Everyone here is confused about the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance

[NYgs23]

When the Supreme Court overturned major portions of the McCain-Feingold Act yesterday, all the usual suspects wailed and gnashed their teeth in great lamentations: Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, and...RonPaulForums.com???

This was, in fact, a victory for the right of free speech, and yet it seems that majority on posters on both threads on the issue (here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227593) and here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227630)) have taken the Noam Chomsky view that is something helps some corporations (and unions) its evil!

First of all, the headline of the LA Times article posted here was unclear, making it seem like the ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission), allows corporations and unions to donate money to candidates. Many posters glanced over the article and jumped to that conclusion. But in fact, as Wikipedia says, "the decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate." All the ruling does is allow corporations to pay for political advertisements. So let's get that straight. The basis of the ruling was that since the Constitution guarantees free speech, Congress can't ban corporations from expressing political views by paying for advertisements with their own funds. That sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Even so, many people here opposed it, saying that since corporations aren't really people, they don't have free speech. Many went on and on about the evils of "corporate personhood," using rhetoric that appeared to be lifted from a Michael Moore documentary. This is a complete misreading of the issue.

It's certainly true that many corporations are connected at the hip with the state. Companies the GE, GM, Goldman-Sachs, Lockheed-Martin, Monsanto, Exxon, Pfizer, and AT&T all represent the reality of modern mercantilism. However, that doesn't mean that the corporate business model, in itself, is necessarily evil and statist. Although corporations as the currently exist receive benefits from the state in the forms of limited liability and legal personhood, many pro-liberty thinkers have defended the corporate model, arguing that these features could nonetheless be constructed through private contracts in the free market. See, for example, the paper Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf) by Walter Block and J.H. Huebert.

And, for the record, GE, et al aren't the only corporations around. Peter Schiff's Euro Pacific Capital is a corporation. So is libertarian John Mackey's Whole Foods Market. So are many non-profits.

Nonetheless, even if you oppose legal personhood for corporations, that doesn't really have to do with this. Legal personhood applies for such things as loans and lawsuits. Even if corporations had no legal personhood, the individuals who constitute the corporation could still pool their capital and still buy political ads with it, just as they can buy other kinds of ads. What you're really suggesting is that the individuals within the corporation shouldn't be allowed to use their own money as they choose because they receive this other, unrelated privilege from the state. Therefore, you are indeed taking away the free speech rights of individuals by saying they can't spend money on political ads. And this also applies to unions, which certainly receive statist privileges. But if receiving a statist privilege negates one's rights, that means we should all lose our rights every time we receive a government service or benefit.

Even disregarding all of this, Congress still does not have constitutional authority to ban corporations from purchasing political advertisements because that is not given to Congress in the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html). It would have been preferable for the Court to overturn these laws under that reasoning, since the real problem with this ruling is that it might apply to the states through the incorporation doctrine, thereby violating federalism.

Let's also remember that the original case was about a nonprofit group being banned from distributing an anti-Hillary commercial under McCain-Feingold, because it was less than 30 days before the primaries. What could be a more obvious attempt to squelch political speech (political speech being what the First Amendment is primarily supposed to protect) by the government? And now leftists decrying the ruling are calling for a constitutional amendment limiting free speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-reaction-amend) (don't worry; it'll only apply to those eeevil for-profit corporations, well except for the media, of course) and for a law guaranteeing taxpayer-funded political campaigns (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/the-right-to-free-taxpayer-fun). We're supposed to support all this???

Finally, what about the opinions of various pro-liberty thinkers and activists? Virtually to a man they have always opposed the phony crusade of campaign finance reform, which never does any good, never gets so-called corrupting money out of politics, and only destroys transparency, undermines free speech, and protects incumbents. Money just flows elsewhere, through PACs, fund-raisers, "soft money" contributions, and so on. The only way to get special interests out of government, they have always agreed, is to limit government, so it no longer has the ability to dole out special favors. And you're certainly not going to do that by giving the government the ability to decide who can and can't engage in political speech, now are you?

Here's what some libertarian-leaning writers around the blogosphere have to say on the current ruling:

Stephan Kinsella, Left-Liberals on Free Speech and Finance Campaign Laws (http://blog.mises.org/archives/011512.asp)
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/77279-the-big-question-is-the-supreme-court-right-on-campaign-finance) (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/citizens-united-free-at-last)
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme)
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/4777-scotus-backs-free-speech-in-ruling)
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/citizens-united-and-corporate-money-in-politics/)
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/)
Doug Mataconis, Supreme Court Strikes A Blow For Free Speech (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-strikes-a-blow-for-free-speech/)

My biggest concern, bigger than all of these, is people here are becoming too obsessed with the desire for political victories, to the point where they are willing to compromise their principles. They fear (mistakenly) that this ruling will hurt "the movement" and that's why they oppose it. Politics is a very dangerous beast; it tempts people to discard their principles for the hope of power. But true freedom will never come through politics; it will only come through changing the hearts and minds of the people. So support Rand or Schiff or Medina, donate and petition, but please keep it in perspective. It's not the be all and end all. You must never be willing to tolerate aggression, even (or especially) when you think it might benefit you, politically or otherwise. That is the path to oblivion.

[Lord Xar]

I"ll review those links, but just as knee-jerk reaction I like the ruling but I also have alot of fear. Corporations have an increased and direct benefit for things such as "NAU" , "Cap n' Trade" , "cheap open border labour" etc... so while Jan & Johns Oil company might be for america and put some thousands towards some advertisement, Exxon/Shell will put tens of millions to promote candidates/causes that will put Jan & John out of business. To continue the open borders, to faciliate a NAU agenda. Oil's control with Cap n' Trade, in addition to Wall st wanting it.

[gls]

I agree with what you're saying. This is a win for freedom. McCain-Feingold is a terrible piece of legislation; in fact I remember before he passed away the esteemed Harry Browne had started an organization just to oppose it.

