual dollars) simply allows them a second bite at the apple. And it allows them to do it with pre-tax dollars!! Is it now the case that to elevate my speech I must set up a corporation? I daresay that is just as difficult as a corporation setting up a PAC.
I’ve practiced election law for some time, and my considered view of this entire issue of campaign finance is the following:
The reformers badly overreached and created arbitrary distinctions that don’t withstand court scrutiny. Unfortunately, once you start pulling these threads the entire artifice of campaign finance regulation must be dismantled. Now settled precedent on corporate giving is overturned. But if corporations can now engage in direct politics, why have federal contribution limits at all? http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimits0910.pdf If corporations are simply people speaking, as Ilya insists, then they are evading their individual contribution limits in doing so, or they are deliberately hiding their personal identity through the corporate form.
The notion that independent expenditures are entirely different from corporations depends on the FEC’s ability to police and defend coordination rules, which history suggests is darn near impossible.
Ironically, I fear the only logical result going forward is to end regulation of campaign finance entirely, but for disclosure requirements. Let’s just declare this all a failure and pit the candidate of George Soros against the candidate from Exxon and let the people decide who they prefer. Is this equitable? Well, at least I get to fund my campaign from all possible sources. Then, at least, the truth of a candidate’s loyalties will be apparent. JRinDC(Quote)
Martinned says:
Quoted for truth.
I think this ruling is correct, but only given the premise that money = speech. That premise is the one I think warrants further consideration.
As for the “more egalitarian” idea: well, in a marketplace of ideas where even more people are using more money to speak, everybody will be drowned out by the noise and no one worth listening to will be heard. Martinned(Quote)
byomtov says:
Are you seriously arguing that the gap between my influence and Curt Schilling’s is greater than the gap between my influence and that of a corporation willing to spend millions on a campaign?
You want to think about that some more? byomtov(Quote)
Butters says:
Ilya, I like the point you make about the different factors that give a person influence over others. But a corporation derives its influence not only from popular recognition and its endorsement power (“soft influence”), but from its ability to spend money to get the results it wants (“hard influence”). What’s to stop a corporation from dominating the legislative agenda when it can now threaten any political foe that it will spend as much as it takes to defeat him? Neither you, nor Schilling, have enough dough to compete. Butters(Quote)
JRinDC says:
The Schilling example is maybe akin to elected official endorsements in political primaries (and I would argue less important). Most primary and caucus elections are effectively closed to outsiders because the winning candidate seeks, and gets, endorsements of prominent members of the community, particularly elected officials, which in turn legitimizes and fuels their campaign. A well-organized grassroots effort can overcome the effects of endorsements, but it is more the exception than the rule in local politics. The influence of such people is inevitable, and frankly, part of the winnowing process. The candidate who fails to seek and get those endorsements is probably not going to win.
At the national or statewide level, however, the value of competing celebrity endorsements (Bush has Tim McGraw! Obama has Will.I.Am!) is fun and interesting, but I’ve not seen a single empirical study suggesting it has any persuasive value whatsoever.
Schilling, or whoever the flavor of the day is, may help draw a crowd for a rally, but that’s about it. But for Coakely’s gaffe about Schilling being a Yankee fan no one would care about Curt Schilling at all. JRinDC(Quote)
lgm says:
I thought the conservative approach was not to argue which outcome was better, but which outcome is required by the Constitution and existing laws. It seems to me, and the Supreme Court seems to have said this, that if you accept that a company has the same rights as a person, then among those rights is unfettered free speech.
This post, like the court decision, reinforces this liberal’s impression that strict constructionism and judicial modesty are principles to be applied selectively. lgm(Quote)
Chris says:
Originalism is a popular position for conservatives in the current climate. I don’t think you have to be an originalist to be a conservative. Chris(Quote)
Elliot says:
Has any work been done on the effect of the DVR on the effectiveness of the political TV ad? I hardly saw any TV ads in 2008 because I zip through all the commercials with my DVR.
