In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has brought down a ruling that puts paid to the existing framework for campaign financing, enabling unfettered donations and financing for corporations and labor (sic) organizations (sic).
Unless Congress finds a way to regulate campaign financing in a manner that the SCOTUS finds Constitutionally acceptable, there can be no legislative roadblocks to the buying and selling of candidates and legislation.
At last, all Americans have achieved equality before the law: One Dollar, One Vote.
Well, at least it’s out in the open now. The legal inviolability of corporate personhood ensures that Flesh-Americans can have all the freedom they want, as long as they don’t tread on the toes of the Leviathans who will henceforth determine who governs and what laws they enact.
This Democracy is proudly brought to you by the good people at Blue Cross, Altria, Exxon, Pfizer, the NRA and Wal-Mart.
The joys of living in a judge run oligarchy. You can get some quirky results when you give a group of unelected, unaccountable septuagenarian white males a veto power over your system of government….
Thankfully, democracy neither begins nor ends with the USA.
Well, the gloves came off in Florida some years ago now and this signals to all that they are not going to be put back on again. Some groups in the US, like Afro-Americans, would argue that the gloves were never on in the first place. It has been a long time coming but the citizens of the US will have to go back to old fashioned struggle for their democracy and basic freedoms. Perhaps this is a better outcome in so far as there can be no further illusions after this. Citizen Murdoch, first among equals.
Buy a Candidate is obviously OK with the five judges. I wonder if Buy a Judge wasn’t also part of their decision making process? How can they justify their decision that a corporation is the same as an individual? Perhaps Buy a Judge has already been decided.
Welcome back free speech!
…and MoveOn, 538, George Soros, SEIU, Greenpeace, WWF, PETA, etc..
#4 Craig Mc
As Larry Lessig would say: It’s not who’s doing the bribing that’s the problem – it’s the fact of the corruption
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/21/lessig-on-giving-cor.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
There was never any real cap on political donations and the power of Big Money influencing political decisions. Corporate lobbying outside of elections makes the outcome of the poll meaningless in most cases. And the “shadowy” 527 (formerly 501) organisations can raise large sums for political candidates or parties.
Now it’s just being more honest.
Supremes: Opressed Corporations Lack Political Influence
(h/t LGM)
I look forward to Janet Albrectsens (and others on the whackjob right) forthcoming article on activist judges who harm democracy.
That is amazing. truely amazing. How long before we have similar laws to achieve pariaty with the US (lest we end up on the wronger end of the next round of free trade negotiations.)
Even better as I read elsewhere this allows a corporation (probably under the name of a shell organisation, think something friendly like American Families Against the Commerce of Children Inc) not running ads for their candidate but using their free speech to swift boat their opponents. Cue black and white photo of the person in question, spooky music, slow mo footage of kids in a playground and a voice over intoning “Their candidate says he is ‘for’ children. What does ‘for’ mean? What is interest in our children…” etc
Craig Mc you make a good point. For way too long the left has managed to oppress corporations. Now at last corporations now have parity, can now make their voice known. Their views heard.
Thankfully this is a peculiarly American problem. Here’s why:
1. The SCOTUS’ ludicrous interpretation of the 14th Amendment, establishing corporate personhood (actually the interpretation of court reporter John Chandler Davis, but that’s another story).
2. The SCOTUS ludicrous interpretation of the 1st Amendment, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. (“Campaign donations are a way of influencing political contests in a manner that accords with one’s ideology, consequently an expression of political opinion”, you might say. “Really?”, I may reply. “And what if donors habitually give to both sides? What would that be an expression of?”)
The Bill of Rights problems could, I suppose, be circumvented by making campaign finance reform a matter of corporate law, rather than some blanket regulation of campaign financing, e.g. by requiring campaign donations and political advertising to be be approved by an arbitrarily high majority vote at the shareholders’ AGM. That wouldn’t take the rich out of the political bribery game but would at least limit the influence of corporations. Unfortunately:
3. American corporations are chartered at the state level, and hell will freeze over before the states standardise their corporate regulations, particularly in a manner which limits the power of companies. Cf. Delaware.
So they’re pretty much screwed at this point.
I wonder if you could get away with this: the usual tendency is to prefer high levels of transparency about campaign donations so we know who’s bribing who. But what if there was absolutely no transparency, such that even the recipients did not know where their money was coming from, say, by routing donations through an anonymising statutory agency. Sure, rich folks and corporate entities could still influence the electoral process in an ideological manner (see 2 above); but the graft aspect would be eliminated (assuming comprehensive enforcement) as politicians could not know to whom it is they owe the favour. Which would undoubtedly see the level of donations fall overall.
Just a thought.
@ Craig Mc
“MoveOn, 538, George Soros, SEIU, Greenpeace, WWF, PETA, etc..”
Yes. All those super powerful rights groups with their multi-billion dollar bankrolls have been corrupting the system for the little people of the corporate world – AIG, GSK, GE, Conoco, JPM, etc etc. Now those corporations have a chance to fight on even ground. God bless the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS seems to uphold the transparency requirements 8:1, Thomas dissenting.