I wonder if the Campaign for Liberty and related organizations will be able to take advantage of this ruling?

[haaaylee]

Thanks. I was confused on how in the world donating to a candidate fell under "Freedom of Speech." but now i get it was about adverts.

[ChaosControl]

I oppose the ruling regardless.
Corporations shouldn't even exist, they cannot exist in a free market. Not in a true free market that is free from government intervention. Because corporations ARE government intervention. Corporations only exist because of government intervention.

So why should an entity that only exists because of government and therefore absolutely love the idea of big government be allowed to promote politicians through political ads. Politicians who would favor the corporation and legislate handouts for it?

[jkr]

the corperation/ gang should have the same limit as an individual.

both "contribute" to the economy but without the individual, the collective is nothing

[aravoth]

I oppose the ruling regardless.
Corporations shouldn't even exist, they cannot exist in a free market. Not in a true free market that is free from government intervention. Because corporations ARE government intervention. Corporations only exist because of government intervention.

So why should an entity that only exists because of government and therefore absolutely love the idea of big government be allowed to promote politicians through political ads. Politicians who would favor the corporation and legislate handouts for it?

ding

[sratiug]

Another point everyone seems to be overlooking, is that normal for profit corporations may be reluctant to put their names on adds supporting one candidate over another for fear of backlash. They will group together to do it, but they pretty much do that now.

[NYgs23]

I oppose the ruling regardless.
Corporations shouldn't even exist, they cannot exist in a free market. Not in a true free market that is free from government intervention. Because corporations ARE government intervention. Corporations only exist because of government intervention.

ChaosControl, why restate arguments I already addressed in my original post? "Although corporations as the currently exist receive benefits from the state in the forms of limited liability and legal personhood, many pro-liberty thinkers have defended the corporate model, arguing that these features could nonetheless be constructed through private contracts in the free market. See, for example, the paper Defending Corporations by Walter Block and J.H. Huebert....What you're really suggesting is that the individuals within the corporation shouldn't be allowed to use their own money as they choose because they receive this other, unrelated privilege from the state."


So why should an entity that only exists because of government and therefore absolutely love the idea of big government be allowed to promote politicians through political ads.

Perhaps "we" should just use the state to prohibit freedom of expression of all individuals who support the state. Perhaps "we" should use the state to arrest govt employees, teachers, mailmen, soldiers...who express political opinions. After all, "we" don't want them to create a Police State!

[SamuraisWisdom]

My argument is that corporations should not be treated as individuals therefore should not get the same protections from the Constitution that we do. The right to free speech should not apply to a business.

[NYgs23]

My argument is that corporations should not be treated as individuals therefore should not get the same protections from the Constitution that we do. The right to free speech should not apply to a business.

I went through all this in the OP!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad: I'm sick and tired of this thick-skulled, authoritarian bullshit. "The right to free speech should not apply to a business"??????? What has this become, the Karl Marx fansite????? If rights don't apply to businesses, they don't apply to businessmen, because businesses are made up of the property of businessmen. In other words, individuals don't get to control their own property. Well, why should this website (KarlMarxForums.com) have the right to free speech? It's not a "person" either, right? It doesn't live and breath, right? It's just an abstraction, right? Clearly, this website should be prohibited from doing anything to promote political candidates, right? Better send the FEC to shut down this website if it uses any money to for political advocacy, right??? Sounds really libertarian to me!!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[akforme]

My first reaction was this is bad until I read a couple MSM articles. They sounded like absolute propaganda, and that made me start questioning the whole thing.

Plus always remember:

Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

[BillyDkid]

But we're not talking about the officers of a corporation "pooling their money". We're talking about them using corporate money, investor money - many of whom may not agree politically with the officers - and using that money - not their own - to influence politics. Their have always been free as individuals to use their own money to promote their political views and if they all happen to be promoting the same views you can call that pooling their money.

[axiomata]

My argument is that corporations should not be treated as individuals therefore should not get the same protections from the Constitution that we do. The right to free speech should not apply to a business.
Do you apply that logic to every other grouping of individuals? Should PACs not be able to speak freely?

[thasre]

I'm 1,000,000,000% on the side of those who think Citizens United is a GREAT thing for our first amendment rights.

Everyone keeps getting so caught up on the idea of corporations being treated as legal individuals. And I can understand the frustration with that. But the 1st Amendment doesn't say, "Only individuals have a right to engage in free speech, etc." It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." This means: Speech itself, no matter what the source of the speech, or what interests the speech represents, or what the content of the speech is, is protected and may not be abridged by the government.

This is a total no-brainer. Is corporate speech speech? Yep. Did the law that the court strike down abridge corporate speech? Yessir. Does that mean that the law the court struck down abridged the free dissemination of speech? It sure did.... Well then, it was unconstitutional.

Look at our other rights guaranteed by the earliest amendments. Are religions simply individual structures? Nope, but the free exercise of them is protected. Is "the press" an individual entity? Nope, but it's freedom too is protected. Even things like militias, expressly protected by the Bill of Rights, represent a corporate interest. And an illegal search or seizure is just as illegal if what is sought and seized is the possession of a corporate union.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government action (negative rights), not a series of entitlements restricted to individuals acting as individuals (positive rights).

So even though I agree that there may be some cause for concern about what effect this ruling might have on our political discourse, I don't think those concerns override what is ultimately a great victory in terms of limiting government power over encroachments on freedom.

[NYgs23]

We're talking about them using corporate money, investor money - many of whom may not agree politically with the officers - and using that money - not their own - to influence politics.

Money the investors voluntarily give the executives to manage with the assumption that the executives would decide how to spend it. Just like how you might employ someone to manage and invest your funds. They can withdraw their investments when they like.

