As the frenzied political campaigns grind on, one set of winners is already clear: wealthy contributors and politically active corporations. Because of the new rules of the game, 2012 is already on pace to be a record year in terms of campaign expenditures. A great deal of this boom in political spending has been made possible by recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down the limits on campaign contributions from individuals to so-called super PACs and other "independent organizations created to support specific candidates.
Another Court decision, even more disturbing, erased the long established ban on corporate spending and contributions to influence the outcome of the elections. This double whammy means that candidates for Congress as well as the presidency will find themselves heavily dependent on fund raising success involving direct expenditures by companies. And, what will these new wellsprings of money expect to get in return for their largess? You can bet it will be more than a handshake.
Who knows? In the case of corporations one can imagine an even more personal agenda. Start with the fact that the Supreme Court has affirmed unequivocally that corporations, even those that operate out of a post office box in the Cayman Islands, are persons. And in general, the Court has ruled that that they are endowed with certain "inalienable" rights, like free speech.
The practical effect of these decisions means, in effect, that companies can spend as much as they want to influence the outcomes of political campaigns without necessarily disclosing (apparently to that class of their fellow persons who walk on two legs) any of their gifts publicly. These changes set the stage for a powerful addition to the role corporations may play in American life. The Court hasn't specifically ruled on whether this blanket protection of corporate free speech means that "truth in advertising" restrictions on corporate claims are now defunct. One person's sales pitch may be another's dangerous lie, but they can both be an exercise in free speech.
Of course, none of this answers the question of who is speaking when a corporation -- behaving like a "person" -- makes political noises. Some strict constructionists might argue that corporate speech is more akin to that of ventriloquist dummies. Some human-type person is pulling the strings, writing the script, drafting the press releases, signing the checks, etc. But in the eyes of the Court, it appears that corporations have some sort of independent existence of their own -- a quality that entitles them to the protections afforded to human beings. (Other animals, it should be noted do not enjoy this status -- at least not yet.) The Court does have an important, if unintentional, point to make in this regard: Put simply, you'd have to be naive not to understand that corporation executives are pulling many of the strings in 21st century America
But have the majority of the Justices gone far enough? If corporations are truly persons, shouldn't they be empowered to do all the things that other "persons" can do? For example, why not give them the right to marry each other. Oh, you may say, they have that already, though in their case it's called a merger. Still if you can't call it marriage, is it full equality? And while conservatives may be alarmed at the prospect of marriage equality for corporations, there is a bright side of to the story. After all, fundamentalists can take solace from the fact that there seems to be general agreement that corporations attain full person status at the instant the papers are signed.
Will corporations get all the rights that personhood implies? It's hard to say; only one thing is certain, they won't have any trouble raising the money for campaigns to approve the corporate equality agenda, whatever it turns out to be.
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: Pity the Poor Billionaires
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
American elections are only for americans.
Any corporation with a single non-citizen employee or share holder or accepts any money from non-citizens should be excluded from political speech.
This common sense approach would prevent most corporate donations.
This would only take a simple rule clarification by the FEC.
This would not even require a new rule but just a clarification of what defines a foreign person as foreign persons are forbidden from donating to political campaigns.
The GOP as become the party of "the ends justify the mean's," always.
The w@cky paranoia they've been fed identifies those of us with divergent beliefs from their's as un-American and a danger to the republic, hence, anything goes.
Reprehensible
corporations do already have individual rights, more so than you or I. Or, at the very least we can say with certainty that, corporations have more rights than minorities. Homosexual couples for example, cannot marry without the heavy burden of knowing that the national public discourse, and politic, are both operating against their interests.
BUT
corporations can marry ANY other corporation, or PERSON, they wish.
the tipping point has been reached. when corporate and religions rights surpase those of the individual, you have a neo fascist "state".
wake up people.
The argument you may ask?
"Well that's just silly, corps aren't literally persons" as the draw the line wherever they wish.
Bank it!
Regarding intimidating voters and purging voter rolls. The Black Panthers were intimidating voters, but Obama/Holder threw the case out (after they won it), so we can expect more from them, but I wouldn't expect it from conservatives. I've not seen any examples of voter intimidation from the right, just the left. Yes, ethics walked there.
Money may talk, but it doesn't vote, voters do.
What exactly is wrong with purging voter rolls of the dead? Do you think George Washington should still be on the voter rolls in Virginia? Of course if we find some partisan removing legitimate voters from the rolls, that's another story (but I've seen no reports of this). On the other hand, I've seen plenty of reports of ACORN and it's follow on organizations committing voter fraud doing things like registering Mickey Mouse as a voter.
And you do realize the political parties, and the people running them, have their own agendas often contrary to the best interests of citizens in general, so their contributions go to candidates whom they approve (but not necessarily favored by the voters in the party - we've seen many candidates get support from their party before the primaries are even done).
Super PACs have taken the power to control the message away from the parties and the incumbents. Fear of PACs have made formerly safe incumbents very nervous. They know that at any time a PAC might come in with huge funds and challenge them.
What people need to understand is that politicians are self interested people. Consiously or not they will sell their power to those that can benefit them the most. Corporate speech does not change this reality. It just makes it more obvious.
This is a good thing. Hopefully people will learn to distrust politicians enough that we finally put real limits on their power.
When children stop believing in Santa, do they give up all those gifts?
Chew on that, one, all you 'free 'Murikins'.
