Campaign finance

[Patranus]

The supreme court says that money is speech. Nothing will ever be fixed until that ruling is overturned probably by amendment to the Constitution but the American people will never figure this out because money will make sure they don't.

The 2 biggest problems that will stop this is that the Senate no longer represents the states and almost every single state has lost its balls in favor of falling in line with the federal government.

Remember, there are 2 ways to amend the Constitution, the federal government and the states. States just need to grow a set and stand up for states rights.

The sad thing is this will never happen until the federal government is returned to its pre FDR role as the federal government currently has enormous powers to tax and spend. This issue really boils down to the role of the federal government and not necessarily campaign finance.

 

[Zebo]

We should look at Australia and adopt some of their good points.
- Election campaigning lasts less than 2 months.
- Elections are federally funded.
- Voting is compulsory for all citizens (although leaving a ballot blank is not!)

As far as lobbying and corporations free speech, here is what I posted in another thread:

I think Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was one the worst decision of the SC. Which has lead to all the lobbying and special interest groups as well as buying elected representatives. And ironically it was the head note, written by a court reporter who happened to be a former president of a railroad, not the actual opinion itself which has been used to apply the legal principle.



.

I'm not really putting two and two together here... If "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" were completly overturned how would that stop lobbyists? How would that stop a company from hiring a congress critters entire family at exorbitant salary for implicit favors? How would that stop revolving door from congress to bonused corp officer and back again?

 

[woolfe9999]

We should look at Australia and adopt some of their good points.
- Election campaigning lasts less than 2 months.
- Elections are federally funded.
- Voting is compulsory for all citizens (although leaving a ballot blank is not!)

As far as lobbying and corporations free speech, here is what I posted in another thread:

I think Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was one the worst decision of the SC. Which has lead to all the lobbying and special interest groups as well as buying elected representatives. And ironically it was the head note, written by a court reporter who happened to be a former president of a railroad, not the actual opinion itself which has been used to apply the legal principle.



.

I checked into the issue of Constitutional rights for corporations. The case you mention here says that corporations have some rights that citizens have. It was actually a later case that used this precedant to support the notion that corporations have rights under the First Amendment to participate (in the broad sense) in political campaigns by attempting to influence the outcome of elections.

However, that issue should not be confused with the issue of actual campaign contrubtions. While the First Amendment, under current predecent, allows individuals and entities to freely contribute to campaigns, election laws can still restrict a candidate's right to accept donations and/or to spend them on campaigns and these resctrictions are not affected by the first amendment. In fact, there are numerous restrictions on campaign contributions at the federal and state levels and they pass Constittional muster. The very case which said that corporations have a right to spend money to influence campaigns also says that the ruling does not affect the government's ability to restrict and regulate direct contributions to candidates. So this Constitional issue is relevant to the second question of PAC money and other ways that entities can influence elections, but not to the issue of actual campaign contributions.

I tend to disagree with some here who think that there is no value in closing off certain avenues of monied interests influence over government just because some other avenues remain open. The harder you make it to influence a candidate, the less actual influence there will be, and the most important avenue to close is the one that allows for direct horse trading between a candidate and an interest group.

- wolf

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Incorrect.

I don't know where you get your misguided constitutional beliefs, but I'm sure glad I don't live in your fantasy world

 

[werepossum]

The 2 biggest problems that will stop this is that the Senate no longer represents the states and almost every single state has lost its balls in favor of falling in line with the federal government.

Remember, there are 2 ways to amend the Constitution, the federal government and the states. States just need to grow a set and stand up for states rights.

The sad thing is this will never happen until the federal government is returned to its pre FDR role as the federal government currently has enormous powers to tax and spend. This issue really boils down to the role of the federal government and not necessarily campaign finance.

Bingo. Putting senators to the popular vote is probably the single worse violence done to our Constitution, leaving us free to vote ourselves gifts and the federal government free to place the burden of funding those gifts on the states. I don't see the federal government ever returning to pre-FDR levels though; SCOTUS and the Democrats are firmly in favor of a more powerful federal government and the Republicans do no more than give lip service to reining it in. Both sides are addicted to using the power of government to project their will on others and will therefore continue to grow government until the system collapses.

 

[bamacre]

Actually, this is why I started this thread, out of curiously about the degree of popular consensus for real campaign finance reform. My theory was that unlike basically every other issue, this notion would have large, bipartisan consensus. It seems me that the only way to get this accomplished is with a grass roots, bipartisan effort to pressure elected officials to get it done. If this sort of thing has like 85-90% support in the general population, then elected officials need to know this, and they need to know that they will suffer consequences at the ballot box for opposing it. Still probably won't work, but this is the only concept that even might work. I know some candidates like Nader have made it a central issue, but they are largely viewed as fringe and basically ignored.

- wolf

But you aren't going to get a majority consensus. Why? Because when people think of special interest groups, they think of big business, and often forget about groups such as the AARP. There are just too many people who benefit from "special interest."

 

[Craig234]

Bingo. Putting senators to the popular vote is probably the single worse violence done to our Constitution, leaving us free to vote ourselves gifts and the federal government free to place the burden of funding those gifts on the states. I don't see the federal government ever returning to pre-FDR levels though; SCOTUS and the Democrats are firmly in favor of a more powerful federal government and the Republicans do no more than give lip service to reining it in. Both sides are addicted to using the power of government to project their will on others and will therefore continue to grow government until the system collapses.

You hate democracy. Do you know why the system was changed to elect Senators instead of having them appointed by the state legislators? Because of the same corruption you claim to be against.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I checked into the issue of Constitutional rights for corporations. The case you mention here says that corporations have some rights that citizens have. It was actually a later case that used this precedant to support the notion that corporations have rights under the First Amendment to participate (in the broad sense) in political campaigns by attempting to influence the outcome of elections.

However, that issue should not be confused with the issue of actual campaign contrubtions. While the First Amendment, under current predecent, allows individuals and entities to freely contribute to campaigns, election laws can still restrict a candidate's right to accept donations and/or to spend them on campaigns and these resctrictions are not affected by the first amendment. In fact, there are numerous restrictions on campaign contributions at the federal and state levels and they pass Constittional muster. The very case which said that corporations have a right to spend money to influence campaigns also says that the ruling does not affect the government's ability to restrict and regulate direct contributions to candidates. So this Constitional issue is relevant to the second question of PAC money and other ways that entities can influence elections, but not to the issue of actual campaign contributions.

I tend to disagree with some here who think that there is no value in closing off certain avenues of monied interests influence over government just because some other avenues remain open. The harder you make it to influence a candidate, the less actual influence there will be, and the most important avenue to close is the one that allows for direct horse trading between a candidate and an interest group.

- wolf

Firstly, the judgment in this case does not address the rights of corporations. It was the head note which was written by the court reporter.

This is what the judge wrote in a memo to the court reporter:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad#A_passing_remark

Secondly I do not believe there is a constitutional right for corporations. It is the SC's interpretation of the First amendment which has given corps that privilege. And all SC's interpretations have been based on the Santa Clara County case - which should not have been used for precedent. As to whether we can turn back the clock now - I doubt it. Too much water has passed under this bridge and there will be big money lobbying against any attempt to overturn.

I completely agree with your last comment about closing off money avenues. Special interests and monied groups have disproportionate influence on policy in our country.


.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I'm not really putting two and two together here... If "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" were completly overturned how would that stop lobbyists? How would that stop a company from hiring a congress critters entire family at exorbitant salary for implicit favors? How would that stop revolving door from congress to bonused corp officer and back again?

Hiring families is an issue which even today raises a lot of ethical questions as well as negative publicity so I don't think that will change.


.

 

[Patranus]

The moral of the story is look not at the money legislators are getting now when they vote on health care but their net worth in a few years.

 

[Craig234]

Firstly, the judgment in this case does not address the rights of corporations. It was the head note which was written by the court reporter.

This is what the judge wrote in a memo to the court reporter:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad#A_passing_remark

Secondly I do not believe there is a constitutional right for corporations. It is the SC's interpretation of the First amendment which has given corps that privilege. And all SC's interpretations have been based on the Santa Clara County case - which should not have been used for precedent. As to whether we can turn back the clock now - I doubt it. Too much water has passed under this bridge and there will be big money lobbying against any attempt to overturn.