While I consume a great deal of information via the internet, books, and journals, I wonder if I’m part of a growing group that is well informed, but difficult to reach with campaign ads. Elliot(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Why Restrictions on Corporate Speech Reduce Political Equality -- Topsy.com says:
Martinned says:
Check out this cartoon... Martinned(Quote)
Vox says:
Quote:
Tens of millions of Americans own stock in corporations, belong to unions (which, as a legal matter, are corporations too), or contribute to nonprofits that use the corporate form (including most charities). Even if you assume that only rich people have enough influence to “really” be able to use corporate speech, there are some 5.1 million millionaire households in the United States. If you’re a millionaire, you can probably exercise substantial influence over the political speech of at least one corporation, if you want to. Even if you aren’t, you can have an impact by donating to one of the many nonprofit corporations that engage in political activism for a vast range of causes, ranging from the ACLU to the NRA to the Sierra Club.
This breaks into three mechanisms that are supposed to prove that delimiting corporate spending in elections is good for the average American, all of which are equally ridiculous:
1.“Tens of millions of Americans own stock in corporations”
Horrible argument. Owning stock does not affect the companies political leanings, it only increases their funds by which they can exact their corporate leanings. The only way your stock ownership can make an effect is if you are a multi-millionaire with significant stock invested in the company, making you one of the top shareholders.
2.“You can have an impact by donating to one of the many nonprofit corporations”
You can already have that right now before this change. So thats not even in favor of the argument. But moreover, the mechanism for having influence here is spending money. Its funny that pay-to-play at no point strikes this author as problematic.
3.“If you’re a millionaire, you can probably exercise substantial influence.”
And thats the whole problem here.
Thats his whole analysis on greater access via corporate personhood: that millionaires can affect politics. How does this, at any point, solve the problems of access and representation? No one knows, all we know is apparently we should be grateful that the wealthy get more access, on top of their already disproportionately greater influence.
(I also like how this article mentions unequal access and mentions celebs and media, but at no point the wealthy, considering the wealthy own the media, and already contribute in far greater amounts, not to mention that many of the wealthy are celebs in their own right.) Vox(Quote)
yankee says:
A million dollars doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to. When even a “small-cap” corporation is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the amount of money a person with a net worth of $1 million can put up is not remotely enough to influence the behavior of any but the smallest business enterprises. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that a large fraction of most people’s net worth is tied up in their very non-liquid homes.
Of course, even middle-class people can trivially impact the behavior of at least one corporation by hiring a paralegal to form one. yankee(Quote)
Alex S. says:
If this is a protection of political speech could it be used creatively to circumvent still allowed restrictions on commercial speech? For example, pharmaceuticals can’t advertise off-label uses for their drugs.
Could they run and ad saying: “Because we think Joe Blow will support FDA rules changes that would allow us to tell you there is preliminary clinical evidence that our liver cancer drug also increases penis size you should vote Joe Blow for Senate.”
They’re just explaining their political motivations for supporting Joe Blow.
Or selling cigarettes to minors:
“Because we’d like to see new laws that will allow children to experience how cool it is to smoke, vote Joe Blow for Senate.”
Sure, Joe Blow wouldn’t get elected but they’d get to tell kids smoking is cool. Alex S.(Quote)
uffe hellum says:
I think I understand your point that corporations are valid players.
However, membership of a corporation is a matter of livelihood rather than a statement of support, so in a democracy, it is complex to define the rights of employees and stock holders.
In my opinion, some legislation is MISSING that should allow control by employees and stock holders. I dislike these haphazard consequences of legislating from the bench.
Contrast: In a political party, each party may freely choose its internal structure, and members and voters are free to leave. E.g. the “Danish People’s Party” may choose to NOT have democracy internally, but yield all power to the leader, so she dictates who speaks and who leaves. Other parties (e.g. the Conservatives, and the Socialists) have complete member control over the program, and have freedom to individually deviate a lot from the party program.
The same is not entirely true for corporations. Employment or union membership is not a statement of political preference, but involves your livelihood. If a union wants to support political causes, then I believe they must do so only proportionately to member votes, or not at all.
We have various employment laws governing transparency to the board and to the stock holders.
Now we also need to legislate about corporations that wish to support political campaigns, to allow adequate control to employees, board, and stock holders.
/Uffe uffe hellum(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
The Supreme Court also has handed a new weapon to elected officials. As corporations more nakedly play in the partisan pool, would-be government contractors will become more like applicants for ambassadorships. The first moves of a new administration or Congress may expand from swapping ambassadors and U.S. attorneys and the like to include terminating disfavored contractors and rewarding favored contractors. As I mentioned earlier, smart money may be establishing Democrat-friendly defense contractors as we speak.
