| | |
|
CitizensUnitedVFederalElectionCommission 4 - 03 Feb 2010 - Main.CarolineFerrisWhite
|
|
<
< | -- NathanStopper - 23 Jan 2010 | | | How do you guys feel about this decision? Although I haven't read the actual decision yet, I can only imagine how the holding is going to destroy any chance this country has of holding fair elections in the future. I don't really know too much about First Amendment law, but I am outraged that the Supreme Court has forfeited our democracy to uphold such an absurd principle. If anyone ever meets a corporation, please let me know. | |
>
> | -- NathanStopper - 23 Jan 2010 | | | | |
<
< | -- SamHershey? - 02 Feb 2010 Nate, | >
> | Nate, | | | This is my first responsive post on this site, so I do not know if it will even come up under your topic. In the hope that it does, here is my answer to your open question. | | | Ultimately, the purpose of groups like unions, not-for-profits, and corporations is to give greater power to their members beyond what they could accomplish individually. Collective bargaining is such a power. The ability to make meaningful political endorsements is another. I do not know why an arbitrary limit should be placed on these groups' vital functions. | |
<
< | -- ArtCavazosJr? - 02 Feb 2010 | >
> | -- SamHershey - 02 Feb 2010 | | | Sam,
I hope you don't mind I moved your comment here so the conversation could flow a bit more smoothly. | | | My gut response is to say that we lose all kinds of rights in our public capacity as anything. Anyone who lights up a piece of crinkled paper filled with the wrong sort of plant or goes for a stroll on the wrong patch of land will find out real quick that they lose their rights to do certain things in a public sphere. But I'm going to assume that there is no obvious reason a CEO should not be able to plunder his company's coffers to finance political candidates he feels will benefit him. And I'm going to assume that average CEO tenures aren't less than 8 years and that they actually care about the long-term viability of their companies and the pockets of their shareholders. And I'm going to assume that most shareholders know more than nothing about the political contributions of the companies that their 401k or other retirement plan invested in for them, and I'm going to assume that if they don't agree with those contributions there is some avenue of recourse they could use to do something about it. And if I assume all of these things it is still a bad idea because, like Sam said, the purpose of unions and corporations etc. is to give greater power to their members beyond what they could have accomplished individually. And until the idea of a corporation becomes more than to maximize the wealth of its shareholders (read: squeeze as much output from as little input as possible, using genetic engineering on chickens and corn, exploiting cheap immigrant or out-sourced labor, lending in a predatory fashion, etc.) giving that particular "group of members" greater power is a very bad idea. | |
<
< | %COMMENTS% | >
> | -- ArtCavazosJr - 02 Feb 2010
I agree with both Art and Sam that power is central to this debate. Giving corporations the freedom to support political candidates troubles me greatly; a CEO, rich though he may be, is not nearly so powerful without the heft of a corporation behind him (or her). As Professor Tierney mentioned today at the Citizens United panel, we all know that corporations have long been financing campaigns in one way or another. But I fear the practical consequences of this decision. I fear that political candidates, once elected, will find themselves beholden to the wishes of their corporate sponsors rather than their constituency. Is that freedom? What happens to free speech when one voice silences all the rest?
To assert that a corporation is a person without discussing the practical effects of that assertion is to descend into formalism (a la "where does a corporation reside?" etc.). To Sam's point, it does seem arbitrary to allow corporations and labor unions to act collectively in some instances and not in others. But don't we have to take into account the nature of those instances, and what the consequences of collective action are? I think the acknowledgment in the Austin decision (which Citizens United overruled) that "corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections" still holds, and should outweigh any inconsistency in the case law.
-- CarolineFerrisWhite - 03 Feb 2010
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |