Crony capitalism vs. American liberty
Texas investor Kyle Bass once said, “Capitalism without failure is like Christianity without hell.” With less poetry but just as much wisdom, GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman announced his plan for financial reforms, saying, “Capitalism without failure is not capitalism. In order to ensure no future bailouts, we must end ‘Too Big to Fail.’”
Any bank that is too big to fail is too big. If a private enterprise cannot, for national security reasons, be allowed to fail, then that enterprise itself becomes a national security threat. It must either be nationalized or broken up. Of course, our federal government has no constitutional power to provide nationwide banking services, and such power, even if it were constitutional, would open up wide opportunity for corruption. So nationalization is not an option. Clearly, the “too big” banks must be reformed and reduced.
But as long as big business has friends in big government, our masters in Washington will make sure that “too big to fail” is the business landscape from here to the horizon. In short, the problem with our economic system is not capitalism, but a hideous mutation called “crony capitalism.” That is a system that is too dependent on government to be capitalism, but too heavy with private ownership to be socialism. It is a chummy and mutually supportive relationship between the captains of finance and industry and the mandarins of government. The politicians take care of their friends in business who in turn supply campaign cash to their friends in political office.
Understandably, this upsets principled free-marketers. For this reason, conservative former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, another GOP presidential contender (I bet you didn’t know that), has aligned himself with the Occupy Wall Street concerns. Some Occupiers are socialists. Some are anarchists. But while some think they are against capitalism, what they’re really against is crony capitalism.
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this week, Roemer spoke in defense of liberty when he said that “somewhere between Wall Street and K Street the system is corrupt. Here’s why. A big check gets first in line; everybody else is out of sight. This country is not fair at the top.” It’s a populist message, but what Roemer has in view is a more genuinely free market and a more faithfully popular government:
“You know who the biggest corporate giver [to political campaigns] from the financial world was four years ago? A little firm called Goldman-Sachs. You know who the largest corporate giver in America is to politicians in Washington? General Electric. Have you seen their record? No one went to jail. GE made $5.4 billion and didn’t pay one [expletive] penny in federal income tax.”
Democrats who are concerned about the mutual involvement of money and politics have ample reason to be upset at the current administration. Joe Scarborough writes in Politico:
“The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined.”
Crony capitalism corrupts both business and government, no matter who is in government. Aside from campaign finance reform, the way best to fight this is by reducing the size and reach of government in the economy beyond what is necessary for public safety.
Crony capitalism happens when government subsidizes business, becomes a source of venture capital, or becomes a significant customer for business. Some of this is unavoidable. There will always be military contractors. Someone has to build stuff for the government and supply it with paper and such.
But government should take the same approach to business as the Supreme Court required them to take toward religion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Be careful to avoid “excessive government entanglement.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top218 Comments to “Crony capitalism vs. American liberty”
Mr. Smith goes to Washington, the classic all-American drama of the individual against the bully corporation, was set in the 1930s. The theme was company corruption of American politics. How little has changed in 80+ years!
The thing about capitalism is that it will always try to be crony capitalism. If increasing your bottom line is your only priority, than you will ride roughshod over anything that gets in your way.
Companies are made up of sinful human beings after all, whose natural bent is to break the laws of God and man. That is why some form of government regulation is necessary to ensure the rule of law will be upheld, like the recent law against corporate political donation in Canada. One gives rules to a child so that he learns limits, coporations need limits too.
Report comment to moderator
What bully corporation was that PHOS? I thought “Mr. Smith” was about one man’s struggle and effect on some politicians’ corruption in government public works programs.
Report comment to moderator
2: The Taylor machine in the movie owns most of the businesses in the state, and the heroes father was shot after writing against a mining syndicate that was cheating a small operator.
Report comment to moderator
It was still one Senator going against a political machine promoting corruption in all forms of graft. I do not remember the hero’s (Smith?) father being shot. Now you’re sending me back to read a summary.
Report comment to moderator
And remember, that political machine also controlled the media. But we digress too far from cronoy capitalism. Eh?
Report comment to moderator
*crony – too many things on my lap.
Report comment to moderator
Scarborough is right. And I’d vote for Huntsman.
Huntsman, Paul, and Romney are the only Republican candidates who aren’t a bad joke, and Romney is an entirely bland McCandidate with a rubber spine who will take any position so long as it gets him elected.
Before the usual crowd of Obama-bashers shows up with their hoots of Solyndra and Vince Foster’s murder (oh, wait, that was the last Dem), I’d like to point out that the Republicans’ complete subservience to corporate lobbyists is the height of crony capitalism. More tax breaks for Big Oil while they are making record profits quarter after quarter and the American economy is on the mat? No bid contracts to defense companies? Halting legislation that would have forced credit card companies to spell out their terms clearly? Crony capitalism.
They are, after all, led by one Mr. John Boehnor, who passed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the floor of the House, minutes before the House voted to kill certain cigarette legislation that lobbyists didn’t like.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, that was a cheap shot at Boehner. After decades of the Democrat Majority making the rules of the House, he led the change to stop campaign contributions from being distributed on the House floor.
Report comment to moderator
More tax breaks for Big Oil while they are making record profits quarter after quarter and the American economy is on the mat
–
Mr. Obama has complete control for 2 years an did nothing to change that. Why was that? Oh, wait his Muslim Brothers were make money.
Report comment to moderator
Lets talk about Mr. Obama bail out of the Auto Union’s and the Teaches Unions, JJF, I am sure you are not happy that the Big Rich Unions got more Federal Tax’s Dollar for them to spend on Mr. Obama behaft.
Report comment to moderator
The Bush/Obama bailout was supposed to allow the ‘too big to fail’ crowd to unwind in an orderly fashion. Instead they just took the money and increased their bonuses. A government that won’t prosecute and jail millionaires and politicians when they swindle money from public funds, has lost its moral authority to govern. These people should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. They are in positions of public trust, and there should be serious consequences for betraying that trust.
Report comment to moderator
Cheap shot? All of JJF’s shots are cheap. Now that he’s told us exactly who he would vote for, I am confirmed in my dislike for Huntsman.
That he gives Obama a pass on Solyndra proves just how partisan he is. It’s the usual pass the Left gives to a Dem blighter. He even fails to see how his Obamessiah’s “complete subservience to corporate lobbyists” brought us that fine mess — and Obama wanted to give them even more money.
Not to mention his very unconstitutional idea of singling out a particular industry to pay more taxes. Talk about arbitrary and capricious!
Report comment to moderator
Cheap shot? All of JJF’s shots are cheap. Now that he’s told us exactly who he would vote for, I am confirmed in my dislike for Huntsman.
That he gives Obama a pass on Solyndra proves just how partisan he is. It’s the usual pass the Left gives to a Dem blighter. He even fails to see how his Obamessiah’s “complete subservience to corporate lobbyists” brought us that fine mess — and Obama wanted to give them even more money.
Not to mention his very unconstitutional idea of singling out a particular industry to pay more taxes. Talk about arbitrary and capricious!
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a cheap shot. It’s entirely true.
Minutes before a vote to end tobacco subsidies, John Boehner was on the floor of the House handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists. Two freshman Republicans confronted him about it. He later said that he regretted doing it on the floor of the House. But he has not said he regrets handing out checks from lobbyists shortly before a vote on their industry.
A vote which the industry won, by the way. The bill to end government subsidies for tobacco was narrowly defeated.
It’s no cheap shot to call this what it is: crony capitalism.
short interviews with three Republican representatives, Boehner among them
Report comment to moderator
Recognizing that as a cheap shot does not label it as untrue, JJF, just scraping the bottom of the barrel for a 15-year-old complaint that has no relevance to Obama’s Wall Street cronyism of 2008 and ramping up for 2012. Wake up.
Report comment to moderator
It being 15 years old does not make it less egregious and flagrant an example of crony capitalism. And the man who committed it is now the Speaker of the House. He still has very close ties with a number of lobbying firms, according to a 2010 article in New York Times.
It’s still very relevant.
It in no way diminishes Obama’s Wall Street cronyism, which Scarborough is right to point out. But it does suggest that the mainstream Republican party is not the solution to that cronyism. The Republican party is even more subservient to those big interests, and it has long been.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy (9): Mr. Obama has complete control for 2 years an did nothing to change that. Why was that? Oh, wait his Muslim Brothers were make money.
Frank: Sir, do you really pastor a church?
Obama’s a Muslim, huh?
“Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
Otherwise, “In the mouths of two or three witness let a matter be established.”
Otherwise, “Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
Start citing.
(I should report your comment to the moderator. But I think you deserve the chance to prove me wrong.)
Report comment to moderator
[Aargh. Strike the second "Otherwise ..." Copied-and-pasted rather than cut-and-pasted.]
The challenge still stands, “pastor.”
Report comment to moderator
in the long Tokarev thread, commentators claimed OWS failed yet the conversation on crony capitalism continues even in WORLD magazine. And yes Obama is part of the problem which is why many OWS regard him as only the lesser of two evils.
how to end crony capitalism — begin by ending corporate personhood. As a sign at OWS stated “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one”
Report comment to moderator
HRW, conservatives (some in the Tea Party!) were complaining about crony capitalism long before OWS. Remember the furor over Jeffrey Immelt of GE and the tax breaks? (Okay, maybe you don’t.) Anyway, a quick Googling indicates the furor over that goes back at least as far as March. OWS started in September.
So OWS “failed” to tell us anything we didn’t know, Conservatives had already managed to make it a topic of discussion without riots, vandalism, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Just waiting for the tea partiers to condemn equating money with the right to dominate political campaigns. Or maybe limit all contributions INCLUDING those few which are actually made on the Floor of the House. (Does anybody really think that was a significant initiative?)
My position is that all campaign contributions should be limited to individuals and should not be aggregated and that all politically oriented advertising must be done by organizations all of whose contributors must be made known. The pusillaimous and secret funding of astro-turf or other political organizations by very wealthy individuals or corporations is a cancer eating at the body politic.
And yes, the same rules should apply to Unions.
Any tea prtiers here with me?
Report comment to moderator
Indeed the only way to Be careful to avoid “excessive government entanglement” with business is to eliminate the role of business in financing campaigns of aspiring or incumbent political officals.
Report comment to moderator
Good point. Even Republican message man Frank Luntz admits that OWS is having an impact. He just today advised the Republican Governor’s Association on what buzzwords to use to win public support:
Etc.
There you have it, from the sleaziest and most cynical man in America.
Note, too, that he has no illusions about whether Republicans are the party of the middle class or of Wall Street. They just need to be careful not to be seen as the defenders of Wall Street, and they need to entirely cede the “middle class,” because their policies already lost them that one. Instead start saying “hardworking taxpayers,” because people turn their happy dials higher when Republicans say that.