This is unpleasant, but so are some forms of troublesome speech (such as the plainly fraudulent utterances of televangelists who clean out widows’ accounts with promises of faith-healing and supernatural love, or corporation-funded political campaigns, or loud, gay-hating demonstrations in the nearest lawful proximity to funerals) that we apparently will tolerate to vindicate the broader value of expression.
I also expect a wave of new requirements and restrictions (and/or effective enforcement of existing requirements and restrictions) governing corporations. I could probably think of a dozen that not only would be lawful but also might be worthwhile. Many corporations accept the benefits of incorporation without being accountable for responsible corporate citizenship. That seems likely to change, at least in degree. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
yankee says:
I agree that restricting corporate speech increases the relative influence of journalists, celebrities, etc. I am, however, pheonomenally unconvinced that the difference between me and Curt Schilling is “much greater” than the difference between me and a publicly traded business enterprise. Do you have any evidence of this?
There are also a bunch of reasons to think that corporate influence is more pernicious than the influence of journalists, academics, or even celebrities. Influential individuals get involved in political advocacy because they think certain policies are in the public interest. Corporations get involved in political advocacy to get politicians to enact polities that benefit them at the expense of everyone else. These are not universal laws (especially the first) but they are true as a general matter. yankee(Quote)
jukeboxgrad says:
IS:
When the “opposing interests” are an unorganized mass of relatively moneyless and voiceless consumers, then the tilt in the playing field is pretty obvious.
Often, the former will have a higher return.
Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until 8/2000. During that time, he earned $44 million. Between 1999 and 2002, Halliburton “made political contributions of more than seven hundred thousand dollars ..., almost always to Republican candidates or causes” (of course that doesn’t count contributions made individually by Halliburton officers and owners). Cheney became head of Bush’s Vice-Presidential search committee while Cheney was still CEO at Halliburton.
Halliburton was our main contractor in Iraq. They were awarded billions in contracts, on a no-bid basis. (Yes, I know Clinton did business with them too. The Ds are also corporate whores, but they haven’t mastered the practice as well as the Rs.)
During the first few years of the war, the Dow went up by about 50%. During the same period, Halliburton stock tripled. The value of the company increased by about $20 billion. I think this tends to indicate that their “political expenditures” had a respectable ROI. Staggeringly so. In fact, it was probably the most profitable investment in the history of the company, by several orders of magnitude.
A great Republican once said this:
He was right. We’re not USA anymore. We’re USA, Inc. Soon to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the People’s Bank of China, and the Saudi royal family (because corporate money and control are highly fungible, and we’re never going to know where it really came from). jukeboxgrad(Quote)
jukeboxgrad says:
And we will probably see shareholder lawsuits, where it is noticed that a company fell behind competitively because it only purchased a small chunk of congress, while its main competitor purchased a larger chunk. Managers and directors will have a fiduciary duty to purchase as many legislators as possible. Both for the direct benefit, and also to deprive competitors of the opportunity to make that purchase.
Corporate balance sheets which currently list various kinds of assets will soon list data regarding the number of lawmakers currently owned by the corporation. This will be important information, from the perspective of potential investors. jukeboxgrad(Quote)
sanchito says:
This is one of the more frightening prospects that I can see as a result of this decision. sanchito(Quote)
Martinned says:
But at least Microsoft and Curt Schilling are now equal! Martinned(Quote)
jukeboxgrad says:
sanchito:
Indeed. It means that if Exxon places an unsatisfactory bid, I can hang up on them and dial Walmart or GE. And overseas calls don’t really cost anything these days, so I might as well also leave messages in Singapore and China. Maybe eBay will set up a special service to handle the auctioning that will go on. Meg Whitman would be the perfect person to set this up.
===================
martinned:
Yes, what a relief. jukeboxgrad(Quote)
smrstrauss says:
A simple suggestion. Why not just pass a law that says that every time a corporation wants to pay for political advertising, there must be a vote of the stockholders. The same, I think, should be the case for labor unions, their members should vote.
The need for the vote would discourage this kind of advertising, but who could argue that requiring a vote by the owners of the corporation and the members of the labor union restricts free speecH? No it simply guarantees that the decision made by the management to advertise for candidate X or against candidate Y truly reflects the opinions of the owners of the company or the members of the union. smrstrauss(Quote)
pc says:
That would be an affront to nature and everything that makes this country great. Do you ask all of your cells to vote every time you want to donate to a politician? I’m patiently waiting for the libertarian analysis of corporate free will and self-determination. pc(Quote)
uberVU - social comments says:
smrstrauss says:
Re: “Do you ask all of your cells to vote every time you want to donate to a politician?”