Time for a system based on sortition and direct democracy? I’d say so.
Actual ruling here BTW.
It’s at times like this that you can make the argument that it’s a good thing to have a loosely framed (or half arsed) constitution as we do here.
Obi Wan will be pleased. He’ll be able to spend another +US$1 Billion getting re-elected. I wonder if he’ll promise to go down the public funding route again?
It’s a shame this will be (is being) framed as a partisan debate.
Can we at least agree in principle that any unlimited, undisclosed campaign funding is a Bad Thing, wherever it goes to and from?
#14 Craig Mc
In theory yes, but the US, like Australia, has major practical limitations to the transparency delivered by its disclosure regime. Transparency without timely disclosure is next to useless.
Gee Razor, you say that like it’s a bad thing!
I take it you’re disappointed with the SCOTUS decision? Why aren’t you thrilled that the invisible hand of the market will now determine who’s in the Oval (and every other-shaped) Office?
Can we at least agree in principle that any unlimited, undisclosed campaign funding is a Bad Thing, wherever it goes to and from?
I’ll agree, FDB. This is a bad decision, as in “Dred Scott” level bad. I wouldn’t trust any organisation with unlimited undisclosed campaign funding powers. Doesn’t matter if they’re headed by Ralph Nader, Jimmy Hoffa, Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffett or even Dick Smith.
Of course, this is not going to end well for the United States.
I have absolutely no idea why this is a partisan thing. Can someone please explain?
Mercurius @ 21
Firstly – do you recognise the hypocrisy of Obi Wan saying he would accept public funding along with it’s restrictions and then reneging on that commitment.
Secondly – here in Australia we had Senator John “squaky clean” Falkner (ALP) getting all high and mighty about political finance reform and yet, as usaula fo rthe Krudd government, nothings happening.
I think anyone should be allowed to give money to whoever they like. I don’t mind people in public office accepting donations and gifts as long as they clearly and quickly publish the details. In this day and age a daily or weekly list could be published on the internet. I support some “look through” provisioning so that the beneficiaries of any organisation must be identifies before a donation is accepted.
Is there a difference between a corporation, most of whose shares are owned by US citizens and a corporation, most of whose shares are not owned by US citizens?
Capitalist societies have done a poor job overall of coping with the emergence of corporations run by managers who are effectively accountable to nobody. It was tenable – just – to treat them as if they were a kind of abstract person when the owners ran them and were capable of being named and shamed, but that’s simply not the case now for most companies. The owners regard them as an investment, not something they take an interest in operating. Management is a law unto itself.
I’m not suggesting I have any solutions, or indeed that there are any. The human race seems to have a tendency historically to organise itself into hierarchies where power is very unequal; maybe biologists can offer an explanation.
Hehe, I like that Katz where does that put China with its $ 800bil ‘investment’ in the US? Surely they will want to have a say too.
BTW Love him or hate him, Paul Ehrlich today on a LNL with Uncle Phillip:
“We have got today here in the States the best politicians that money can buy.”
Thanks Ootz.
Neoliberals appear to be a little reluctant to discuss the issue.
“…. maybe biologists can offer an explanation.”
Would people with little or no scientific education really be able to understand the explanation and if they did it might appear so appalling they wouldn’t believe and probably couldn’t accept it anyway?
Also Ken I think corporate managers are answerable to others in their hierarchies and the light touch of regulatory authorities is always there to ward off the temptation to act in an unseemly manner.
Shareholders have meetings too – Stephen Mayne is an effective foil against corporate self indulgence don’t you think?
Razor @ 24…
You callow thing, you. You mean, in a fiercely contested primary and campaign, Obama did not pay his opponents the courtesy of informing them in advance about what his actual campaign funding strategy was going to be? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you!
Do you see the hypocrisy of saying the above, while at the same time you have a problem with a whole buncha people decided to give Obama $1 billion+ ? You’re all over the place, Razor.
Mercurius – Actually, I don’t have a problem with a whole bunch of people giving Obi Wan their hard earned. In fact I was mightly impressed by the ability of such a poorly qualified candidate for the position of POTUS to convince the gullible to hand over the moolah. Well done to him and his campaign.
However, Obi Wan had said that he was going to use the public funding method of campaign financing, making himself to be all super ethical. Then when he realised that he was going to be limited in his abiltiy to raise funds under those restrictions he changed his mind. Now I don’t mind him not being bound by the public funding rules, but to first commit to it, which I am sure would have caused many to have contributed to him because he was purer than the driven snow, and then to turn around and repudiate it, shows him up for the hypocrit that he is. I wasn’t suprised as it is a fairly typical example of behaviour by many wealthy social democrats – the good old do as I say not as I do thing (note all the “tax problems” so many of his nominees for slots have had).
Murph the surf @ 29: ‘Stephen Mayne is an effective foil against corporate self indulgence don’t you think?’
You have to be joking. Name one corporate self-indulgence that Stephen Mayne has foiled.