Report comment to moderator
The problem is that most people, right and left, seem to think that what we have now is free market capitalism. They do not see that the market is anything but free when the captains of industry control the captains of government. They do not see that an economy in which some players are favored and others are disfavored is far from free. It’s a P. R. disaster.
It might as well be socialism, since the government de facto owns big business and big business owns the government.
What we need is separation of business and state, and that is not going to happen by waiting for business owners to stop using their money to influence politics. It will happen when we demand that our politicians stop letting business influence them.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, limiting something is the exact opposite of freedom. I am not for any limits on campaign funding. Politicians have the right to accept any gifts that people want to give them–just as you and I do. People have the right to give gifts to people as they see fit–just as you and I do.
What I am for is for politicians to have a conscience and a backbone. They should not sell their votes. They should not worry about how big their campaign cofferes are but about doing the right thing for their constituents.
I am also for a voting public that doesn’t care how slick the ads are or how many times they appear on TV. I want them to vote for people who are responsible and wise and just.
Report comment to moderator
“in the long Tokarev thread, commentators claimed OWS failed yet the conversation on crony capitalism continues even in WORLD magazine”
The conversation about crony capitalism was already going on long before OWS ever staked out its fifteen minutes of shame.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s a Muslim, huh?
–
Did not say he was a Muslim, but he has time and time again on his American is wrong tour, talking about Muslim as being his brothers. The Muslims are made ton’s of money because Mr. Obama has failed to deal with gas problem.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A: What we need is separation of business and state, and that is not going to happen by waiting for business owners to stop using their money to influence politics. It will happen when we demand that our politicians stop letting business influence them.
Money buys influence. If you do the first, you make the second much more likely to happen.
Arcadia, limiting something is the exact opposite of freedom. I am not for any limits on campaign funding. Politicians have the right to accept any gifts that people want to give them–just as you and I do. People have the right to give gifts to people as they see fit–just as you and I do.
OK, but then you can’t realistically expect politicians not to be swayed in their loyalties by who is giving them the better gifts — which is always going to be a factor of which givers have the greater ability to give lavishly, meaning ordinary people have no chance.
Me, I don’t think freedom is an absolute good. It has to be tempered by reasonable constraints.
Aristotle argued that a virtue is not the opposite of a vice, but the midpoint between two vices. Courage, for example, isn’t the opposite of cowardice; it’s the midpoint between cowardice and rash stupidity.
Liberty, then, doesn’t mean a “freedom” with no constraints. That’s anarchy. Liberty is the midpoint between totalitarianism and anarchy.
As such, rules that limit the influence of money in politics are a good way to weed out those politicians who are vulnerable to, or even primarily interested in, profiting from gifts and donations, and it puts every constituent from the poorest single mother to the largest corporation, on a level playing field with regard to their role in shaping public policy.
And that is how it should be.
Report comment to moderator
(I should report your comment to the moderator. But I think you deserve the chance to prove me wrong.)
—
Also Mr. Obama is not Christian either… He actions and his support for anti-christian views reveals that. Now if you do not like what I have to say do not read my comments… Move on and personaly attack others. Leave me out of your comments.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Obama is a product of the Black Liberation Theology and the hate church of Mr. Wright.
Guess what Mr. Obama has complete control for 2 years an did nothing to change Big Oil . Why? his Muslim Brothers (he called them that) were make money.
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe that he called them that. What is your source for that information?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy (29): Also Mr. Obama is not Christian either… He actions and his support for anti-christian views reveals that.
Frank: 1. I am no fan of BHO. It wouldn’t surprise me in the leat to learn he’s a big fan of religious syncretism.
But he is baptized and professes Christ. That makes him a Christian.
It doesn’t make him saved or elect — neither you nor I nor even his own pastor can know that with any certainty — but it does make him Christian.
2. I too would like to see some citation of BHO calling Muslims his “brothers.”
3. As for Muslims (by which I presume you mean “oil shieks”) “making money” during the BHO administration:
Muslim oil shieks have been making money for over 100 years. That is nothing new in the last 2. Heck, BHO’s predecessor, GWB, and his pappy, GHWB, are TX oil men who are quite cozy w/Muslim oil shieks.
Report comment to moderator
But he is baptized and professes Christ. That makes him a Christian.
—
He was baptized into Black Liberation Theology and the hate church of Mr. Wright not into Christ.
If we go by your statement of baptized and professes Christ. That would make the Mormon’s Christians becasue they state they are baptized and professes Christ, but that does not make them Christian.
Report comment to moderator
here are a few sites that talks about it when I looked on line.
“I am a Muslim,” Obama Tells Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit …
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/…/-obama-tells-egyptian-foreign-minis…Cached – Similar
You +1′d this publicly. UndoJun 12, 2010 – Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim News that Matters hat tip … his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards …. Is it any wonder that his counter terror adviser speaks arabic, calls …
Flashback: Barack Obama Says Muslim Call To Prayer “One of the …
thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/…/flashback-barack-oba…Cached – Similar
You +1′d this publicly. UndoAug 18, 2010 – Flashback: Barack Obama Says Muslim Call To Prayer “One of the prettiest … Obama has gone out of his way to promote his Muslim brothers …
Barack Obama and the Muslim call to prayer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2573777/postsCached
You +1′d this publicly. UndoAug 19, 2010 – Obama is a Muslim who impses his will on a nation he has tried to cow …. son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, …
Report comment to moderator
It looks like the Egyptian Foreign Minister has been one of the person talking about Mr. Obama being a Muslim.
Report comment to moderator
Face it. There is no way to MAKE people do the right thing because even people who will do the enforcing of what’s right won’t do the right thing themselves. I guess that’s the constant struggle of people who want to live under a fair government and financial system. I am encouraged a bit because I think the more light that shines on people who govern (new media) the better their behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Now I do not know if that will meet your needs or not.
Report comment to moderator
Obama conducted the most sweeping intervention to rescue failing financial institutions since the Great Depression.
Wrong.
It was not a Democratic president, but W. who addressed the nation during primetime to warn that the financial system was going to collapse, leaving businesses without access to credit and workers without paychecks.
Innes wishes that the Constitution forbad nationalization of the banks, but it does not. The Constitution in the sky says exactly what Innes wants it to say, but the US Constitution under which George Washington established a national bank says no such thing.
As for the competence, Innes needs to think long and hard whether bureaucrats with PhD’s from MIT wouldn’t do a better job setting the price of risk than Wall street did during 2006-2008. Alan Greenspan himself stopped believing that markets have the capacity to punish recklessness, reward prudence, and otherwise regulate themselves.
TARP was a so-so business deal that could have been a spectacular win for social democracy but for Obama’s timidity. He should have used money the way capitalist use money and acquired the financial system in a hostile takeover, and then written down the mortgages. According to conservative theories, bad mortages are properly the banks’ fault.
Report comment to moderator
So what you have is the Egyptian official claiming that Obama said something in private, and Obama admiring the beauty of the call to prayer.
Well, one is hearsay that there’s no way to verify and the other is a comment that has nothing to do with Obama’s religious faith. I can admire the beauty of a Shinto shrine, it doesn’t make me a shintoist. I think many Christian hymns gorgeous, beautiful music, but my saying so doesn’t make me Christian.
So no, Obama has NOT called Muslims his brothers. You have shown no credible evidence of that.
Report comment to moderator
Luntz: Don’t say ‘capitalism.’
“I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’.
Kyle A:Arcadia, limiting something is the exact opposite of freedom. I am not for any limits on campaign funding
Attaboy.
Glad to see you all for a free market in politicians. Maybe you can get the price down from $500,000 per vote to $250,000.
You got that much money around to buy yourself one Congresman’s vote??
Report comment to moderator
#23, JJF, pointing out the manipulation of words to manipulate voters.
The saddest part is that it works. Too many people neither care nor work at really discerning what advertizing (from any source) really means. Too many people are simply looking for words that reinforce their current beliefs and behaviors.
But then isn’t it refreshing that all of us who visit these pages are not caught in that whirlpool. (Sarcasm intended)
Report comment to moderator
So no, Obama has NOT called Muslims his brothers. You have shown no credible evidence of that.
—
I expect such a statement coming from you ConanTheLibrarian.
Report comment to moderator
manipulation of words to manipulate voters
—
That is what most Dem Party memeber do in order to win election. every 2 to 4 to 6 years, when up for reelection that act like they are a Christian, but onece they get back into offices they go back acting and voting as a non-christian.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle: Name one incumbent of either party, who you think, when faced with an imminent defeat a couple of weeks before an election, would absolutely refuse some kind of quid pro quo arrangement with a large organization.
Now find me 500 more like that and maybe you’ve got a start.
And now of those 500, find me some more who, once out of office will refuse to take $1,300,000 for busy work as a reward for their “service” or “friendship” to the employer while they were in office.
Report comment to moderator
Please enough already with the questionable status of BHO’s Christianity or Islamic beliefs.
Dont allow that to be a red herring. He’s woefully ill-suited to being anything beyond a “Present!” voting Senator.
I believe the Tenn College Republicans have a great ad. Features a lot of young folks who voted for OBama but vow not to repeat that error.
Wish WMB had a link so we could view it!
Report comment to moderator
Good to see Roemer getting media exposure.
Crony capitalism is the right name for it. Big biz spends a lot of money on lobbyists to get favors from Congress or else to fend off would-be regulatory efforts. Take the politics out of the money and you’ll get the money out of politics
Report comment to moderator
Roy I expect such a statement coming from you ConanTheLibrarian.
Don’t blame me for your inability to back up your claims.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – sorry for my part in it.
Report comment to moderator
I have learned over the years in regardig you, ConanTheLibrarian, we can provide all the proof need on issues and you will still turn a blind eye to it. Because that is who you are.
Report comment to moderator
#44
The fundamental problem is not greedy politicians. Politics does not produce greed. (Any more than an unlocked car produces thieves) It naturally resides in the human heart, alongside a multitude of vice. The question is not how to transform politicians but how to transform the human heart.
Unwilling to consider the Biblical answer, America seems content to let everyone do what comes naturally. Don’t want to offend anyone by telling them they are sinners in need of a Savior. Our system is obviously working just fine.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans – great statement
Report comment to moderator
Roy: You didn’t provide a single example of Obama himself calling Muslims his brothers.
Stop projecting your failure onto me.
Report comment to moderator
My comment from another conversation as it seems to fit well here:
As an infrequent contributor to this specific conversation I am noticing something encouraging. A common foe is rising to the surface. I don’t hear anyone defending “crony capitalism.” (Though some (on both sides) are having a hard time separating it from basic capitalism)
I am learning that most people (myself included) tend to demonize the proponents of ideas they oppose and use exaggerated words to describe them. I am learning that at least some of the people I disagree with are not as far wrong as I imagine them. I am learning that if the catch-phrases and labels were not so readily used we might be able to focus more of our attention on how we might work together to solve the civil issues that confront us.