[revolutionary8]

I went through all this in the OP!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad: I'm sick and tired of this thick-skulled, authoritarian bullshit. "The right to free speech should not apply to a business"??????? What has this become, the Karl Marx fansite????? If rights don't apply to businesses, they don't apply to businessmen, because businesses are made up of the property of businessmen. In other words, individuals don't get to control their own property. Well, why should this website (KarlMarxForums.com) have the right to free speech? It's not a "person" either, right? It doesn't live and breath, right? It's just an abstraction, right? Clearly, this website should be prohibited from doing anything to promote political candidates, right? Better send the FEC to shut down this website if it uses any money to for political advocacy, right??? Sounds really libertarian to me!!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad:
ding.

Nice thread NY! Thank you very much for the insight. I agree 100% w/ you on this.

I about fell out of my chair when he said that Businesses should have no rights.
If Businesses have no rights, their customers have no rights. ;)
People are slipping. :p

[thasre]

But we're not talking about the officers of a corporation "pooling their money". We're talking about them using corporate money, investor money - many of whom may not agree politically with the officers - and using that money - not their own - to influence politics. Their have always been free as individuals to use their own money to promote their political views and if they all happen to be promoting the same views you can call that pooling their money.

If investors don't like how their money is being used by the corporation, they cut their losses and invest elsewhere. It's called the free market. The government didn't compel them to invest their money in that corporation; the government is under no obligation to protect their interests in how that money is used.

[NYgs23]

More articles by libertarians on the statist aggression called campaign finance reform:

Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-97.html)
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html)
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations? (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010646.asp)
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform (http://mises.org/story/625)
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance (http://mises.org/story/316)
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072299.html)
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9443)
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4275)
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html)
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n2/jillette.pdf)
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest (http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/09/mccain-feingold-at-rest)
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/14/the-big-money-boys-of-campaign)
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/john-mccains-war-on-political)
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls (http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/30/another-provision-of-the-incum)
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406b.asp)
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0203e.asp)
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/will-campaign-finance-reform-enhance-the-power-of-the-people/)
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/campaign-finance-the-symptom-not-the-problem/#)
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=221)
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics? (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448)

Now, what more do I have to do? Beat (some) people over the head with a non-aggression club?

[sofia]

I went through all this in the OP!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad: I'm sick and tired of this thick-skulled, authoritarian bullshit. "The right to free speech should not apply to a business"??????? What has this become, the Karl Marx fansite????? If rights don't apply to businesses, they don't apply to businessmen, because businesses are made up of the property of businessmen. In other words, individuals don't get to control their own property. Well, why should this website (KarlMarxForums.com) have the right to free speech? It's not a "person" either, right? It doesn't live and breath, right? It's just an abstraction, right? Clearly, this website should be prohibited from doing anything to promote political candidates, right? Better send the FEC to shut down this website if it uses any money to for political advocacy, right??? Sounds really libertarian to me!!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

amazing isnt it.

there are people on this site who would actually put corporate officers in prison for the crime of buying political advertising....all the while, the corporate media gets to give unlimited free advertising to its chosen candidates.

[NYgs23]

there are people on this site who would actually put corporate officers in prison for the crime of buying political advertising....all the while, the corporate media gets to give unlimited free advertising to its chosen candidates.

Quite a lot, unfortunately (or maybe their just very assertive). Everyone seems to have a pet aggression or two.

[SamuraisWisdom]

But we're not talking about the officers of a corporation "pooling their money". We're talking about them using corporate money, investor money - many of whom may not agree politically with the officers - and using that money - not their own - to influence politics. Their have always been free as individuals to use their own money to promote their political views and if they all happen to be promoting the same views you can call that pooling their money.

This

and...


Money the investors voluntarily give the executives to manage with the assumption that the executives would decide how to spend it. Just like how you might employ someone to manage and invest your funds. They can withdraw their investments when they like.

No, sorry, but no. When investors put money into a corporation it is with the intent of giving that corporation capital to grow so later they can get a larger return. It is not for the owners or corporate board or whoever to state their political opinions on television. If CEO's and other corporation owners feel the need to voice their opinions on TV then they can buy airtime with their own checking accounts, not the company's.

[Reason]

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI)

[aravoth]

A Corporation, cannot exist without the State, rather a Corporation is literally a creation of the state. Those of you defending Corporate rights, are defending massive intervention in the free market. It's that simple.

[NYgs23]

No, sorry, but no. When investors put money into a corporation it is with the intent of giving that corporation capital to grow so later they can get a larger return. It is not for the owners or corporate board or whoever to state their political opinions on television. If CEO's and other corporation owners feel the need to voice their opinions on TV then they can buy airtime with their own checking accounts, not the company's.

Any association of people can do whatever it wants with whatever it wants so long as it's not aggressing against others? Let me ask, if the executives use company money to purchase an ad, who are they aggressing against? The stockholders? Only if they already had a contract with the stockholders not to use their money for that purchase. Then they'd be in breach of contract. Otherwise, it's none of your business and it sure as hell isn't the state's business.

[NYgs23]

maybe no one else has noticed but pretty much every single one of the sheeple have a TV they are permanently glued to and if these corporations are going to dump millions, billions, etc into non stop sly and no doubt misleading ads the sheep will follow like mice to the cheese.

That already happens. Haven't you heard of the MSM. And in any case, it doesn't give you a right to put a gun to someone's head for spending their own money on something you don't want them to spend it on.

[NYgs23]

A Corporation, cannot exist without the State, rather a Corporation is literally a creation of the state. Those of you defending Corporate rights, are defending massive intervention in the free market. It's that simple.

I already addressed this in my OP and ten times again, but I guess that doesn't matter here on KarlMarxForumsForIlliterates.com.

[ARealConservative]

ding.

Nice thread NY! Thank you very much for the insight. I agree 100% w/ you on this.

I about fell out of my chair when he said that Businesses should have no rights.
If Businesses have no rights, their customers have no rights. ;)
People are slipping. :p

only individuals have rights.

which frankly, makes this law moot to me.