I completely agree with your last comment about closing off money avenues. Special interests and monied groups have disproportionate influence on policy in our country.


.

Good summary. The problem as you say is the history of case law using that 'decision'. I'm not sure how feasile it is to overturn, but this 'always rules for business Roberts' court isn't the one to do it.

 

[Zebo]

Hiring families is an issue which even today raises a lot of ethical questions as well as negative publicity so I don't think that will change.


.

I still don't understand the practical significance of this case and granting corps citizenship. I think it's money that is doing corrupting in various ways I mentioned. Perhaps I need to read Craigs book recommendation.

 

[Craig234]

I still don't understand the practical significance of this case and granting corps citizenship. I think it's money that is doing corrupting in various ways I mentioned. Perhaps I need to read Craigs book recommendation.

You made my night with the first ever as far as I recall reading a recommended book. If you promise not to let an explanation change reading it, I'll try to explain.

First a note on the book - it is 'the' book on the issue, in great detail onths history and broader interesting issues, up to modern developments and repercussions. It has history con corprations going back to the first corporation, invented to protect the English nobles investing in overseas plunderng, founded by Queen Elizabeth - and how the abuses of THAT corporation, analogous to many today sich as getting the government to give them preferential tax benefits, were the central issue in our revoluition.

It's a good book.

The issue is that the 14th amendment was written intended to guarantee 'equal rights' to blacks with the phrase 'persons'.

Unless you have studies the 1880's, it's hard to describe what an insanely pro-business mentality was in place.

The corporate lawyers leaped on this amendment in an attempt to argue that corporations, as 'legal persons', also qualified for protection under the amendment for protection equal to people.

This seems preposterous, and IMO it was. Reportedly they lost case after case making the argument.

But they kept trying - many more cases involving the amendment were heard by the court about corporations' rights than balcks' rights.

But in this one case, the court reporter, who was actually a prestigious position at the time, made a note in the margin about a comment from the Supreme Court Chief Justice, and somehow it got referenced in later cases as if the court had ruled for corporations. It just 'became law', used as established law in ruling after ruling.

The core is that by deciding 'person' in the amendment didn't just mean a real person but also a corporation, corproations got the same rights to 'free speech' and give donations untouchable by law.

The culture before this had been that corporations had a very limited role only for the 'good of society'.

 

[ebaycj]

But you aren't going to get a majority consensus. Why? Because when people think of special interest groups, they think of big business, and often forget about groups such as the AARP. There are just too many people who benefit from "special interest."

The AARP does somewhat benefit old people. It also benefits big business. I'd be OK limiting it.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I still don't understand the practical significance of this case and granting corps citizenship. I think it's money that is doing corrupting in various ways I mentioned. Perhaps I need to read Craigs book recommendation.

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect the rights of blacks from hostile courts and to prevent the SC overruling the civil rights act of 1866 which gave them rights as citizens. The term used to describe blacks was 'persons'.

This case has been used as legal precedence to apply the 14th amendment protections to corporations (something the 14th amend didn't really intend to do) by including corps in the definition of persons.

Interestingly, the extension of protections to corps was not addressed by the court in it's decision. The headnote, which is a summary of the decision written by the court reporter prior to publication in the US Reports, is where the concept is stated. That particular court reporter had been a past president of a railroad company - I would assume his sympathies lay with the railroad - arguably a question of conflict of interest.

 

[Mursilis]

You hate democracy.

Every thinking person does. It's a clear failure which lives on only due to a lack of sufficient substitutes.

 

[Craig234]

Every thinking person does. It's a clear failure which lives on only due to a lack of sufficient substitutes.

I disagree. You seem to have a 'glass half empty' view, which you admit is half full by saying there are no 'sufficient substitues'.

We can always attack the idiocy of democracy, but when you notice it's the alterative to tyrrany, think again.

Thousands of years of human history of oligarchical societies have neve seen such improvement as but for the vote, as broken as it is.