It seems clear to me that both the crony capitalists and the politicians that coddle them are a real problem and we cannot reasonably expect either of them to solve the problem.
And if we stand on different sides of the street hollering “Liberal” or “Conservative” at each other we will only make the problem worse.
I realize that there are people on both the right and the left who are real threats to the America we love, (and their ideas should be carefully opposed) but ought we not listen more carefully to each other to find out if there is not more common ground than our rhetoric tends to let us see?
Report comment to moderator
And also Roy, stop bearing false witness against Obama.
Report comment to moderator
go away ConanTheLibrarian, an leave me alone.
Report comment to moderator
“The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined.”
—
The problem is for those on the left it is ok for Mr. Obama to do this, but it is not ok for anyone of the Republicans to do it.
Report comment to moderator
So what happens if Mr. Obama gets re-elected? Will the next four years be spent criticizing him? And will all the grousing change anything?
Report comment to moderator
#52
I am curious about this as well.
Report comment to moderator
So what happens if Mr. Obama gets re-elected? — More Government Control if the Dem take control of the COngress.. More Anti-American values being promoted.
Report comment to moderator
Will the next four years be spent criticizing him?
—
Yes, it will if criticizing him mean question his views for the Nation.
Report comment to moderator
Roy: I apologize for asking you to back up your claims. It’s obvious that you want the freedom to just spout off with nothing to back you up. I’ll try to keep that in mind.
Report comment to moderator
Has all your criticism on this forum changed anything?
Report comment to moderator
#62 addressed to #60.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: The problem is for those on the left it is ok for Mr. Obama to do this, but it is not ok for anyone of the Republicans to do it.
Wrong again. It’s not good for anybody in politics to do it. A lot of us want corporate money out of politics, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re R or D (or anything else.)
Report comment to moderator
Has all your criticism on this forum changed anything?
—
Yes, it could if someone was trying to decide if they want to support Mr. Obama or not. AN they read the comments, which leads them to rethink their positions.
Report comment to moderator
Well, yes, I guess that’s a possibility. You might be mainly preaching to the choir, though.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I may be preaching the Choir, but we do not know who reads these comments and who can use what we have to say to help other.
Report comment to moderator
In regards to what Neil just said, representatives (politicians) in American, represent who? Us.
So when we keep electing morons, guess where we are getting them from? A pool of morons. Morons elect morons.
If you want to change that, raise men and women instead. As christians, make disciples.
You can’t fix this from the top down, you have to change the root.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn – Which means Christian’s must be involved in the arena of ideas and we must be involved in the debates…An stand against the false teaching that Christian’s are to be silence.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 7
I actually think you make a couple good points here JJF, but no reason to point back on Reps. Stay in general, politicians are cronies.
I don’t like Boehner much either. Why? Because when given the opportunity to put his foot down on spending, what has he done? NOTHING. All that stalling over spending, and in the end…nothing.
I honestly don’t care that we give tax breaks to oil companies, however, we should be giving tax breaks to all companies.
Frankly I wouldn’t mind going back to no income, no corporate tax, and solely taxing the vices. Corporates and politicians shouldn’t be manipulating each other, and the only way to keep that down is two fold. 1. Decentralized, small federal government and 2. Raise men and women with good character and integrity.
Report comment to moderator
2. Raise men and women with good character and integrity
–
Well that would leave out Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder, Mrs. Clinton and ALl of the Dem Party Leadership most of the Republican Leadership and about 80% of the Cogress
Report comment to moderator
Oh that is a stunningly brilliant argument, Pastor Roy! You’ve convinced me!
Report comment to moderator
I’m confused:
Who is “ALI of the Dem Party Leadership”?
Report comment to moderator
ALi equals ALL.
Report comment to moderator
Or ALl equals ALL.
Report comment to moderator
#19 HRW “how to end crony capitalism — begin by ending corporate personhood.”
The recent change in the election campaign finance law has nothing to do with corporate personhood. A corporation is an organization of people, so why should people be deprived of their human rights when they act collectively?
In March 2009,in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court overturned pieces of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law which censored political ads prior to an election. It ruled: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
Prior to this media corporations (mostly leftist) were able to control nearly the entire narrative prior to an election. The left loved this situation since it effectively silenced all opposing views.
I don’t see how censorship would end crony capitalism. Can you explain?
Report comment to moderator
Xion – In Canada, corporate donations were recently banned. The political ads in Canadian campaigns are paid for by the political parties themselves, from funds obtained by personal donations (limited to $1,200) plus an elections subsidy amounting to about $6 per vote received for all parties which recieved more than 5% of the vote.
Yet the Conservative party receives more individual donations than the Liberal, New Democratic Party, or the Bloc Quebecois, therefore, they are better funded. Their political attack ads, as repellant as I found them, were successful in this last election.
So bans on corporate donations did not prevent conservative views from being spread. The fact that the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is of a left-leaning persuasion also did not prevent a Conservative government from being elected.
Corporations are made of persons of widely divergent views. How does an employee at the bottom have any say in what political view the CEO at the top chooses to support? Why not simply allow both the CEO and the employee support whatever party they wish through personal donation?
Report comment to moderator
PHOS answered Xion’s question better than me. I should add that unions were also banned from making federal political donations since they too are a collection of individuals.
I also wonder why the same people who argue that a corporation is a different person from the persons who are shareholders get upset when the corporation is taxed on profit and then shareholders are taxed on the resulting dividends and capital gains made from rising share prices. If the corporation is a separate person than its not double taxation.
ending corporate person hood would remove corporate electoral influence and end representatives reliance on corporate financing which makes them beholden to corporations hence crony capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
Gotta love that First Amendment. People who don’t have it just don’t get it. Of course, there are some people who do have it and just don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
I like the idea of the jubilee. It is a just way of reseting many things. We allow corporations to dissolve and they are absolved of their debts with a stroke of the pen. It would be better all the way around if there were a similar mechanism to reset some individual debts as well.
It might be a problem constitutionally, though most of our laws are a problem constitutionally. But M-O-N-E-Y is not mentioned in the first amendment. Speech is not money. And corporations are not people. But I’m not going to argue about it. It’s way too late for that. Woulda,shoulda,coulda. The gig is up.
Report comment to moderator
It is up, but not everyone will admit it. And without that admission, we can’t do anything.
Report comment to moderator
The first amendment is for individuals not corporations.
Agreed Debra. It doesn’t have to be every seven years but sometimes its better just to write off state, corporate and individual debt. Bankruptcy and debt consolidation is an option for the latter two and is frequently applied to countries. However, a straight write off should be acceptable as well.
Report comment to moderator
Good point, NJL. We’ve only recently admitted it to ourselves among our own family members. The world hasn’t ended, but a ‘win’ at the polls will hardly make a dent in it either.
On a more humorous but related note, a few weeks ago I had a dream. I was on my knees cleaning up after a bunch of people had torn through my house. My oldest son (now 33) was 11 or 13, and from my knees, I was lecturing him and said: ‘Don’t ever, ever borrow money to go to school.’ Then I turned and wagged my finger in his face and practically yelled at him: ‘ The government is not your friend!”
When I told my kids, they thought it was hilarious. I got a Christmas card from one of them and it said ‘PS. The government is not your friend!’ It’s the new family motto. Lord help us.
Report comment to moderator
HRW You still did not answer the question:
How would censorship end crony capitalism?
The purpose of the First Amendment was to allow more speech, even speech you don’t like from sources you don’t like, esp. of a political or religious nature. Obviously the founding fathers realized that those two forms of speech would be targets for censorship and specifically ruled them off limits of Congressional tampering.
Yet the left being completely oblivious of this fights an endless battle of deciding who can say what when, as if less speech makes us freer. Censorship is not freedom.
Report comment to moderator
My old friend Harvey used to quote Reagan at times like these with a sarcastic wink: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Reagan was right.
They really did us in, and unless we put a stop to it, we deserve what comes next.
Report comment to moderator
#77 Phos “In Canada, corporate donations were recently banned.”
The unintended consequences of politicians attempting to make elections more fair is that it always favors those politicians. Here is a recent study entitled the 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the Canadian Federal Electoral System which evaluated election fairness around the world. Canada received a very low failing grade.
Asking politicians to make the political system more fair is like asking child molesters to run a daycare. This does not reduce cronyism but has merely shifted it more into the public sector.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
For me to “properly” answer your question I would have to admit limiting corporate influence is censorship. However, its not. Every shareholder or owner of a corporation still has the right to speak and spend.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
When I read your quote I thought this is some rather bizarre reasoning after all politicians make the election rules in almost all countries within constitutional boundaries of course. And immediately thought of the American tradition of gerrymandering. As for media, the two party domination of the US media is worse than the 2.5 party reporting in Canada. And thus went to google to discover who/what is FDA — turns out to be a Cdn think tank. They also scored the US at a slightly better 30% with much the same criticism. Hence, the corporate finance ban really doesn’t impact Cdn democracy.
Actually the subsidy has been pivotal in making the Green party a political force. As subsidies are given as long as the party gains 5% of the national vote, the Green party has been receiving federal funds and has used it to get their message out. Rather democratic I would think to reward parties based on overall votes.
The FDA gave France a 91.75% rating. Should Canada and the US imitate the French electoral system? And they scored New Zealand at 54% overall and 77.5% on electoral financing noting with approval a hard cap on spending and gov’t subsidies of all candidates. Would you support a hard cap or is that censorship? The source you cite supports it.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Looking at your source a little more, I found they gave Russia and Iraq a score of 35%, placing the two higher then our respective countries. Now thats bizarre. And Venzuela at 85%?? Even I a supporter of Chavez am a bit shocked by that.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (86) HRW (88,89), I thought that the quote sounded familiar. I remember the CBC doing a report on it. I tend to tune out the complaints about our system – they generally come from the side that hasn’t got its party in power. The right was complaining about the system during the Chretien/Martin years, now I hear the left saying the exact same things now we have Harper in.
The reason there is complaints, is not because of coporate funding. With more than two parties, the votes in a riding will split between the two left parties or two right parties, allowing the third party to walk up the middle.
What kept happening in this riding in the 90s, was that the majority wanted a conservative representative, but there was the Reform (a conservative party) and the Progressive Conservatives – some would vote for one and some for the other. The Liberal candidate would get the riding.
Now the Reform and the PC have merged to become the Conservative Party, and the vote splitting is happening between the Liberals and the NDP. A few people get their shirts all tied in knots about it, but c’est la vie. Nothing to do with corporate funding.