I mean, sure, we can prohibit corporations from doing things because they have no rights, but we can't stop individuals from doing things, which makes enforcement pretty much impossible.

[revolutionary8]

only individuals have rights.

which frankly, makes this law moot to me.

I mean, sure, we can prohibit corporations from doing things because they have no rights, but we can't stop individuals from doing things, which makes enforcement pretty much impossible.

I see what you are saying, but as NY pointed out, the business is made up of businesspeople.
Depending upon what industry you work in, the business model and contracts drafted for those businesses must abide by the laws set through precedent in said industry. Those laws of course apply to the individuals w/in the industry, who constitute the business/coorporation. Individuals on both side- contractor/contractee have "rights".

[Reason]

YouTube - Court green-lights corporate election spending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw5SB4JKh74)

[Dieseler]

Olbermann sure doesn't like this so it must not be a Hope and Change kind of thing. Maybe its more of a Hope Changing kind of thing.

[RonPaulCult]

NYgs23 - you are making a lot of good points. But....I still have an uneasy feeling about this ruling.

Could you(and anybody else reading) please answer a few questions I have:

1) How do you feel about foreigners, or foreign companies spending money on such ads? What about foreign governments? What if China or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela decided to spend billions in ads for or against a candidate during a US election? How about overseas corporations? How about corporations based in the United States which have heavy foreign investment?

2) Is it not true that corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible? That is my understanding and please correct me if that is wrong. But if that's the case - wouldn't we have big corporations influencing elections out of legal responsibility to their shareholders? Wouldn't they BY LAW have to help elect the most fascist of candidates possible? If we are to champion freedom at all costs - and if this way could ONLY lead to a less free society (or at least a less free economy) how can we support it?

3) I think some are being a bit intellectually dishonest when they paint such a fuzzy warm picture of what corporations are. To say they are a collective of people doesn't begin to tell the whole story. First, have you considered just how many of the shares are controlled by - you guessed it - other corporations? Especially banks! To act like you as joe blow shareholder have any say in what the corporation does is silly. Even pulling your money out of the corporation - selling your shares as some have suggested really has nothing to do with it. For the most part, corporations get money from the sale of shares ONLY on the day they go public. They take that money and they use it to build up the company - but past that date those shares are bought and sold only between other people (or companies) not the ACTUAL corporation you are "investing" in. It's a dirty secret but - investing in stocks isn't REALLY investing in a company. It's speculation that the price of the stock will rise and that you can sell it to another person like yourself for a (hopefully) profit. Granted - a rise in stock price usually (but not always) occurs when the company makes profits. But it would be THAT money - the PROFITS made from sales of whatever product or service - that will be used for ads.

I think this is an important distinction. McDonalds won't be using the 63 dollars per share I parted with when I invested in McDonalds stock. They will be using money they made when Gina bought her cheeseburger today. Think about that for a second. How can it be said INVESTORS are pulling together their money and are collectively supporting a candidate with ads when it is NOT their decision to do this (rather the decision of a few people at the top) and it's not their money doing it either?

This is too much power in the hands of so few. And it will be done with the money of people who had no say in the matter. Some will say we as consumers have the choice not to shop from companies that do such things - and I will AGREE. However, some have no choice sometimes due to economic situations and monopolies and so on. There are a lot of people out there that simple have to shop at Wal-mart to get by. Wal-mart can take that money and buy an election or two if they so desire. Again - money from the sales of Chinese made crap - not the "pool of money" from investors.

4) Last but not least - what about government ownership of corporations? It's bad enough they stole our money and gave it away to the banks in bailouts - now they are going to use our own money to influence our elections. But to think the government owns GM and Citibank! Think of the infinite loop this creates when Obama runs for re-election! Take the money from the people - give it to the corporations he controls - have them spend money to re-elect him - wash - rinse - repeat.

No - this whole thing stinks to high hell. While you may be correct the SCOTUS could rule no other way due to the language of the constitution - we may need an amendment to protect the republic. I'm all for groups of Americans pooling their money together for the sole purpose of political activity. But we can't allow the giant, government backed corporations to use their profits against the American people - just so we can be their slaves and they can make even more money.

I hope I have raised some interesting points and I would appreciate the opportunity to learn how I am wrong.

[revolutionary8]

I've come to the conclusion that some people around here have lost their minds. Some think that "all of a sudden" since the Supreme Court made sometihng "legal", that the bad corps will start acting like the good corps-
edit- wait, I have that backwards. :rolleyes:

[NYgs23]

How do you feel about foreigners, or foreign companies spending money on such ads? What about foreign governments? What if China or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela decided to spend billions in ads for or against a candidate during a US election? How about overseas corporations? How about corporations based in the United States which have heavy foreign investment?

I don't see that this applies to foreign governments. I don't even know if it applies to foreign corps; their may be other laws against that. Why would foreign corps advertising by worse than domestic corps anyway? In any case, this sort of thing already goes on; it's just more hidden. Campaign finance reform has never done anything but entrench the big parties and incumbent politicians. And, of course, the government decides where to enforce those laws and how. Why were they going after some obscure non-profit's video, when Obama had his coffers filled by Goldman-Sachs. That just shows you how phony campaign finance reform is. It just hides it all underground, while limiting freedom for those who really need it.


Is it not true that corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as possible?

I haven't heard that there's a legal obligation. How would they enforce such a thing anyway. I guess there may be laws against deliberately wasting company money. If so, they should be abolished. It doesn't justify more statism though.


If we are to champion freedom at all costs - and if this way could ONLY lead to a less free society (or at least a less free economy) how can we support it?


I don't see how campaign finance reform has led to more freedom anywhere. We've had more and more of it over a hundred years. Have we had more and more freedom. Even if that were true, the ends don't justify the means.


I think some are being a bit intellectually dishonest when they paint such a fuzzy warm picture of what corporations are.