Shareholders’ meetings are a forum for a bit of theatre, after which management continues with business as usual. ‘Corporate managers are answerable to others in their hierarchies and the light touch of regulatory authorities is always there to ward off the temptation to act in an unseemly manner’?? I mean honestly Murph, have you bothered to follow the behaviour of financial corporations over the last few years?
From a recent paper by Stephen Ansolabehere, John de Figueireido, and James Snyder:
“Thirty years ago, Gordon Tullock posed a provocative puzzle: considering the value of public policies at stake and the reputed influence of campaign contributions in policy-making, why is there so little money in U.S. politics? In this paper, we argue that campaign contributions are not a form of policy-buying, but are rather a form of political participation and consumption. We summarize the data on campaign spending, and show through our descriptive statistics and our econometric analysis that individuals, not special interests, are the main source of campaign contributions. Moreover, we demonstrate that campaign giving is a normal good, dependent upon income, and campaign contributions as a percent of GDP have not risen appreciably in over 100 years – if anything, they have probably fallen. We then show that only one in four studies from the previous literature support the popular notion that contributions buy legislators’ votes. Finally, we illustrate that when one controls for unobserved constituent and legislator effects, there is little relationship between money and legislator votes. Thus, the question is not why there is so little money politics, but rather why organized interests give at all. We conclude by offering potential answers to this question.”
So, I guess my question to you Mercurius is: what evidence do you have that corporate campaign contributions are the threat to democracy that you suggest they are?
LO: You cite an abstract which says that, up until now, individuals have provided most campaign funds as evidence of….what, exactly? That our brave new corporate plutocracy will be a benign candyland? WTF can an historical study about the effects of campaign contributions tell us about the future when the SCOTUS just threw out the rulebook?? The framework just changed. The old data is meaningless now. Geddit?
Your request for evidence is anachronistic and borderline dishonest. You must know that, since unlimited corporate campaign donations are uncharted waters for US democracy (amazing that the conservatives of the SCOTUS voted for such radical change), I can’t provide you an historical analysis of the effects.
Goodness, but we have some radical positivists reading LP these days. Do you refuse to get out of bed each morning unless you can find a published study to verify that the floor still exists?
Jezzz Ken mateeeee way to be too serious.
As the irrepressibly direct Mr Chester states it is hard for the irony to punch through the plain text.
Razor, nice whinge from the 2008 talking-points of the Hillary run and the McCain campaign. Great to see you keeping up with current events. OK, just for s**ts and giggles, I’ll agree with you: Obama’s campaign financing decision was a dastardly move, unprecedented in the annals of political skulduggery, and it ranks right up there with authorising torture, wiretapping citizens, doing away with habeas corpus, getting into to two wars that are both longer than WWII, and letting the invisible hand of the market crash the economy. He’s a Bad, Bad, Man. There, happy?
Now, do you have anything interesting or relevant to say about the SCOTUS decision in 2010?
Like, why do you suppose Obama has urged Congress to work fast on legislating against it? If he can raise $1 billion+ in $25 chunks from online and phone bank donations, why should he care?
But more to the point: why are you prepared to die in a ditch to defend the ability of corporations to shore up their commercial interests by attempting to influence democratic processes in which they are not entitled to vote? Why should commercial interests be allowed to trump democratic prerogatives, in your universe?
Tell us the secret. C’mon, spill: what is so ever-lovin’ wonderful about corporate plutocracy that you can’t hardly wait to live in one?
While the teabaggers bleat about “taking our country back”, the corporations will just buy it out from under them.
And with many of those companies, the finance and manufacturing sectors in hock to China, effectively the CCP just purchased America. Mao is smiling in Hell.
Mercurius self-immolation alert!
It’s true that the law didn’t distinguish between foreign-owned corporations and domestic ones. Apparently the court has left the door open for congress to make that distinction. I’m sure they will quickly.
One other point for discussion is Justice Steven’s delivery of his opinion. The written word was as sharp as usual, but his speech wasn’t, and observers remarked that he doesn’t seem his usual self. The man is 90 soon, and there are signs he may be retiring shortly. That will probably lead to another SCOTUS appointment for Obama – probably before the mid-term elections. Assuming anyone can tell if Ginsburg is alive or not, she might be another card to fall. Obie should be able to lock in another generation of liberal stalwarts on the bench.
Craig, it won’t make a lick of difference if Congress blocks foreign-owned companies from contributing. They’ll just set up all-American subsidiaries and contribute via those. This rabbit hole goes all the way down…
The Bank of China has made a very, very large financial commitment to the government of the United States.
It would be absentminded of the BOC now to neglect to do all that is legal to ensure that there are as many elected officials as possible to protect their interests.
Suddenly, so much more is legal.
Craig Mc @ 38, that’s bullshit. The current SCOTUS is largely down to Reagan.
Obama could take a leaf out of GWB’s book and appoint some embryos to the SCOTUS.
That way Obama’s legacy might last as long as the tenure of Bush’s man, Roberts.
DI, I wasn’t talking about the overall balance of the court, just the liberal wing of it.
I suspect the representation in these tables is the real source of lefty angst on this decision.