If anything it prevents parties from stagnating, they are constantly in flux in order to prevent splitting. The current Conservative party was the Reform-Conservative party, which was the Reform party, which was the Social Credit Party and so on. The party platforms have to be changed every ten years or so and that is a good thing.
Report comment to moderator
Even though the problem was vote splitting, I constantly heard the claim that the media was liberally biased as I grew up. I think they are, but not enough to prevent thinking people from filtering out the bias. However, I was astonished when I heard someone accuse the CBC of being conservatively biased. The person complaining thought that the reporters deliberately let conservative politicians sound good when they interviewed them. I learned a lot from hearing that complaint. Bias is what the listener/reader wants it to be.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The recent change in the election campaign finance law has nothing to do with corporate personhood. A corporation is an organization of people, so why should people be deprived of their human rights when they act collectively?
This is specious. A corporation spending millions of dollars to influence an election is not the people of that corporation acting collectively. It is the board of directors, owners, top executives taking the wealth generated by the employees and using it to buy influence that the employees might or might not agree on.
If the individual employees want to donate to candidates, then they’re choosing the candidates they want to support. Your implication that the company itself contributing is merely the collective voice of all of those employees is absurd.
I would prefer that no organizations be able to influence elections … not corporations and not unions. But in any case, corporations are not persons.
Report comment to moderator
#90 Phos “The reason there is complaints, is not because of coporate funding. With more than two parties, the votes in a riding will split between the two left parties or two right parties, allowing the third party to walk up the middle.”
That is not what the research showed. The most powerful parties have an unfair advantage because politicians have rigged the game.
Report comment to moderator
#92 Conan “If the individual employees want to donate to candidates, then they’re choosing the candidates they want to support. Your implication that the company itself contributing is merely the collective voice of all of those employees is absurd.”
The same could be said of unions which force people to join yet only support one party. A union is a collection of people and you have no problem with their single party alliance. A corporation is also a collection of people, yet you support full censorship for them.
A corporation is a tiny entity compared to the power and wealth of Washington politicians and insiders. Who can fight them? I can’t figure out why leftists want politicians who have near unlimited wealth and power at their disposal would want to censor the voice of people who organize collectively. Corporations are David against the Goliath of big government. A few corporate ads are like tiny stones compared to the unlimited military power of central government.
Report comment to moderator
#88 HRW “They also scored the US at a slightly better 30% with much the same criticism. Hence, the corporate finance ban really doesn’t impact Cdn democracy.”
The US also doesn’t have election freedom. What is so hard to understand about freedom? Giving groups of people the freedom to speak doesn’t mean they will always say what you want to hear, but they are free. Isn’t the freedom of speech a good thing? Why should only politicians and leftist news organizations be allowed to speak prior to an election?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The same could be said of unions which force people to join yet only support one party. A union is a collection of people and you have no problem with their single party alliance.
Please read my post again. Especially the part where I said, “I would prefer that no organizations be able to influence elections … not corporations and not unions.”
In fact, I DO have a problem with unions contributing and influencing elections. I don’t support any forced support of political causes or candidates based on being part of a group whose leaders make those decisions.
I don’t mind if you disagree with my positions, but please understand what my positions actually are. When I’m stating them openly in plain English in the same post to which you responded, that should not be too much to ask.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: can’t figure out why leftists want politicians who have near unlimited wealth and power at their disposal would want to censor the voice of people who organize collectively.
Because a corporation is not “the voice of people who organize collectively.” It is a business with employees whose labor contributes to the wealth of the corporation. Unless all the employees are voting on which political candidates and causes the corporation will support, your characterization is incorrect.
Now, an interest group like the Sierra Club or the American Family Association, the ACLU or the ACLJ — those are voluntary associations of people who join because they share convictions and policy positions. If they choose to support candidates, that might be fairly described as the voice of people who organize collectively.
But businesses and unions do not. Corporations are companies who employ people whose political beliefs can’t be assumed to reflect those of the corporation’s leaders. Unions are organizations that should advocate for better working conditions and pay for their members, but should not presume those members have the same political beliefs — especially in places where union membership isn’t voluntary.
Report comment to moderator
Xion — the research of the agency you quote also concludes that Venzuela is more democratic than the US and Canada. Now I’m a Chavez supporter and quite critical of the US electoral system but even I see this analysis as faulty.
Sure minority parties rarely recieve mainstream coverage and Anglo tradition of first past the post makes sure we rarely hear smaller parties in the legislative assembly. Thus, I personally prefer proportional representation and this probably explains why France and New Zealand do better than the US and Canada — not corporate limits to financing.
Interestingly, the Rand formula in Cdn law allows union members to deduct the portion of their dues which go to political donations and donate this money to charity instead. However, shareholders can’t do the same with corporate donations. Thus, shareholders are forced to donate to political parties they may or may not agree with. Now there’s a violation of free speech.
Report comment to moderator
Our elected representatives in DC don’t even read the legislation they pass, let alone write it. Their corporately sponsored aids do the heavy lifting.
Cronyism in the public sector is accurately depicted as graft and bribery. And it should surprise no one that the largest offenders transcend political parties. The sad thing is, they don’t even have to hide it. They can pay and receive payment right out in the open in front of everyone, because we live in a day when everything has been defined and re-defined until the meat of the meaning is sifted away.
Graft and bribery have been transformed into freedom of speech. Onerous oppression of mom and pop businesses and small farms are blythely excused as free market efficiencies. And treason is merely free trade with feet, where ‘corporate citizens’ break down national borders, wandering the globe like restless harlots looking for a cheap thrill, waving newly inked trade treaties and special waivers as enticements. These are bundled as a package and presented as public virtues. But with virtues like these, who needs vices.
Unions and publicly traded corporations are man-made entities, not citizens. As such, they have no right to participate in American elections in any way, shape or form. When they do so with impunity, we should not be surprised with the resulting fascism.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree with Debra on much, but I can endorse post #99 without reservation.
Report comment to moderator
#96 Conan “In fact, I DO have a problem with unions contributing and influencing elections. I don’t support any forced support of political causes or candidates based on being part of a group whose leaders make those decisions.”
Ah, sorry, I missed that. What we had before was unlimited free speech for people organized into a union and for the media, but no freedom for people organized into a corporation. Now we have freedom for both. That is what the Constitution merits whether we like it or not. More speech means putting up with speech you don’t like, which is exactly what the First Amendment is about.
Report comment to moderator
Gotta love that First Amendment.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: As I explained, neither corporations nor unions are made up of people with shared convictions. In both cases, political support comes from the people at the top, using the resources provided by the people further down the ladder.
That’s not shared speech, it’s coercion. I’m not surprised that NJLawyer, who talks about the Constitution a lot but doesn’t seem to really understand it, is fine with coercion. I would have thought you might not be, though.
Report comment to moderator
#99 Debra “Unions and publicly traded corporations are man-made entities, not citizens. As such, they have no right to participate in American elections in any way, shape or form. When they do so with impunity, we should not be surprised with the resulting fascism.”
OK, so on one side we have Obama who raided billions from the US Treasury to pay off his campaign supporters, crony friends with bogus loans, union only contracts, media favors, Democratic pet projects and race based benefits and is flush with more than a billion dollars of pure cash in his arsenal to completely annihilate all comers.
On the other side we have … er … um … working Americans. Who can compete dollar for dollar with all of the assets of the most powerful country in the world? And on top of this you want the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law which censors everyone else 60 days prior to an election?
By silencing corporations you are saying that capitalism has no voice in how America is run. If capitalism is silenced, then only socialism is left to speak.
Add to this the fact that the religious voice has already been censored, then what we have is censorship of the very two subjects that the First Amendment called out for special protection. In the end, only the left will be allowed to speak.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, but I love it for what it literally does say, not for what I wish it said. ;–)
Ha…and I promised I would not argue over it. No one will ever believe me again now. But I’m not what one would call a strict constitutionalist—how could I be, since apparently only lawyers and politicians are qualified to decipher that august document anyway, as with most of our laws. That’s a real pity. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I’m not saying both sides don’t do it. They do. I’m saying money is not speech. And even if it were, bribery would not be lawful speech even if it were legal speech. And in the end, if money is speech, it will be the only voice heard.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism is an economic theory. It is not a citizen and has no legal rights. People are citizens. People have rights endowed by the Creator.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, but if you deny capitalists a voice, then who is left to speak but socialists? The left’s war against “evil corporations” is simply one more attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
Report comment to moderator
Just think about what you are saying: free speech for some, no free speech for others, just because you say so.
Free speech for all. And that’s what Citizens United is all about. You don’t really believe in free speech if you want to silence anybody.
Report comment to moderator
“The left’s war against “evil corporations” is simply one more attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with them. “
I agree with that. Especially in light of the fact that they are some of the worst offenders.
I don’t want to silence anyone. I just want to stop the bribery.
But I’m late for church, more later. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Bribery is the lobbying, and I would outlaw lobbyists, especially the ones who actually write legislation. In fact, I would outlaw accepting and presenting legislation written by lobbyists.
Report comment to moderator
capitalists are not corporations. They are the people who own or start corporations and businesses. They like all individuals should be free to make political contributions but corporations are not people and hence should not be allowed to make contributions. The difference between a donation and lobbying is a sleight of hand and timing.
Report comment to moderator
Citizens United does not agree with you, thankfully. And that prevails, whether you like it or not, and more to the point, whether you understand it or not.
Report comment to moderator
#112 HRW “corporations are not people”
The word corporation comes from corpus which can mean a single body or a body of people or writings etc. What is a church body? What are unions? What are political parties? What are media corporations?
On what basis do you allow certain groups of people to speak, but not others? The only two groups you want to censor are religious and economically conservative while all others get to speak freely. Coincidence?
If no corporation can speak, then the media must be silent too. To be equal under the law, all electronic devices and print media would need to remain off 60 days prior to an election. And in the spirit of historical socialism, all violators should be shot.
Report comment to moderator
Like I said before, if you limit ANYONE’s speech, you do not believe in free speech. And the Left does not.
Report comment to moderator
You’re not arguing against limiting free speech. You’re arguing for people who work for a corporation being forced to contribute support to causes and candidates that they may or may not actually support.
The First Amendment applies to persons, period. Persons who voluntarily join together for the purpose of supporting a cause can combine their resources. People who own a company and hire employees have no right to force those employees to lend support.
Report comment to moderator
No employee is being forced to contribute to anything — except in a union. A corporation doesn’t take anything out of a paycheck in order to make a statement. You know that.
Your definition of persons and your view of free speech is not in accord with Citizens United. You DO want to limit free speech by saying who can and who cannot speak.