Corporations aren't fuzzy and warm, but they're not the heart of darkness either. Leftists think they are, but that's because of they're anti-business bias. One corporation isn't the same as the next. Peter Schiff's company is a corporation.

It's just a business model. Why is it any better worse than proprietorships or partnerships? I can't figure this out. They receive certain benefits, like limited liability, from the state, yes, but so to other groups, and limited liability could be mimicked by contract anyway.


McDonalds won't be using the 63 dollars per share I parted with when I invested in McDonalds stock. They will be using money they made when Gina bought her cheeseburger today. Think about that for a second. How can it be said INVESTORS are pulling together their money and are collectively supporting a candidate with ads when it is NOT their decision to do this (rather the decision of a few people at the top) and it's not their money doing it either?

It's really beside the point. The point is that there's no act of aggression being committed. This is all voluntary. No force. No fraud.


However, some have no choice sometimes due to economic situations and monopolies and so on. There are a lot of people out there that simple have to shop at Wal-mart to get by.

That argument is used to justify virtually every economic intervention known to man.


what about government ownership of corporations?


That should be abolished, but one aggression doesn't justify another. Should welfare recipients, social security recipients, and government employees be banned from voting, donating, or paying for political ads?



While you may be correct the SCOTUS could rule no other way due to the language of the constitution - we may need an amendment to protect the republic.

Why would you even trust Congress do pass amendments or make laws in any way that would decrease its own power? If they passed such an amendment, 95% it would be structured in a way to increase govt power and 99% it would be enforced in a manner that increased govt power. Same thing with all campaign finance reform and most of the other apparatus of good govt. The only way to fix it by limiting govt power. You can't limit govt power by giving it more power.

[revolutionary8]

It's just a business model. Why is it any better worse than proprietorships or partnerships? I can't figure this out. They receive certain benefits, like limited liability, from the state, yes, but so to other groups, and limited liability could be mimicked by contract anyway.
exactly. And depending upon where you live and the stupid laws that each state spew forth, it is something to consider... it's just a LABEL. A COLLECTIVE LABEL, usually intentionaly (but somewhat co-ercively) adopted depending up certain state laws. In oreder to beat the system, you gotta know the system. Unfortunately, those who actually run the system already know the underground tunnels. That is why I am stoked on this SC decision.

[nayjevin]

Campaign finance would be a non-issue if political opinions weren't influenced by sound-byte commercials.


More articles by libertarians on the statist aggression called campaign finance reform:

Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-97.html)
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html)
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations? (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010646.asp)
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform (http://mises.org/story/625)
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance (http://mises.org/story/316)
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072299.html)
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9443)
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4275)
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html)
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n2/jillette.pdf)
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest (http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/09/mccain-feingold-at-rest)
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/14/the-big-money-boys-of-campaign)
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/john-mccains-war-on-political)
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls (http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/30/another-provision-of-the-incum)
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406b.asp)
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0203e.asp)
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/will-campaign-finance-reform-enhance-the-power-of-the-people/)
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/campaign-finance-the-symptom-not-the-problem/#)
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=221)
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics? (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448)

Now, what more do I have to do? Beat (some) people over the head with a non-aggression club?

lol... good post :)

[Dieseler]

Check this out.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
More at link...
Shit, I'll just paste the rest


The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”

For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.

Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.

When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.

Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.

Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.

This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism?

We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?

Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.

Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.

Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”

What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.

What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”

The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politican can survive now standing against them. Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn’t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?

The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.

The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is “we, the People.” This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.

If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties” and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.

That old boy is just a little aggravated I reckon, ain't he.

[MichelleHeart]

My argument is that corporations should not be treated as individuals therefore should not get the same protections from the Constitution that we do. The right to free speech should not apply to a business.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Go become a member of Democratic Underground if you're going to spew that nonsense! You sound like a bunch of commies.

[Met Income]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Go become a member of Democratic Underground if you're going to spew that nonsense! You sound like a bunch of commies.

Corporations don't actually exist. Individuals do.

[MichelleHeart]

Corporations don't actually exist. Individuals do.

And so we should regulate individuals who associate with corporations? :rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

NYGS you are confusing Joint-Stock companies with Corporations. While they are built on the same model, they are two different entities. No libertarians defend Corporations because they are an aggression both on property and in the market. Corporations would not exist without the State.

As for the ruling, I'm pretty ambivalent. These things all ready happened, just under ground. I think it's better to have it in the light of day for all to see now. Laws never stop what they intend.

Again, libertarians are avidly anti-Corporation because they aggress upon the Free-Market and are a creature of the State. Marxist Lefties dislike Corporations altogether for different reasons (They hate all business and free-markets).

[teacherone]

of course libertarians should disapprove of this ruling. if we were living in a libertarian world, corporations would have the legal right to blow as much money as they wanted on the government.

unfortunately we live in a corporate fascist state and as long as government is contracting the services of corporations, writing tax codes which benefit certain corporations, and providing public subsidies to others, then this ruling will only further the corporate takeover we all fear.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

of course libertarians should disapprove of this ruling. if we were living in a libertarian world, corporations would have the legal right to blow as much money as they wanted on the government.

unfortunately we live in a corporate fascist state and as long as government is contracting the services of corporations, writing tax codes which benefit certain corporations, and providing public subsidies to others, then this ruling will only further the corporate takeover we all fear.

If we were living in a libertarian world, there would be no State. :D

Sorry had to do it. But, other than that, I agree with the SC on this. For one, Corps. were doing this anyways. Now at least it will be in the open. Laws never stop the things they intend to.

[aravoth]

of course libertarians should disapprove of this ruling. if we were living in a libertarian world, corporations would have the legal right to blow as much money as they wanted on the government.

unfortunately we live in a corporate fascist state and as long as government is contracting the services of corporations, writing tax codes which benefit certain corporations, and providing public subsidies to others, then this ruling will only further the corporate takeover we all fear.

In a libertarian world, state sponsored corporations would not exist.

