You might buy me, and then I renege and don’t pass the law you thought you bought.

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.

You think the same politician can’t be bought by both a company and its competitors?

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.

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

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:

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.

Indeed. As I have said many times, it would be good if we had a two-party system.

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.

jukeboxgrad: 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.

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.

smrstrauss:
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.

I am not a number! I am a free man!

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.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by timgier: Eliminating Corporate Speech Magnifies the Effects of Other, More Severe Political Inequalities. http://bit.ly/5Vqi5K...

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.

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.

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.

there are lots of opposing interests he can go to instead.

This is one of the more frightening prospects that I can see as a result of this decision.

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:

But at least Microsoft and Curt Schilling are now equal!

Yes, what a relief.

jukeboxgrad: 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.

But at least Microsoft and Curt Schilling are now equal!

there are lots of opposing interests he can go to instead.

This is one of the more frightening prospects that I can see as a result of this decision.

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.

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.

When the “opposing interests” are an unorganized mass of relatively moneyless and voiceless consumers, then the tilt in the playing field is pretty obvious.

corporations have to weigh the benefits of political expenditures against those of other investments. Often, the latter will have a higher return.

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:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

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).

In sum, restricting corporate speech simply exacerbates imbalances of political power caused by other, much greater inequalities.

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.

The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

lgm:
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.

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.

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, ….

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.

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.