Report comment to moderator
Speech is speech.
Report comment to moderator
Hating to barge in on these blog-debates, and with no supporting cites, it has just been my experience that, for the most part, conservatives generally do not want to limit speech which doesn’t cause political suicide, while leftists want to limit the speaker. The First Amendement is about speech (even with all the pro and con court cases), not the speaker.
In the phony name of “fairness,” Leftists pretend that a level playing field means more free speech for some speakers, and less free speech for opposing ideas. All ideas are not equal.
Report comment to moderator
As NJL states: Speech is speech. (Get over it.)
Report comment to moderator
” conservatives generally do not want to limit speech which doesn’t cause political suicide”
I’m not even in favor of limiting speech which DOES cause political suicide.
Just sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
And another thing. The DNC-controlled top-down political machine of that titular head of the party, can’t oppose the truth without attempting to slime and/or personally destroy the fair opposition to their failed micro-managing ideas to form a culture that puts a higher power than government as second place.
Report comment to moderator
OK NJL – thinking about that.
Report comment to moderator
I knew you would, Louise!
Report comment to moderator
Xion (93): That is not what the research showed. The most powerful parties have an unfair advantage because politicians have rigged the game.
And I am saying their research is flawed because they have a chip on their shoulder. That kind of rhetoric is what the fringe parties throw around. That they rate Venezuela highly is evidence of that (I had a Spanish teacher who was a political refugee from Chavez).
How many federal parties does the States have? How many have the opportunity to participate in the national debate?
The rules about getting on the national debate here, are you have to have at least one seat in the House of Commons and garner over 5% of the vote. Four parties in the last election met the criteria, therefore all four were in the debate.
However, last election, the Green party had garnered over 5% of the vote, but held no seats and were excluded. The party was upset, but exclusion from the debate did not prevent said leader from being from being elected in her riding – and the Green party now holds a seat in Parliment – they’ll be in the next debate.
The organization you cited, the FDA, listed every fringe party that campaigns in the election. There is, on the public media, a free section of time that each of those parties had to present their message. I listened to a lot of them, chuckling over some, rolling my eyes over others, but they had a chance to express their views.
n past elections, I have heard larger media reports on the communist party, the natural law party, even the marijuana party – so they aren’t completely ignored. As I mentioned before, people like to find something to blame when things don’t go their way, percieving bias where there is none.
Report comment to moderator
Speech is speech. And money is money. And in politics, wherever the twain shall meet something is being purchased; the question is who is doing the purchasing, and what are they getting for their money. Not all purchases are lawful. That’s what makes the difference between business and crime.
But I perceive that non-human persons around the globe have already won that battle in American politics, so I’ll not belabor the point. And to be truthful, I lost much of my passion for the subject some time ago after it became clear to me that administrations, apologists, and many rank and file supporters on all sides of the aisle were in unity defending their own stake in something I see as blatantly corrupt. So I asked myself: am I right, and can they possibly all be wrong? Well, in this case, probably; but what can’t be changed must be endured.
As always, the conversation is good and I hold no grudges against my very worthy brethren and sisteren who disagree. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the Venezuela canard, the data is valid for the 4 points they evaluated. The problem is they need to consider more data, like whether the a country is run by a virtual dictator or not.
Venezuelan elections are freer in the sense that the election regulations are essentially non existent in many areas. There are no spending limits, no censorship of third party candidates, no limits for advertising and all finances must be documented. In the US third party candidates do not even exist and even if one did they would never get any air time. Heck, if you’re not one of the top two, then you don’t exist either.
The point you are overlooking is that you seem to be fine regulating elections to death and deciding who can and cannot speak. The only groups who are heavily regulated to the point of censorship are the religious and corporations which tend to be more economically conservative.
Report comment to moderator
You are missing the point about free speech.
The minute you silence ANYONE (including a corporation), you open the door to being silenced.
No one can take advantage of you unless you let them. For instance: Do you seriously think if Ron Paul won every primary that he wouldn’t be the nominee?
Report comment to moderator
Xion 114
The only two groups you want to censor are religious and economically conservative while all others get to speak freely.
Read closely I said unions and corporations not churches. The problem with corporations and unions is they often do not speak for their membership or shareholders. Voluntary organizations such as churches don’t have that problem — I think churches should be encouraged to be part of the public square and have never expressed an opposition to it. As I noted before, most countries which ban corporate donations also ban union donations (that’s the case in Canada). Its an even trade-off.
Your continued support for the report you cite is puzzling. You admit its valid for only for the four points they selected. You admit then that the report has a selection bias yet you still endorse.
Report comment to moderator
Once more around the mountain:
The minute you silence ANYONE (including a corporation), you open the door to being silenced.
Report comment to moderator
#129 HRW “The problem with corporations and unions is they often do not speak for their membership or shareholders.”
Unions obviously don’t speak for all their members, but why would a corporation not speak for their shareholders. Isn’t that the whole point? As for churches in the US, they are forbidden from speaking politically prior to an election, contrary to the Constitution. This doesn’t stop Democrats from speaking openly and politically in churches since they are above the law. IRS agents only scrutinize conservative churches.
Report comment to moderator
I get it, NJL. The US Court has declared a corporation a person but that doesn’t mean I agree. The US Congress declared pizza a vegetable, but I still don’t think its a vegetable.
Xion
Publicly held corporations are mainly held by pension funds, mutual funds, etc. People who have money in these funds have a very difficult time dictating corporate political donations, these are usually made by the Board of Directors or the CEOs. Yes, you can withdraw your funds or campaign for your pension fund to change but takes time and meanwhile your money is being used contrary to your beliefs. For example it took 10 years for teacher’s to convince their pension plan management to withdraw their investments in a company they thought was unethical.
Just as I think the corporate persons was a bad decision, so too do I think the limitations placed on a church during elections is unreasonable. There’s nothing to be gained by limiting speech in this case.
Report comment to moderator
No, HRW, you don’t get it. Again, let’s go around the mountain:
The minute you silence ANYONE (including a corporation), you open the door to being silenced.
Now I know how Moses felt. I hope this doesn’t take 40 years.
Report comment to moderator
The First Amendment must remain a virtual absolute.
Report comment to moderator
BJL: No employee is being forced to contribute to anything — except in a union. A corporation doesn’t take anything out of a paycheck in order to make a statement. You know that.
Don’t play dumb. Corporations have the wealth they do because their employees generate it. They wouldn’t have jobs if they didn’t contribute to the company’s success.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: Your definition of persons and your view of free speech is not in accord with Citizens United. You DO want to limit free speech by saying who can and who cannot speak.
No, I don’t. Anyone in America has an absolute right to speak.
But no one has the right to force other people to underwrite the cost of the speech. Not a corporation, not a union.
And duh, I know I’m not in accord with Citizens United. Citizens United was one of the most wrongheaded rulings the Supreme Court has ever issued.
Why are you so eager to enable corporations to take over our government?
Report comment to moderator
NJL: The minute you silence ANYONE (including a corporation), you open the door to being silenced.
A corporation isn’t anyone. A corporation is hundreds or thousands of people who do not all have the same political views. You support forcing them all to go along with the political views their owners/board members/big shareholders want to promote.
You are arguing for coercion, not freedom.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (217)- There may be freedom from regulation in Venezuela’s election campaigns, yet Chavez has been president since 1999…
One further observation – There is a serious irony in a court deciding that a corporation is a person, when the human fetus is not considered a person.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, a corporation IS anyone.
When your goal is to silence, and your’s is, you simply claim to believe in free speech. You want your cake and you want to eat it, too. You can’t have it both ways.
Either there’s free speech or there isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
I work for a company I am on record on this very blog of despising. When they speak, they don’t speak for me.
Report comment to moderator
NJL @133: “The minute you silence ANYONE (including a corporation), you open the door to being silenced.
Conan @136: ”But no one has the right to force other people to underwrite the cost of the speech.”
Now I’m curious. Given the above statements, do you both believe that your positions apply to OWS as well? Because people are trying to silence OWS by moving them from place to place, and the local taxpayers are definitely being forced to underwrite the costs. Seems like NJL would be arguing FOR, and Conan against. Set me straight, please.
Report comment to moderator
#138 Phos “One further observation – There is a serious irony in a court deciding that a corporation is a person, when the human fetus is not considered a person.”
Sheesh! Lemme try again …
THE COURT DID NOT NOT NOT NOT RULE THAT A CORPORATION IS A PERSON!! PLEASE, PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST FROM THIS CANARD!
A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON AND THE COURT NEVER SAID IT WAS!!
What the court actually ruled was this: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
In other words, if you should not arrest an individual for exercising a civil right, then on what grounds should you fine or jail them simply for associating together! Do people lose all of their rights simply by banding together? Does that make any sense?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have a problem with OWS speaking. They have to abide by the law and get permits if required. OWS is backing the Tea Party in a lawsuit where a town require the TP to pay for permits among other things but did not make that requirement of OWS. There is definitely something going on with trying to silence them. Can’t say I agree with what they say or do in many respects, and I think as it costs taxpayers more money that taxpayers will not support them, but they have the right to do what they are doing. I don’t like some of the things the police are doing.
Report comment to moderator
No, they do not lose their rights for banding together as OWS or stockholders.
Report comment to moderator
Re corporate personhood:
Wiki is a poor source in general, but it will do for a loose summary. The precedent of acknowledging at least limited corporate personhood by the SCOTUS and its use as a legal fiction by lower courts is there in black and white.
Report comment to moderator
And there’s the point you are ignoring or not getting … THEY ARE BANDING TOGETHER. It’s a voluntary association based on spreading a specific message.
They are not working for a corporation and having the wealth they create for the corporation used to promote a position they don’t agree with. Which is what you think is good.
Why don’t you put your First Amendment passion behind an issue that really matters: The right of citizens to record police on the job. http://www.rcfp.org/node/98367
(The article is mostly good news, but note the clueless comment from Judge Posner near the end.)
Report comment to moderator
When corporations can be arrested, tried and put in prison for committing crimes, then I’ll agree to consider them persons.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (142) – I apologize for including that remark (#138 – 2nd paragraph). I wasn’t meaning to direct it toward you, but rather as a general remark, as a point that has bothered me ever since I heard of the idea of coporate personhood.
Your reply caused me to do some research on the idea of corporate persons. I found that there are natural and artificial persons, and a coporation is one of the latter. The US does have a specific clause which states that corporations and other organizations are to be considered as people, and I can think of cases where that could be applied to protect a business. However, as I understand it, artificial persons are not usually given the full rights of the natural person. Marriage would be an example.
