Woody wrote:Can someone tell me how corporate spending is directly related to free speech. I find this all very confusing

jerseyhoya wrote:Going for the rare fourth post in a row in the politics thread: In all seriousness, what Congress should do immediately is pass something that dramatically increases disclosure requirements for anything involving corporate ads or labor union funded ones. All ads paid for with corporate money that mention a federal candidate by name or likeness need to acknowledge the top three or top five contributors to the organization running the ads. On TV ads this could be done in the written disclaimer, but would have to be a reasonable size and on screen for say 5 seconds. On radio you'd have to read it, which is fine because radio ads are 60 seconds. Filings would need to be transparent and done in a timely fashion. Serious fines for messing this stuff up, say dollar for dollar for the expenditure. This could be done quickly and signed by Obama. If Democrats wanted to look into a constitutional amendment process that's going to take longer and won't get done for the midterms.

Edit: Also require a website in the disclaimer, on which the organizations would need to have their funding sources clearly spelled out. If corporations want free speech, let the sunlight in. If WalMart or Exxon or the AFL-CIO spend $1 mil to elect a senator, people should know.

jerseyhoya wrote:Going for the rare fourth post in a row in the politics thread: In all seriousness, what Congress should do immediately is pass something that dramatically increases disclosure requirements for anything involving corporate ads or labor union funded ones. All ads paid for with corporate money that mention a federal candidate by name or likeness need to acknowledge the top three or top five contributors to the organization running the ads. On TV ads this could be done in the written disclaimer, but would have to be a reasonable size and on screen for say 5 seconds. On radio you'd have to read it, which is fine because radio ads are 60 seconds. Filings would need to be transparent and done in a timely fashion. Serious fines for messing this stuff up, say dollar for dollar for the expenditure. This could be done quickly and signed by Obama. If Democrats wanted to look into a constitutional amendment process that's going to take longer and won't get done for the midterms.

Edit: Also require a website in the disclaimer, on which the organizations would need to have their funding sources clearly spelled out. If corporations want free speech, let the sunlight in. If WalMart or Exxon or the AFL-CIO spend $1 mil to elect a senator, people should know.

traderdave wrote:Why limit it to federal candidates?

dajafi wrote:I both agree with this and think it's adorable you believe Congress would possibly approve it.

Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?

What is overlooked in virtually every discussion I've seen over the last 24 hours is how ineffective these campaign finance laws are. Large corporations employ teams of lawyers and lobbyists and easily circumvent these restrictions; wealthy individuals and well-funded unincorporated organizations are unlimited in what they can spend. It's the smaller non-profit advocacy groups whose political speech tends to be most burdened by these laws. Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

In sum, there's no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I've written volumes on that very problem. Although I doubt it, this decision may very well worsen that problem in some substantial way. But on both pragmatic and Constitutional grounds, the issue of corporate influence -- like virtually all issues -- is not really solvable by restrictions on political speech. Isn't it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment -- or, worse, amend it -- in order to limit political advocacy?

jeff2sf wrote:But if this whole economic populism crap takes off the way I fear it might, this could go down right quick.

dajafi wrote:Bernanke might not get reconfirmed

This is pretty interesting. Both support and opposition cross party lines. If he goes down, I have no idea what happens there next.

I don't understand the Fed nearly as well as I probably should (does anyone?). But it seems to me the problem is probably institutional rather than something that can be fixed by changing the chairman. Unless he nominates Ron Paul or something.

dajafi wrote:I hope you're right, jh. Maybe (probably) I'm overly pessimistic about the ability of Congress right now to do anything constructive, particularly in a bipartisan way. But part of my skepticism also is that the new regime could advantage incumbents even more.If you're a Blue Dog Democrat from a district that voted for Bush and/or McCain, you might well see this as a huge fundraising opportunity, given that you've already likely made some corporation-friendly votes.

Put it this way: I suspect you're right in that if it passes, it will be by a lot. I don't see your idea getting 225 votes in the House and 61 in the Senate. Arguably that's a good thing I guess.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting take on the decisionfrom Greenwald--who proves again that he's as much as/more of a libertarian than a liberal as we generally think of that term. The whole thing is really good IMO (and this from someone who disagrees with the ruling as well as with parts of Greenwald's argument), but here's a central chunk:

Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?

What is overlooked in virtually every discussion I've seen over the last 24 hours is how ineffective these campaign finance laws are. Large corporations employ teams of lawyers and lobbyists and easily circumvent these restrictions; wealthy individuals and well-funded unincorporated organizations are unlimited in what they can spend. It's the smaller non-profit advocacy groups whose political speech tends to be most burdened by these laws. Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

In sum, there's no question that the stranglehold corporations exert on our democracy is one of the most serious and pressing threats we face. I've written volumes on that very problem. Although I doubt it, this decision may very well worsen that problem in some substantial way. But on both pragmatic and Constitutional grounds, the issue of corporate influence -- like virtually all issues -- is not really solvable by restrictions on political speech. Isn't it far more promising to have the Government try to equalize the playing field through serious public financing of campaigns than to try to slink around the First Amendment -- or, worse, amend it -- in order to limit political advocacy?

jerseyhoya wrote:Day after: SCOTUS ruling not so bad?

I was told otherwise. docsmooth promised battery acid.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Day after: SCOTUS ruling not so bad?

I was told otherwise. docsmooth promised battery acid.

There's something to this--I know corporate lobbyists often dread calls from members of Congress, because they do feel like they get shaken down.

And it's not like McCain Feingold kept opponents of insurance reform from spending a gazillion dollars, and other fat cats from organizing tea parties and such.