...or Iran/Israel/Venezuela/Saudi Arabia/Druglords or anyone else that would be interested in a certain outcome in the US. If corporations have the rights of a person then they should have the same responsibilities including susceptibility to the same standards of taxation and law. Corporation taxes should be raised to parity with individuals just for a start.......
But we HAVE 'responsibility'!
YOU are 'responsible' to bow down before the mighty corporatioons, shut up, and do their bidding!
Also worth asking, is why the feds won't provide immunity to the MF Global treasurer for her testimony regarding Corzine's orders to gamble with client money on MF Global's behalf? The reason of course, is that Obama's appointed prosecutors don't really want to jail a big campaign bundler for Obama. Which goes to show, that the real crooks are the politicians, who hold the power of prosecutorial discretion, and the power to give government favors (subsidies, government guaranteed loans, government contracts, tax breaks, "regulations" inhibiting competition, etc.) to corporations (normally in exchange for campaign cash).
Corporations can't force government to give it favors, only politicians can. Money isn't corrupting politics, politicians are corrupting commerce (to get money from it). Money/speech doesn't elect politicians, voters do.
Can they serve time for compounding the felony, of refusing to serve their country or pay taxes?
"the new rules of the game"
We each spot Google a Dollar, and they go in and buy government back for us.
"the long established ban on corporate spending and contributions to influence the outcome of the elections."
Wasn’t that covered by the Constitution’s prohibition of political reward/inducement?
"the Court has ruled that that they are endowed with certain "inalienable" rights, like free speech."
Does that count even if those words are coming from an entity hidden behind a curtain? Like some non-Ossiferous wizard maybe.
"persons who walk on two legs"
bad. Persons who walk in and give politicians an arm and a leg-up, good.
"none of this answers the question of who is speaking when a corporation -- behaving like a "person" -- makes political noises."
Nor if its had its IQ established recently. Since surely “vacant” signs on corporate HQs point to something.
“ventriloquist dummies.”
Gribe, Guy-off, an’ Gutter-up ‘ith a Gottle o’ Gollinger.
"corporations have some sort of independent existence of their own"
God the father, god the son, and god! the corporations are coming.
"why not give them the right to marry each other."
Wouldn’t that result in preachers sending emissaries ‘round, to educate them out of it?
"Will corporations get"
possessed by devilishly evil spirits? As such demons will need casting out. Let me hear you say IRS.
The whole notion is ridiculous. If this country lasts, future generations will be disgusted at how intellectually and morally impoverished we are.
Corporate personhood is a bigger and more detrimental scam than anything Al Capone ever pulled.
.
Isn't that exactly what we are doing?
Of course, I personally don't approve of corporate marriage. Open THAT door and the next thing ya know, you'll be able to marry a small business or even a kid with a lemonade stand. How'my 'spose to explain it to my children when they see a man walking down the street hand-in-hand with a corporation? What Mitt Romney does with his partners behind closed doors is HIS business, but the state does NOT have to sanction it. It just ain't Christian.
Your point on mismanagement and corruption in school vouchers, etc is certainly a valid point. Only vaguely related: over the past 10 years or so, I've seen an explosion in the number of Americans who get around in public in "power chairs". I fully acknowledge that the disabled need mobility. In 3/4ths of the cases I see, the people are not disabled to the point they need a power chair, and would benefit greatly from the exercise of walking around instead of riding. Guess what? The government funds power chairs. How do we do that and provide power chairs to those who really need them, but without providing them to the vast number who don't ... and I'll bet the power chair industry has a lobbyist in DC.
Anyway, thanks for your time and patience, it's always good to hear from you.
Read, learn, become informed. Move on and deal with real issues.
It's time all the traditionalists rethink the consequences of corporate personhood (excessive political influence, environmental impact, lack of social responsiblity) and look at what functions a corporation really does and does not need to be able to perform.
Revoke corporate personhood in all 50 states! www.movetoamend.org
Furthermore, business corporations have the power to generate more money and thus buy more influence in public affairs without any check on said actions than any other entity in our society.
Finally, keep in mind that the recent Supreme Court decision placed no limitation or restriction on foreign owned business corporations to contribute money to our nations political campaigns, and foreign entities have no civic stake in bettering our society. In fact, they have the opposite incentive to destabilize and undercut our nation if it suits their competitive global economic aspirations.
You may want to read a bit yourself and get a little more informed.
First, employees certainly do have a say in how businesses are run. It may not be the iron-fisted, boot-on-the-throat type of power we expect, but no business operates without being influenced by their employees. Second, you ignore the shareholders, and I would not be a shareholder in any corporation where I didn't, at the very least, get to vote for the Directors.
The creation of wealth occurs when something (raw material, time, whatever) is made more valuable through some sort of transformation. Iron ore to automobiles is the classic example. In the industrial realm, and increasingly in other areas, labor is no longer necessary to produce wealth. Machines do a much better job.
Foreign interest in and influence of our elections goes back to the earliest days of our Nation. Just as we return the favor when it's our turn. This is how the world works.
Having responded to your reply, I remain fairly satisfied with my positions.
"...the membership of said organization has a say in how the organization is run..." - - - You seem to imply that this is a good thing, or somehow desirable. If so, whatever makes you think THAT?
Our government has massive democracy, an even larger deficit and debt, and no hope of getting anything done. Corporations, with limited democracy, have massive surpluses and assets, and the ability to turn on a dime to fix problems. Lots of democracy = failure. Limited democracy = success. So I'm curious why you seem to be implying that greater membership control is better than lesser membership control?