Even if corporations could be said to have the same rights as individuals to freedom of political expression, there are cases where the freedoms of persons are revoked or limited because of a threat to the safety and security of others. Corporate involvment in government has a terrible track record, and both politicians and corporations have repeatedly shown themselves irresponsible in this area. Perhaps they need to have limits placed on them.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I agree with you that they have the right to speak. I’m just wondering where the damages incurred by those who disagree with them, yet are forced to pay for the clean-up, crosses the line. Or is there a line. Is the right to free speech really absolute.
For me it’s partially the same issue with corporations. Businesses incorporate to do business, not to further political aims. People who invest in them, do so for business sake–to make money, not to further the political aims and interests of the largest stakeholders.
Is the only recourse for those suffering collateral damages in these two examples to move their businesses and relocate away from the vicinity of OWS protesters, or to dump their investments (quite possibly at a loss)?
It’s worth noting that the arguments I’m making against corporate activism cannot be made against people banding together for the purpose of making various political statements. It has to do with the nature and purpose of the banding together and incorporating. For-profit corporations are supposed to be focused on making money and conducting the work of the business, not social engineering.
Report comment to moderator
Debra (149) – You said it better than I could.
Report comment to moderator
Debra nails it again.
Conon
One of the best slogans to emerge from OWS;
“I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one”
Xion
corporations and unions differ from voluntary organizations which I have explained in a previous post.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: Because people are trying to silence OWS by moving them from place to place, and the local taxpayers are definitely being forced to underwrite the costs. Seems like NJL would be arguing FOR, and Conan against. Set me straight, please.
America has a longstanding tradition of the value of the public square. People have the right to speak in public, using public facilities. Taxpayers bear the burden, hopefully gladly … it’s part of the cost of a free society.
That’s a different thing than taking a job to provide food and shelter for your family and unwittingly helping promote a cause you oppose as a byproduct.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I work for a company I am on record on this very blog of despising. When they speak, they don’t speak for me.
Then why do you continue to argue that corporation using its resources to influence an election is just “people banding together?” You know from your own experience that it’s just not true.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: When your goal is to silence, and your’s is, you simply claim to believe in free speech. You want your cake and you want to eat it, too. You can’t have it both ways.
Balderdash.
I’m saying that every American citizen has the absolute right to free speech. Corporations and unions are not persons and do not have that right as a collective (while every individual who is part of the corporation or union has absolute free speech as an individual.)
Report comment to moderator
NJL: I’m really tired of the bullying way you assign motives to people. The undercurrent of this whole exchange has been your assertion, quoted in #154, that I have a goal of silencing corporations.
That is pure twaddle. My concern is to preserve the free speech of individuals. Free speech includes being able to say what you want, and it also includes not being compelled to say what you don’t want, to have some value you create or provide co-opted to elect a politician who stands for values you don’t share.
I am applying that even-handedly — it applies to unions too. People who want to join their voices to promote political aims they choose with a louder voice can form voluntary associations to do so. Simply taking a job with a company should not be taken as tacit support of the candidate the CEO likes.
If the Board of Directors of XYZ Corp. wants to spend their own money to get a particular candidate elected, they have every right to do that. But the corporation itself is not a person, and so they do not have the right (Citizens United nonwithstanding) to reach into the company’s coffers for that purpose.
Explain to me how that equals a “desire to silence” anyone.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with your rationale, Conan. Employees have no ownership or decision-making stake in a company simply because they are employed there.
Employees are given the value of their labor, because what they receive is the price they themselves have agreed to work for, and therefore, that is by definition the value of their labor. Employees do not have a right to profit, nor do they have an intrinsic right to make decisions about the company. Those are the rights of ownership.
Profit is disbursed to the owners and investors, who may then do with it as they wish—including finance their own election campaigns. Your reasoning does indeed seem to rely very on socialistic premises.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you are for silencing speech. There’s no two ways about that. If the truth hurts, that’s just too bad, so sad.
Report comment to moderator
ANY SPEECH, let me say that again, ANY SPEECH that is silenced — that’s just wrong, and I’m sorry you can’t understand that the freedom of speech requires NO exceptions.
Today you want to silence corporations and unions, tomorrow you’ll go after a tv station you don’t like.
Do you see why limiting speech is bad, just bad?????? I don’t understand why this is sooooooooo hard for you, Conan.
Report comment to moderator
Our most essential freedom and you essentially spit on it.
Report comment to moderator
Any entity forced to pay taxes has the right to free speech and political influence. The Declaration of Independence supports this position along with the Supremes on this specific issue. Case appears closed!
Shrink govt to its Constitutional limits and eliminate taxes on corporations then you will stop the authority for them to influence our corrupt politicos. Same with unions and NGOs.
Shrink national govt intervention in our lives back to the original intent then all of this other conversation is for naught as there will be no more govt largess that offers influence.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
? James Madison
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
#158. Gain knowledge of the Marxist worldview and then you will understand.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I understand it, RWHawk. I just didn’t want to call him a communist.
Report comment to moderator
Aw Debra, I thought we were going to agree for once. Ah well.
Look, one does not have to be a socialist or a communist to not believe that corporations have the same right to influence politics as individuals. That’s just a lame personal attack.
As a practical matter, corporations have so much money and power that if they do have that right, the people might as well stay home … they have no chance of overcoming that kind of influence.
So how about I call you guys willing pawns of the plutocracy? Because that’s what it amounts to.
Report comment to moderator
The truth is, you don’t really believe in an absolute right to free speech.
I will venture that you don’t want people to be able to commit slander and libel with impunity.
I will bet that you would not want a TV show on CBS at 4 in the afternoon in which men dressed in leather talk in detail about the details of homosexual sex.
I would bet that you wouldn’t favor a lifting of the FCC’s decency standards on broadcast TV.
You don’t want really absolute freedom fo speech. You do want powerful corporations to be able to totally drown out the voices of individual people.
I don’t understand why you do, but you should at least admit it.
Report comment to moderator
I said I wouldn’t argue because I’ve lost passion for the topic, but I guess you’re all proving me a liar because here I am in the dark of the a.m. hours composing a response.
Conan: If you think disagreeing with your [yes, socialistic,] rationale is a personal attack, you should grow some epidermis to cover those raw nerves of yours. FWIW, I rather agree with your 164; I don’t think the right to free speech is absolute, and I doubt anyone really wants it. The question is whether the Federal government has the right to curtail it. I’d say no, but the ‘speech = money crowd’ doesn’t get that either. And if the truth be told, I don’t mind the air-waves (which are supposedly owned by us all) being kept relatively clean, so perhaps I have ‘statist’ tendencies after all.
RWHawk: I usually agree with much of what you have to say, but not on this one. A government of, by and for the people should not be directly and openly influenced by artificial persons which are not citizens and are NOT acting as amplifiers for all their owners, let alone for citizens, as some mistakenly claim. Particularly with the way multi-nationals are owned and operated, it opens our elections up to the highest global bidder. And such actions will surely have their just reward in the outcome.
NJL: Money talks, but it is still not speech. Money has no rights apart from its owner. Owners have rights, and the rights of minority owners are infringed when the largest stakeholders engage in political and social engineering, which is not part of the chartered purpose of the company in which people, in good faith, have invested. And that is apart from the issue that many owners of domestically chartered companies are not US citizens, and should have no voice whatsoever in US elections, regardless of how much in taxes they have paid.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing that Debra said in #145 says that a corporation is a person. A corporation is no more a person than a barrel of apples is the same as a single apple.
What courts have actually ruled is that people don’t lose their rights when there is more than one. That would be like saying “When one person commits a crime he has a right to a fair trial, but if two people commit a crime then they have no rights and can be shot on sight.”
This canard has nothing to do with the Constitution which applies to all citizens, but it is just one more way for the left to silence all opposition. Corporate America is a voice against socialism and the left just can’t abide it.
And so leftist make jokes, like “When a corporation can pick its nose or stand on its head, then I’ll believe it is a person”. This is simply a way to avoid the real subject, which is that liberalism is about taking away the rights of anyone liberals don’t like.
Report comment to moderator
“What courts have actually ruled is that people don’t lose their rights when there is more than one.”
Individuals don’t lose their rights, but they do give up something: they give up the personal responsibility for the company debts. It’s not too much to insist that they stick to the chartered purpose for which our society has agreed to not hold each and every one of them personally responsible and accountable for the debts the company incurs in the name of doing business.
Much has been written on the topic and anyone who wishes may educate themselves.
Report comment to moderator
The Constitution says nothing about “personal responsibility for the company debts”. What the Constitution does say is that people have certain civil rights and those rights are not dissolved the minute they band together. That is precisely what the courts have ruled.
Report comment to moderator
Speech is Speech. But for shouting fire in a crowded theatre, YES I DO BELIEVE IN ABSOLUTE FREE SPEECH. I’ve heard every foul word on tv, so don’t throw the FCC in my face. YOU want to control who speaks and what is said, and that’s sitting in your craw like no tomorrow. You can’t admit your desire to control speech, and what’s more, you don’t see the value in free speech, just the speech you like. We protect odious speech all the time. Get used to it.
So, if anyone needs to do some admitting around here, Conan, IT IS YOU!
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
What courts have actually ruled is that people don’t lose their rights when there is more than one. That would be like saying “When one person commits a crime he has a right to a fair trial, but if two people commit a crime then they have no rights and can be shot on sight.”
That would be absurd. Fortunately, nobody is saying it. You’re just inventing strawmen again.
You continue to ignore the difference between people choosing to join together for the purpose of expressing a political view (OWS, the Tea Party, the Sierra Club, the American Family Association, for example) and people who join together ostensibly to run a business and then use their position as a wealthy corporation to influence politics.
At the very least, you should be consistent. If it’s ok for corporations to do, then it’s also ok for unions to do.
This canard has nothing to do with the Constitution which applies to all citizens
Right.
And a business entity is not a citizen. It’s not a person of which that question can even be asked.
Report comment to moderator
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech….
Period. It’s got to do with the SPEECH, not th speaker.
Report comment to moderator
You are being deliberatly obtuse.
Report comment to moderator
In another thread you agreed with me about the harm that came from the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall regulation regarding common ownership of consumer banks and investment bank.
That repeal came as a direct result of lobbying by the financial interests.
That’s what happens when you mix BIG corporate money and politics — the big money wins, the people lose.
And you want more of that even though you apparently understand how dangerous and destructive it is.
Maybe you should resolve your cognitive dissonance before you presume to lecture me about your perceptions of what it is I think.
Report comment to moderator
HRW how the hey can you support Chavez? That dude has tried time an time again to start a war with Colombia. He has aided and abetted the FARC and ELN. The man is a murderer, and has successfully run Venezuela into the ground. There is a reason why my Venezuelan friends are eager to stay out, while my cousins, brothers and I want to return to Colombia.