So they wouldn't be blowing money on anything. And it wouldn't matter if they did. Because the government would be so fracken small that it wouldn't matter.

[SamuraisWisdom]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Go become a member of Democratic Underground if you're going to spew that nonsense! You sound like a bunch of commies.

Are you kidding me? I've been here since the 2008 election and have a reasonable and realistic view of what libertarianism can and should be in this country. You've been here what, 4 months? Get a grip. Flipping out and calling people "commies", especially the ones who have been here from the beginning, is not going to help our image as a whole and certainly doesn't improve your credibility. It's insulting to see that after two years on this board I say one thing you disagree with and all of a sudden I'm a "communist". Sorry if I don't want to see a further corporate takeover of the political world.

[Epic]

I oppose the ruling regardless.
Corporations shouldn't even exist, they cannot exist in a free market. Not in a true free market that is free from government intervention. Because corporations ARE government intervention. Corporations only exist because of government intervention.

So why should an entity that only exists because of government and therefore absolutely love the idea of big government be allowed to promote politicians through political ads. Politicians who would favor the corporation and legislate handouts for it?

You need to read OP again - it didn't give any rights to individuals that they wouldn't have had before the corporate legal form was invented.

[RonPaulCult]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Are you kidding me? I've been here since the 2008 election and have a reasonable and realistic view of what libertarianism can and should be in this country. You've been here what, 4 months? Get a grip. Flipping out and calling people "commies", especially the ones who have been here from the beginning, is not going to help our image as a whole and certainly doesn't improve your credibility. It's insulting to see that after two years on this board I say one thing you disagree with and all of a sudden I'm a "communist". Sorry if I don't want to see a further corporate takeover of the political world.

Well you support communist/socialism in the roadways...I wouldn't be surprised if you also supported socialism and communism when it comes to fire, police, courts, sewage, waterways, etc. Am I not too far off the mark?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

They all ready pay them off. At least now its in the light of day more. Like I said, laws never stop what they intend. Unless of course you believed that our politicians weren't all ready bought and paid for?

[Stary Hickory]

The problem with the SCOTUS ruling is that it gives corporations who have already been successful in lobbying for government force to kill off competition another avenue to get what they want. Free speech is not the issue, it's all the backroom deals, and fascism that goes on in DC. We just gave corporations more leverage to get what they want from DC.

If we followed the constitution there would be no need for lobbyists and huge corporate donations.

[Angel]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

Agreed. The inevitable consequence of this will be even more politicians who are elected to serve the interests of corporations first, and to protect our liberties second, as long as it does not conflict with the interests of the corporations.

I'd like to pose one question to this thread:

Do you believe that it is in every corporation's interest for people to have individual liberty? Do you believe that they will always influence government to pass laws and legislation that will never infringe upon one's individual liberty, ability to own property, and freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labor?

[NYgs23]

NYGS you are confusing Joint-Stock companies with Corporations. While they are built on the same model, they are two different entities. No libertarians defend Corporations because they are an aggression both on property and in the market. Corporations would not exist without the State.

You're wrong. Many libertarian do defend corporations and believe that they could exist without the state:

Walter Block and J.H. Huebert, Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf)
Stephan Kinsella, Legitimizing the Corporation (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004382.html)

And as I said, even you don't, that's no reason to approve of the state regulating them however it wants. Do you support OSHA and Sarbox for corporations? Do you support the state telling govt employees like teachers and mailmen how they can spend their money? That still gives the state more power.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You're wrong. Many libertarian do defend corporations and believe that they could exist without the state:

Walter Block and J.H. Huebert, Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf)
Stephan Kinsella, Legitimizing the Corporation (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004382.html)

And as I said, even you don't, that's no reason to approve of the state regulating them however it wants. Do you support OSHA and Sarbox for corporations? Do you support the state telling govt employees like teachers and mailmen how they can spend their money? That still gives the state more power.

If you read my other posts here I am in agreement with the SC ruling. For different reasons than you however. Also, Corporations would not exist. Corporations are a creature of the State. You are confusing Joint-Stock companies and Corporations. Corporations receive privileges via the State. Both have the same organization, but they are fundamentally two different entities.

[NYgs23]

unfortunately we live in a corporate fascist state and as long as government is contracting the services of corporations, writing tax codes which benefit certain corporations, and providing public subsidies to others, then this ruling will only further the corporate takeover we all fear.

This is the Noam Chomsky argument: "Well, I'm against the state, but right now corporation takeover is an even bigger problem, so I support giving the state more power to regulate corporations."

Do you even think that if you give the state more power, it will regulate corporations in any way favorable to individual liberty? Do you think if we give Congress or any politicians the power to write campaign finance and advertising laws, they will do so in a way favorable to individual liberty? We should be happy about this because it gives these people less power to write laws governing their own elections!

[NYgs23]

If you read my other posts here I am in agreement with the SC ruling. For different reasons than you however. Also, Corporations would not exist. Corporations are a creature of the State. You are confusing Joint-Stock companies and Corporations. Corporations receive privileges via the State. Both have the same organization, but they are fundamentally two different entities.

I understand you agree with it. But you were simply wrong to say that all libertarians believe that corporations could not exist without the state. I gave you two links of three rock-solid libertarians (Walter Block, J.H. Huebert, Stephan Kinsella) who argue that corporations could exist without the state. Now, maybe you want to argue semantics: that they shouldn't be called corporations then, but they would be the same as currently existing corporations in all essential aspects.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I understand you agree with it. But you were simply wrong to say that all libertarians believe that corporations could not exist without the state. I gave you two links of three rock-solid libertarians (Walter Block, J.H. Huebert, Stephan Kinsella) who argue that corporations could exist without the state. Now, maybe you want to argue semantics: that they shouldn't be called corporations then, but they would be the same as currently existing corporations in all essential aspects.

No they wouldn't. First and foremost, Corporations would be liable for any property damage. As of now, Corporations are shielded from litigation claiming damages. They have free reign to pollute. This is just one of many things that would be different in a laissez-faire society.