The owners of a corporation are not cells; they are people, and they are the owners of the corporation. The members of labor union are not cells, they are people, and they are the reason that a labor union exists. smrstrauss(Quote)
D says:
I am not a number! I am a free man! D(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Pfff. You think the same politician can’t be bought by both a company and its competitors? Keep in mind that the problem here isn’t that corporations are lining up to put money into politics voluntarily, it’s that they are being shaken down mercilessly by the politicians. There’s a definate problem here, it’s just that regulating speech isn’t the way to do it. ShelbyC(Quote)
JD says:
That inequalities are increased by limits on corporate speech may be true when you look at individuals. It is definitely false when you look at classes. The influence of the wealthy as a class is increased considerably.
The impact of non-wealthy influentials is one of the very few factors standing between us and total domination by the moneyed interest (sometimes the churches, sometimes leftist organisations also work in that direction). So I rate their impact as a good thing. And so should anyone concerned with political inequality — assuming, that is, you do actually want any counterbalances, assuming you do want anything other than a Randian society run for the benefit and whim of the upper crust.
The point about the many wealthy supporters of the Democrats is touching in its naivety. All that proves is that the influence of wealth is already so crushing that even the supposedly leftier party has long changed its tune to their liking.
Here we have it again: Libertarianism — Using the rhetoric of individualism to shill for the money interest. Understandable when you’re paid to do it, bemusing when you’re not. JD(Quote)
jukeboxgrad says:
shelbyc:
Naturally that’s possible. There are a large number of permutations that are possible. You might buy me, and then I renege and don’t pass the law you thought you bought. You might buy me on the condition that I don’t sell myself to your competitor, and then I renege on that promise. So what? None of this addresses the underlying problem, which is that we are turning lawmakers into a commodity, to be bought and sold like any other commodity. Then again, why not? Don’t we trust the free market to make the proper choices? This country was not built on one-dollar = one-vote, but it’s not too late to correct that mistake.
Also, when “the same politician [is] bought by both a company and its competitors,” that would tend to be a situation where both competitors have a common interest, such as an interest in taking advantage of consumers. So instead of selling myself to a company, I’ve sold myself to an industry. Not exactly an improvement.
If corporations weren’t able to spend money to influence elections, this would greatly limit the ability of lawmakers to ‘shake down’ corporations. Lawmakers are only able to demand campaign money from corporations because it’s legal for the corporations to provide that money.
What we have is Big Government and Big Business in bed with each other. They are both willing participants in the transaction. But the party who is really getting screwed is the voter.
====================
jd:
Indeed. As I have said many times, it would be good if we had a two-party system. jukeboxgrad(Quote)
LN says:
I’ve seen libertarian defenses of insider trading on the grounds that it simply makes markets more efficient. May I request a defense of legalized bribery on the grounds that banning bribery is exactly like putting duct tape on someone’s mouth and shoving him into a gulag? LN(Quote)
Mark Field says:
This is like the old story of the judge: As he’s sitting in chambers, plaintiff’s counsel comes in and hands the judge an envelope with $10,000 inside. The judge takes the envelope and puts it in his drawer. Shortly after, defense counsel comes in and hands the judge another envelope, this one also containing $10,000. The judge then takes the bench and announces he’s reached a decision on the merits. Mark Field(Quote)
Shopfloor » Blog Archive » Half a Hurray for the AFL-CIO, First Amendment Advocates says:
Lampie The Clown says:
You’ve addressed influence on the public, but your theory does not address influence on the politician. Why else would a corporation spend it’s money on politics? Lampie The Clown(Quote)
Claudine Peplinski says:
Not only are there other such democracies, the US itself had those kinds of limits until yesterday’s decision. Claudine Peplinski(Quote)
Roderick Bieker says:
Hi. I wanted to thank you for the fantastic data you have posted on your web site. I will definitelycome back to check it out once more and have subscribedto your RSS feed. Have an excellent day. Roderick Bieker(Quote)
HDTV plasma 1080p says:
I love your web site! did you generate this your self or did you outsource it? Im searching for a blog design thats comparable so thats the only cause I’m asking. Either way maintain up the great work I was impressed with your content actually.. HDTV plasma 1080p(Quote)