Chavez’s own advisers rebelled and refused to cooperate with his more radical hate-filled policy toward Colombia, considering that Chavez succeeded in destroying Venezuelan agriculture, thus 60% of their food comes from Colombia.
Report comment to moderator
Look, one does not have to be a socialist or a communist to not believe that corporations have the same right to influence politics as individuals. That’s just a lame personal attack.
It does help that one has to be a Marxist to support the suppresion of free speech by entities that are not Politically Correct.
What is the basis for your opinion?
The Supremes disagree with your conclusion and the Constitution does not preclude such free speech. What establishes that one has more rights than the other?
What about your favorite groups such as unions and NGOs?
Report comment to moderator
Conan, if you are talking to me in 173, has it never occurred to you that a member of congress could actually ignore what a lobbyist says? I sure would. I would vote what is best for The People.
If anyone is having cognitive problems here, Conan, it is you.
Report comment to moderator
Not to mention reading comprehension: Congress shall make NO law abridging…the freedom of speech.
Report comment to moderator
Well then you go to Congress, NJL. Of course a member of Congress CAN ignore what a lobbyist says, but in reality, many of them are persuaded by lobbyists to do what the lobbyists want. Corporations wouldn’t bother with the time and expense of lobbying if it wasn’t effective.
Your position amounts to an argument that corporations should have free rein and no constraints on their ability to pour near-limitless resources into trying to influence legislation, and then blame the government when they succeed in their influence.
Money isn’t speech.
Report comment to moderator
Words are speech, Conan, and words are what lobbyists hand them. They even hand them drafted legislation. They have a point of view that is expressed in WORDS — and they have a right to do that even though you want to be communist about it and shut them up. I just cannot understand this desire to silence anyone, because when you are willing to silence someone else, you are also saying that you are willing to be silenced yourself.
Your problem is with CONGRESS, not with the corporations and other organizations who send lobbyists to represent them. Your remedy is to elect people with a spine. It is not to silence speech in any way, shape or form.
Again, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…..
Report comment to moderator
I guess you’ve been listening to too much Wu-Tang. (C.R.E.A.M. –Cash Rules Everything Around Me)
Report comment to moderator
NJL: Words are speech, Conan, and words are what lobbyists hand them. They even hand them drafted legislation. They have a point of view that is expressed in WORDS — and they have a right to do that even though you want to be communist about it and shut them up. I just cannot understand this desire to silence anyone, because when you are willing to silence someone else, you are also saying that you are willing to be silenced yourself.
I can’t understand why you want huge, powerful corporations to have exactly the same right to put money into politics as individuals, virtually guaranteeing the continued corporate takeover of our country.
I also can’t understand why you think rights that the founders intended to apply to citizens should also apply to huge, long-lived, multi-national organizations with no great concern about the welfare of the communities in which they operate.
I do understand why you resort to namecalling though (”communist.”) It’s because you know you’re on the wrong side of this argument.
Wu-Tang? My, aren’t we hip tonight?
Report comment to moderator
and words are what lobbyists hand them. They even hand them drafted legislation.
They hand them money, then they hand them the legislation, and the Congressman votes for it. At one time this would have been called bribery. Now it’s just our Constitution in action. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Report comment to moderator
No, I’m not on the wrong side. I’m not trying to silence anyone. I’m a big girl.
” and the Congressman votes for it.”
Get a better Congressman. You, too, Debra, are missing the point of free speech because you can’t see the forest for the trees.
You both fail to see that when you silence one, you are saying you can silence anybody. Freedom of speech means you allow all kinds of speech, even the speech you don’t like. Especially the speech you don’t like. Neither of you can accept that or see the danger of trying to control speech.
First they came for the…. and when they come for you, there will be no one to come to your defense.
Report comment to moderator
No one is trying to silence anyone. If the CEO of Acme Corp. wants to donate his personal money to a favored candidate, he’s welcome to. If he wants to meet with his Congressman and hand him a draft of a bill to pass, he can do that too.
That’s freedom of speech.
But when he uses the resources of his entire corporation to pour far more money into his efforts than you or I ever could in our effort to challenge him, that’s plutocracy, or perhaps, oligarchy.
See the difference?
You keep accusing me of wanting to silence “people” (corporations) and calling me childish names, so it’s obvious that you’re very passionate about your desire for corporations to have this influence. And yet elsewhere you agreed with me that things happen that are very bad for people when corporations do have that influence. I think you are confused.
And to ward off the inevitable question, yes, I think this applies to unions too.
Freedom of speech means you allow all kinds of speech, even the speech you don’t like.
I agree, and perhaps you have not noticed, but my objection here has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the speech. It has to do with the marshaling of corporate resources to drown out the speech of others. If anything, it’s the corporations who are trying to silence their critics.
And you’re eagerly, if unwittingly, helping them do that.
Report comment to moderator
This explains the stupidity of your view:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/09/assemble-freely-lose-your-rights/
Report comment to moderator
#170 Conan “That would be absurd. Fortunately, nobody is saying it. You’re just inventing strawmen again.”
How are actual quotes from actual rulings strawmen? The actual Supreme Court in actual reality actually ruled as follows:
You continue to ignore the difference between people choosing to join together for the purpose of expressing a political view (OWS, the Tea Party, the Sierra Club, the American Family Association, for example) and people who join together ostensibly to run a business and then use their position as a wealthy corporation to influence politics.
Who cares? The Constitution makes no such distinction. You want the government to have full control over all speech, deciding what is allowed and when based on various political whims.
What the Constitution actually provides is freedom. Freedom isn’t fair. Freedom means I am free to do better than you and make more money than you and speak louder than you. No matter how much you hate others doing better than you or having an advantage, that is precisely what the Constitution protects.
At the very least, you should be consistent. If it’s ok for corporations to do, then it’s also ok for unions to do.
Of course. I have argued consistently for years that more speech is better. The only beef I have with unions is in cases where people aren’t free to opt out, like in the public sector.
Report comment to moderator
#186 “At the very least, you should be consistent.”
The left is always happy to silence the speech of the religious or capitalists or a myriad of other people they hate. What they never consider is the unintended consequences.
If the left were consistent, then censoring traditional beliefs would apply to all belief systems, including those of non-traditional beliefs and atheists. Censoring the speech of capitalists should also apply to socialists.
But the left isn’t interested in consistency, which is why they always apply double standards. Leftist speech is protected. Any one who opposes the left is censored. When this rule fails to be applied consistently the left complains.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, he simply cannot understand the words “Congress shall make NO law abridging … freedom of speech.
NO law means NO law.
And it is very fair. It inhibits NO speech.
Report comment to moderator
“If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books.”
Here we see the slippery slope. If you want the government to censor political speech 60 days prior to an election, then why not all the time? Why not censor everything a corporation says? Where does one draw the line?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: You want the government to have full control over all speech, deciding what is allowed and when based on various political whims.
I am really really bored with your hysterical, dishonest mischaracterizations. If you can’t have the conversation without lying about me, then I’m not going to engage you.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: This explains the stupidity of your view:
I disagree with you. My view is not stupid, nor is it “communist.” It’s just different from yours.
You and Xion are resorting to lies and namecalling, so the meaningful part of this conversation is apparently over.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone who supports an idea that curtails, limits and destroys freedom is supporting a stupid idea — and that’s what your view does.
Report comment to moderator
Do you believe the words “NO LAW” mean “NO LAW” or your view that they mean “no law except what you want?”
Report comment to moderator
You don’t believe in freedom and you can’t admit it. That’s what’s going on here.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I don’t see any way of reasoning with the assumption that virtual bribery is constitutionally protected speech. Once that premise is fully accepted, any kind of campaign finance reform is dead in the water, and the legitimacy of the elected government is further degraded. The deep pockets and their ideologies will have to fight it out between themselves; and afterward,the citizenry in general will get to fight (or join) the winner.
But I am curious about your argument from the position of ‘fairness’ toward employees, which seems a little amorphous to me—if not downright irrelevant. Employees are already receiving the compensation for their labor that they have agreed upon. And unless they have become partial owners by buying in to the company through an agreement, I don’t see that they have any ownership rights to the company at all. (BTW, I personally know at least one case of employee ownership—part ownership actually—that seemed successful enough to make it an intriguing idea.)
But my real contention is that very valuable special considerations are given to owners who incorporate for the purpose of business (as opposed to owners of homes), and it is reasonable to require that they at least restrict that corporation>/i> to the purpose for which they were given the special considerations to incorporate. To receive special consideration, then turn around and demand the rights of citizenship not only for yourself (which you are entitled to) but for your corporation as an ‘artificial person’, is absurd at best.
Perhaps people should be fully responsible for the debts they incur through the corporations they own. There’s nothing unconstitutional about being responsible for debts, and it might have the added benefit of slowing down the non-governmental corruption of the financial markets. It would certainly make people think twice before they sink their cash in a GE or GM or any number of other very politically active corporations.
Report comment to moderator
None of the Democrats and few of the Republicans even understand how a business works in a free economy.
Report comment to moderator
Did you read the Forbes article, Debra?
I don’t understand how anybody would want to do something so horrible as to deny speech. It is so anti-freedom that it leaves me speechless.
Report comment to moderator
OK NJL, I’ll sink to your level: This is why the Forbes article is stupid:
The debate over these issues has been muddled by the straw man notion that somehow the Supreme Court is giving “personhood” to corporations. Leave this aside — it is a red herring, entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The simple fact is that corporations are voluntary assemblies of individuals, in which individuals agree to pool their labor and money towards some goal. Whenever one sees the word “corporation,” one can accurately substitute the words “group of individuals assembled for a purpose.”
Corporations are not “voluntary assemblies.” The people who work for them need jobs, and are not joining the assembly to support a political cause. It is true they are “assembled for a purpose,” but the purpose is to carry out the business of the corporation, not to elect specific politicians.
Warren Meyer is seeking to blur the line between a real group of people voluntarily assembled for the purpose of promoting a cause, and a group of people assembled to manufacture cars or sell pizzas and finding themselves unwillingly supporting a cause at the behest of the corporation’s leaders.
You are arguing passionately that the people who don’t have decision-making power in a corporation should have their freedom of speech taken away and turned to serve the interests of their employers. Spoken like a good corporatist stooge.
Debra: I want to respond to your post in detail and we are about to leave for some errands, so rather than give it short shrift I’m going to save it for later. Check back tonight and I should have something posted.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Where does it say that groups organized for a political cause can speak and others cannot?
If you want the government to enforce such a distinction, then in fact you are asking the government to be the arbiter of all speech, because it needs to determine whether something is allowed to be said or not.