I agree that only individuals act, however, the individuals who work for say, DuPont, do not own the manufacturing plant, nor the materials inside. The Corporation does. Therfore, the Corporation is liable for any aggression on anothers property (pollution).

[NYgs23]

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

It is indeed. So why do you want to give politicians the power to regulate how they get elected? Most campaign finance laws have done nothing but protect incumbents and the major political parties, just as we'd expect given that they were written by incumbent major-party congressmen.


The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action.


That has nothing to do with it. The point is that it's voluntary. If you hand $100 to George, stipulating, "Do whatever you want with this." and George spends it on a political candidate, he did not commit an act of aggression against you.

Are you worried about the shareholders' rights being violated here or just your own political goals?

[NYgs23]

No they wouldn't. First and foremost, Corporations would be liable for any property damage. As of now, Corporations are shielded from litigation claiming damages. They have free reign to pollute. This is just one of many things that would be different in a laissez-faire society.

That's you're opinion. Other libertarians disagree. Why don't you read Block and Huebert's paper, "Defending Corporations," and see how they argue that all the essential aspects of corporations, including limited liability, could exist in the free market through contract law?

I'm not interested in arguing it here though because, as I said, even if what you say is true, that still doesn't justify having the state regulate corps even more, just as it shouldn't tell a public school teacher that she can't buy a gun with the money she received from the taxpayer. One aggression doesn't justify another.

As for license to pollute, that's an aggressive act, but again, one doesn't justify another.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's you're opinion. Other libertarians disagree. Why don't you read Block and Huebert's paper, "Defending Corporations," and see how they argue that all the essential aspects of corporations, including limited liability, could exist in the free market through contract law?

I'm not interested in arguing it here though because, as I said, even if what you say is true, that still doesn't justify having the state regulate corps even more, just as it shouldn't tell a public school teacher that she can't buy a gun with the money she received from the taxpayer. One aggression doesn't justify another.

As for license to pollute, that's an aggressive act, but again, one doesn't justify another.

Where am I advocating an aggressive act? Removing limited liability is aggressive? Tell that to the people who have their air, land, and water polluted. You are stopping these people from receiving their just remuneration. That to me, is a clear violation of NAP.

[RonPaulCult]

NYgs23 - in your opinion should corporations be allowed to donate (unlimited amounts?) money to candidates?

[erowe1]

NYgs23 - in your opinion should corporations be allowed to donate (unlimited amounts?) money to candidates?

Another way of wording that question is, "Should we as individuals be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates not only on our own but also in tandem with other individuals via corporations?"

I don't see any way to avoid the answer that we should be allowed to.

[mczerone]

I oppose the ruling regardless.
Corporations shouldn't even exist, they cannot exist in a free market. Not in a true free market that is free from government intervention. Because corporations ARE government intervention. Corporations only exist because of government intervention.

So why should an entity that only exists because of government and therefore absolutely love the idea of big government be allowed to promote politicians through political ads. Politicians who would favor the corporation and legislate handouts for it?

Corporations would indeed exist without government, they just wouldn't use gov't law to incorporate. Their would be creditor associations sponsoring 'corporations' under the conditions of bankruptcy agreements and civil liability conditions.

Being able to organize a lasting "corporation" regardless of the identities who own or control it is a very valuable service, one that the govt was all too eager to control under State monopoly.

Because certain states (i.e. Delaware and NJ) began to relax their "residency" requirements, however, the incorporation statutes of varying states became more and more representative of a free-market solution, as the costs of choice of law were reduced to near zero for any mid-sized entity. The State laws competed for the patronage of businessmen, and the law developed as though the state monopoly on bankruptcy proceedings and contract liability never existed.

[RonPaulCult]

Another way of wording that question is, "Should we as individuals be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates not only on our own but also in tandem with other individuals via corporations?"

I don't see any way to avoid the answer that we should be allowed to.

That's not how corporations work. But fine - if we're going to ignore that I'll ask you another question.

Should a non-american - anywhere in the world be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a united states political candidate?

[mczerone]

No they wouldn't. First and foremost, Corporations would be liable for any property damage. As of now, Corporations are shielded from litigation claiming damages. They have free reign to pollute. This is just one of many things that would be different in a laissez-faire society.

I agree that only individuals act, however, the individuals who work for say, DuPont, do not own the manufacturing plant, nor the materials inside. The Corporation does. Therfore, the Corporation is liable for any aggression on anothers property (pollution).

This is a problem with Monopoly tort law, not corporate law. Any rich individual would be just as insulated as would a corporation as long as an actor can show "value" in his polluting activity that outbalances the harms. Don't blame corporate law for the faults of local monopoly laws - the former only concern the internal workings of corporations, and the creditors and debtors involved. The latter is what gives polluters privilege, regardless of which State law was chosen to incorporate the entity.

[NYgs23]

Where am I advocating an aggressive act? Removing limited liability is aggressive?

Removing state-granted limited liability is fine, although many libertarians think that limited liability could exist in a free market through contract. But that's not my point. My point is that, regardless of state-granted limited liability, it's still permissible for corporations to spend money on advertising because one doesn't have anything to do with the other. A farmer may receive farm subsidies, but that doesn't mean the state should take away his right to own a gun.

[erowe1]

That's not how corporations work. But fine - if we're going to ignore that I'll ask you another question.

Should a non-american - anywhere in the world be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a united states political candidate?

I actually didn't say anything about how corporations work, only that individuals have a right to donate money to candidates via corporations, and that to prohibit them from doing so is to infringe on their individual rights.

To answer your question, I am compelled to say yes.

