McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Shut Down

[Xno Kappa]

You people... I am disappoint.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Splitting hairs. We weren't just talking about political speech. We were talking about freedom of speech which involves all form of speech and how you don't have that right as an absolute. Companies spending unlimited amounts of money on ads on political campaigns is harmful and unbalanced (much like private campaign finance) thus it should not be allowed.

The media corporations (and major media is owned by conglomerates) are irrelevant to the example because we're specifically talking about the use of money in political campaigns. We are talking about a specific issue where a limit should be placed because it's beneficial.

What is your reasoning that it's harmful? Is it the same as the govt's in the case?

[Kuya]

I don't know what your second question means, but in the first case, organizations spending extensive amounts of money on a specific candidate often make the latter beholden to their interests. The same thing happens with lobbying and PACs. Politicians notice when money is being spent in their favour and they take this into account (rather than what's best for the constituents, the people who vote for them), furthermore, politicians are especially cautious of not letting big money support their rivals. This is why it's not so simple as a politician accepting large amounts of money being helped in their benefit with the assumption that this politician will help the organization with the legislation it wants and then turning around and not doing what the organization wanted, because if they don't, then they risk that money being used against in the next election cycle. In fact, the health care debate exemplified one of these situations when the Democrats took care to court the health insurence lobby to gain their favour and keep them from supporting Republicans in the next election cycle.

The situation is already bad enough with private campaign financing, but this just makes it worse. Money in politics at the moment is probably the most important problem the US has right now. It hinders policy being rightly aimed for the constituents, the voters, and consideration of long term consequences (even more so than short terms, because this means that legislation becomes even more patchwork in order to try and satisfy various interests).

Now the problem is, the argument i'm making is called compeling state interest which can be used to argue that constituional rights can be limited in the case that harm (hopefully proveable) may be done. However, this same argument can be made about a lot of things liberals like (such as habeaus corpus for terrorism suspects or even something as absurd as marriage between people of the same sex), so it's a double edged sword. Glenn made me see the point of constitutionalists here:

To the contrary, the entire dissent -- while arguing that corporations have fewer First Amendment protections than individuals -- is grounded in the premise that corporations do have First Amendment free speech rights and that restrictions on the expenditure of money do burden those rights, but those free speech rights can be restricted when there's a "compelling state interest." In this case, the dissenters argued, such restrictions are justified by the "compelling state interest" the Government has in preventing the corrupting influence of corporate money. That's why the extent of one's belief in the First Amendment is outcome-determinative here. Those who want to restrict free speech always argue that there's a compelling reason to do so ("we must ban the Communist Party because they pose a danger to the country"; "we must ban hate speech because it sparks violence and causes a climate of intimidation"; "we must ban radical Muslim websites because they provoke Terrorism"). One can have reasonable debates over the "compelling interest" question as a constitutional matter -- and, as I said yesterday, I'm deeply ambivalent about the Citizens United case because that's a hard question and I do think corporate influence is one of the greatest threats we face -- but, ultimately, it's because I don't believe that restrictions on political speech and opinions (as opposed to other kinds of statements) can ever be justified that I agree with the majority's ruling. There are reasonable arguments on all sides of that question.

One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that's the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

Which is why i ultimately agree with this:

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?

I think we need limited public financing now more than ever.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Ah, I see. That's certainly a reasonable position. I only read to page 43, but I think the reason the SC wasn't swayed by that argument was the courts interpretation of the 1st amendment. It's essentially what I've been saying, if the speech restrictions apply to all corporations, then it must apply to media corporations. I even think they said the "compelling societal interest" of that, outweighs "the compelling state interest."

In order to outright ban speech by corporations, the only way to do that, I think, is to convince the SC that freedom of the press doesn't apply to, "persons that would use the press," and only that particular industry.

Also, I don't understand why people keep talking about money b/c of this ruling. It didn't overturn money restrictions did it? I didn't see that. In fact, in the beginning of the opinion I think the SC said something like, "after this law was passed, money contributions were banned - and still are -....."

[Kuya]

They either mean money for ads or they were confused because direct contributions are still banned.

[Olo401]

*bump* Thanks to the most activist judicial decision since Dred Scott (in particular thanks to Justice Alito who should be IMPEACHED), foreign countries now have more influence on our elections than the average citizen:

...One consequence of this decision is that foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries are likely to be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections.

Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. However, the National Journal reported today that corporate lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal. The Organization for International Investment, a trade group representing foreign banks, oil companies, and other foreign corporations operating in the United States, “lashed out” at Van Hollen’s proposals. “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OFII.

McLernon — who previously worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a stealth “grassroots” corporate lobbying group now known as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — is wrong to assert that the danger of foreign lobbying is simply a distraction. For instance, Saudi Arabia has already signaled that the progressive effort to build a clean energy American economy is its “biggest threat”...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/27/...ing-elections/

[ravbane]

Didn't republicans make a big stink speculating that Obama received donations from foreign sources during the campaign? Where the hell are they now?

also: Ron Paul doesn't count.