If you play a sport with referees, then they need to view every play to determine whether it is legal or not. Your desire is to make certain kinds of speech illegal. And so the Federal Government now becomes a kind of thought police, ruling on what can and cannot be said. The First Amendment was supposed to prevent this sort of thing. What happened?
Report comment to moderator
The problem with Freedom is that it allows people to do things we don’t like. Freedom creates systems which are less than optimal and potentially unfair. Freedom allows some people to have more power and influence than others. Freedom allows people to say things that are offensive.
And so, the liberal answer is always to curtail freedom. Utopia is a land without freedom. If humans had no Free Will, it would be Paradise, but it wouldn’t be free.
Report comment to moderator
Conan says: ‘Corporations are not “voluntary assemblies.”’
Wrong Conan. They are through the stockholders. And, contrary to what you say, the employees voluntarily joined them for employment. Granted some may FEEL like they had no other alternative, but that was the choice that they made.
The stockholders are generally a more homogeneous group than the employees, and therefore it is more natural that the corporate group would come together as a political group. And when the corporate leaders speak politically they often more or less speak for the stockholders as a whole as well.
The grouping of the employees is possible, through unions etc., but they tend to be a much more diverse group politically so that many employees tend to put their efforts towards other types of groups (maybe the NRA or RTL or NARAL or MoveOn.) When the unions try to speak for their employees politically, they tend to speak only for the leaders and much less so for the employees.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace: Wrong Conan. They are through the stockholders. And, contrary to what you say, the employees voluntarily joined them for employment. Granted some may FEEL like they had no other alternative, but that was the choice that they made.
OK then, don’t complain when unions do the same thing. Don’t gripe that people are “forced” to pay union dues which then go to political causes, because those people have the same choice to not work for the unionized company.
Is that sound argument?
Report comment to moderator
Debra: But I am curious about your argument from the position of ‘fairness’ toward employees, which seems a little amorphous to me—if not downright irrelevant. Employees are already receiving the compensation for their labor that they have agreed upon. And unless they have become partial owners by buying in to the company through an agreement, I don’t see that they have any ownership rights to the company at all.
It is the weaker of my two arguments, granted, but the idea is that the wealth of the corporation derives from the labor of its employees, who signed on to provide their talents, skills and efforts toward the purpose of doing whatever it is the company does.
Once you are paid for your work, the money is yours. Your company can’t tell you how to spend it or what causes to support with it. This applies to every wage earner — a liberal, a conservative, a billionaire or a middle-class mom. If the CEO wants to spend his money to support a given politician or cause, he’s completely free to do that. (The fact that I state this clearly belies the accusations NJLawyer and Xion have made that I want to “silence” messages I don’t like.)
But the wealth of the corporation as a business entity doesn’t belong to any one person, or even to the executive team. It derives from the work of the employees. At every step along the way, the employees are adding value to the company. They do so expecting the profits to be spent to pay the leaders and shareholders, and to pay for research and development of new products, or other things related to the business that the company is in, and not to go toward electing a particular candidate.
I made that argument in the first place as a counterpoint to one I hear about unions, as alluded to in #202. If it’s objectionable for unions to do it, it should be objectionable for corporations to do it.
My main argument, though, the stronger one, is along the lines of what you said. Corporations have far more power than individuals. If they have the same freedom of speech as natural persons, the natural persons of America are sunk. It is, as you said, virtual bribery that NJL and Xion are defending, to the detriment of the actual people of the country.
Report comment to moderator
But the wealth of the corporation as a business entity doesn’t belong to any one person, or even to the executive team. It derives from the work of the employees.
Umm…that’s true, but I think you’re leaving one party out in the cold: the person(s) or groups who have invested the capital to start and run the business. I presume that was an innocent oversight.
Employees are important—they can often be the difference in making or breaking the profitability of the business, BUT, without the other parties, there wouldn’t be any business to make or break. An entrepreneur can run a very small [micro] business alone, but employees without an employer, are just a sad sad bunch of people.
Personally, I would like to see a lot more self employment, even if it’s just on a small scale. Government does do a lot to hinder this. Mostly thanks to lobbying by larger companies that don’t want competition for sales or labor. Yep, bribery is alive and well in the good ol’ USA. And some of us just loooove to have it so.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Conan, you have changed your position on unions haven’t you? I thought during the Wisconsin union uprising you favored not allowing employees to opt out. What exactly is your position there. I think you know mine—no closed shop anywhere any time, and no government employee unions because it’s an inherent conflict of interest.
Report comment to moderator
#203 Conan ” If the CEO wants to spend his money to support a given politician or cause, he’s completely free to do that. (The fact that I state this clearly belies the accusations NJLawyer and Xion have made that I want to “silence” messages I don’t like.)”
I didn’t say you wanted to silence every last message you don’t like. You are fine with religions speaking quietly behind closed doors and single individuals who are too powerless to make a difference. It is like saying people can say whatever they want as long as they whisper.
However you (and liberals in general) are trying to silence majority voices that threaten the liberal secular agenda. Corporations are the only entities large enough to challenge the entrenched socialist agenda of powerful corrupt leftist politicians. And so you want them stopped, but not all. Leftist media corporations can say whatever they want.
Report comment to moderator
Right Xion. You want multi-billion dollar corporations to have the same right as people to influence the government despite their far greater power to act on that right, while those of us who object to their agenda are limited to being “single individuals who are too powerless to make a difference,” and somehow I’m the one trying to silence a message.
Uh huh.
Report comment to moderator
Whether you agree with the message or not, the messenger is illegitimate. Globalism is the real problem anyway—and the machinery (corporate sponsors) in both parties fully supports that–for different reasons.
These international monsters should never have been created by merger after merger. And they continue to merge while we chatter. Now we have a proliferation of fictitious, multi-national super-giants with local election rights….. and money has been magically transformed into speech; and bribery is a first amendment right.
Where does the madness end? Reality is being turned upside down and inside out more and more every day. If I didn’t believe myself duty bound to show up at the polls, I wouldn’t bother. But locally, I don’t want the cat to be elected dog-catcher. Nationally, any way you look at it, that’s already a given.
Report comment to moderator
If people are free, then they can use that freedom for good or ill. Debra and Conan, what you oppose is bribery and corruption, which we all oppose. But taking away freedom is not the way to solve the problem.
Without freedom, you have effectively cut off any ability to viably oppose the entrenched Washington corruption. It is like saying the only legal means of opposing the battleship of Washington is with spit balls. Is that effective?
The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow more speech on the off-chance that perhaps truth might occasionally shine through. But censorship guarantees that the truth will never be told and that entrenched corrupt politicians will never be challenged in any meaningful way.
What if a corporation might use its influence for good? Do you oppose that? Less speech is not the answer. It is also unconstitutional, not that anyone seems to care.
Report comment to moderator
“…bribery and corruption, which we all oppose….”
No, not really. We don’t like the idea of bribery and corruption. But when the corruption is so pervasive, and the bribery is actually coming from the companies who provide the food we eat and the clothes we wear and the bulbs we light our houses with, our hearts faint. We find it much safer to redefine speech and bribery and actually enshrine them in the constitution, than to tell it like it really is and risk having those necessities withdrawn.
Report comment to moderator
And the icing on the cake is we call that freedom.
But fear by any other name, still stinks just as bad.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: BTW, Conan, you have changed your position on unions haven’t you? I thought during the Wisconsin union uprising you favored not allowing employees to opt out. What exactly is your position there.
I’m just asking for consistency. People who object to unions on the grounds that you can be “forced” to join one and then they use your dues to support political causes you don’t agree with should object to corporations being involved in politics for the same reason. But that’s usually not the case.
People who say you’re not forced to contribute your labor to a company’s political activities because you can choose not to work there should acknowledge that you’re not forced to contribute union dues to a cause for the same reason. But again, such consistency is rare to find.
My own view is that if a workplace is unionized, the union’s power comes from its numbers. They exist to give people who don’t have much strength alone more of a voice in an organization. I don’t have a hard position on whether or not opting out should be allowed because it probably varies from place to place. I suppose that if so many people would opt out to make the union powerless, there wouldn’t be support for a union to begin with. On the other hand, why should people who choose not to contribute to the union’s efforts benefit from its success?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Re your last paragraph, nobody can control all of the spillover benefits or costs of anything, though that doesn’t stop us from occasionally trying. But the spillovers are usually chalked up to good will (or ill will). We’re lucky if they balance out in the aggregate. Trying to cut everything so close to the margin is often an expression of greed. That’s a big part of what got us into this mess.
As for consistency, it’s my experience that it would pretty much take all of my time to be fully consistent myself, so there is very little point to roaming around correcting others’ petty inconsistencies, as such. Reading your response, I’d say the same goes for you: if you iron out your own, your hands will be full. But don’t take that as a criticism, or not too harsh a one. Consistency in every detail is over-rated anyway, since our knowledge is imperfect and always changing. I’d be happy if we could just keep our basic definitions from changing by the hour. It’s hard to have a conversation otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that nobody can or should be expected to be consistent in every particular. I don’t think this particular one is petty. This is a matter of malleable principles that insist a certain behavior is wrong when it benefits or can be ascribed to people one doesn’t like, and the same or very similar behavior is fine or even laudable when done by those whose goals you support.
If we were talking something trivial such as sports teams or whether or not it’s ok to turn the flop in a hand of Texas Hold’em without first “burning” (discarding) a card, I’d agree that demanding consistency is petty. But this has to do with the fate of our country. It’s pretty important.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I know. The fate of the entire country is always hanging in the balance. It’s so tiring propping up the whole of western civilization as we know it. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/12/13/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent/
This is what campaign finance reform is intended to prevent — the wealthiest Americans have access and influence that no ordinary American can match.
People who imagine themselves to be First Amendment Crusaders need to own up to the fact that this is the reality they create — ordinary people squeezed out of the process in everything except voting, and almost all of the political power going to the wealthiest.
That cannot have been the original intent of the Founders.
Report comment to moderator
Mercy me. I had no idea you were so devoted to the original intent of the Founders. When did you get religion?
Seriously, I doubt there are many people who are. If there were, Ron Paul would have been president years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t mock me when we agree on something! That’s not nice.
The purpose of Freedom of Speech is to ensure that all ideas get a fair hearing and that people can’t be punished for saying what they believe or holding certain opinions.
Nothing about that suggests that it means we have to let corporations with vast resources drown out everybody else to get their way, as NJLawyer and Xion say. In fact, it suggests just the opposite to me … if all voices are entitled to be heard, then those who would like to drown out their opposition need to be prevented from doing so.
Corporations, or more correctly, the people who make them up, have the right to a voice, but they don’t have the right to silence other voices by their sheer volume.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!