I can't see any way to avoid saying that all individuals, no matter where they live, have the God given right to spend their money how they please, including purchasing billboards (which then become their property) and putting political messages on those billboards, including messages urging Americans to vote for some candidate. These individuals also have the right to enter into contracts with groups of other individuals who all have those same rights wherein they pool their resources to fund such things together and delegate to some board of directors the decision making over how those funds are spent. One example of such a group would be a candidate's campaign committee. Therefore, foreign individuals have a right to donate money to an American politician's campaign committee.

[NYgs23]

That's not how corporations work. But fine - if we're going to ignore that I'll ask you another question.

Should a non-american - anywhere in the world be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a united states political candidate?

Does the state have the authority to use the force of the gun to prevent it? If they do, they'll only use it against non-establishment candidates who receive foreign donations, not against establishment candidates who receive them. You are not going to get "good government" by having Congress pass laws to regulate it's own elections. They'll just regulate them in their favor. It's chasing rainbows to seek "good government."

[NYgs23]

Therefore, foreign individuals have a right to donate money to an American politician's campaign committee.

And, of course, by the same token, Americans have a right to donate money to foreign campaigns. That means we could donate money to foreign pro-liberty candidates.

[mczerone]

Should a non-american - anywhere in the world be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a united states political candidate?

Umm, you're creating a different question. There are certain rights enumerated within the constitution, such as speech and press, that the courts are going to try their best to preserve for all people.

Other rights have been "created" by granting those rights to some people, and the courts will then try their best to apply those rights to all citizens equally, such as the right to vote and the right to privacy. This is where political donations fall, and thus the right to directly support a candidate is only extended to citizens.


The actual case of Citizens United, however, does not deal with contributions to a candidate, but to paid political ads. This is pure speech, not a donation to a candidate, and as such cannot be placed under prior restraint under the first amendment. This applies to USA people, legal people (corporations/partnerships/etc.), and non-US citizens equally. You are free to spend 4 million dollars running Super Bowl ads about how great Ron Paul is. So is Daniel Hannan (EU statesman). So is Euro Pacific Capital. Theoretically even other governments are protected, so Cuba could pay to run ads supporting political candidates. I doubt that it would be a good public-relations move, but Cuba and the publisher would be protected from criminal or civil liability.

[RonPaulCult]

I give you guys credit for being consistent. One more question for you though. Should a foreign government be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a political campaign.

Should China be allowed to donate billions to Obama's campaign in 2012?

[NYgs23]

I give you guys credit for being consistent. One more question for you though. Should a foreign government be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a political campaign.

Should China be allowed to donate billions to Obama's campaign in 2012?

I would say no, but so much for "good government" reasons, but because those are Chinese taxpayer dollars. To accept them is like accepting stolen goods, making one an accessory to the crime. Therefore, it's an aggressive crime with victims (the Chinese taxpayers).

[PBrady]

This issue just makes me think of that group "Billionaires for Bush":

http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-6/inauguration-protest-corporations.jpg

[erowe1]

I give you guys credit for being consistent. One more question for you though. Should a foreign government be allowed to donate an unlimited amount of money to a political campaign.

Should China be allowed to donate billions to Obama's campaign in 2012?

If by "should" you mean, would it be morally right, then no, it wouldn't, because that money isn't theirs to spend. If a bunch of Chinese people voluntarily combine their funds for use of funding political speech in America, that's their right. But they don't have the right to coerce their neighbors through threats of legal force to contribute.

Edit: I see I should have read NYgs23's answer before I started typing.

[RonPaulCult]

I would say no, but so much for "good government" reasons, but because those are Chinese taxpayer dollars. To accept them is like accepting stolen goods, making one an accessory to the crime. Therefore, it's an aggressive crime with victims (the Chinese taxpayers).

Have you any idea how many shares of US stock the Chinese government owns? And not just China, but many countries too? I couldn't agree more - that money was taken by force. So it will be a double insult when it's used against the voters of the United States.

The SCOTUS has now created a legal avenue for any foreign government (any foreigner too) to influence the elections of our country. All they need is money - and lots of it - and they can use the power of television, radio and internet advertising to influence voters as they see fit. All they have to do is use their proxies - the corporations - to force their influence.

I think back to the creation of the Federal Reserve - and how the most elite of bankers were behind the scheme. To think how many of them were European bankers too!

Our freedom will be non-existent until we figure out a way to stop the influence of powerful corporations - both domestic and foreign - over our politicians.

I don't claim to have all of the answers but - I hate to say it - it will likely take some sort of reform that limits this OUTSIDER influence.

We have to use force AGAINST the government to MAKE them work for us and not corporations - not foreign entities.

[TheEvilDetector]

Corporate money used for political influence may not reflect the political vews of shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company.

In my opinion, political contributions, whether direct or indirect, should be subject to shareholder approval, with the beneficiaries of such contributions clearly communicated to the shareholders in shareholder meetings.

This, however, turns corporations into openly political organisations, and from the business point of view, will divert energy from government independent profit oriented activities
into government sponsored (ie. tax payer) profit oriented activities. It will strengthen the bonds between corporations and governments and make it harder for government to govern over them with an unbiased view.

It also empowers a generally more wealthy class of people (ie. shareholders) with stronger political influence via corporate donations than the average citizen who may be a simple worker who only gets to vote every now and then.

In short, this decision, does not serve the average american citizen, but could be made more palatable with transparency requirements for the shareholders.

Also, I wanted to add, that if anyone doesn't want to be a corp slave, they can start a business.

I think that too much whinging does you no good, if divorced from political power, because it frustrates and stalls you in your personal ambitions, whatever they may be.

When the political destiny of the country isn't panning out the way you had hoped, one can always try to get a large number of people on the streets, hoping that they have the same or similar views as you.

Unfortunately, it will be hard to convince a lot of them to turn the TV off and put the remote down though, then to undo decades old brainwashing....

So we come back to the old tried and tested method of money buying politicians. It may be that to make the real changes that are needed, nothing will work better than donating to the politicians, serving
their self-interest in exchange for their adoption of your pro-constitutional views, rather than appealing to their inner sense of what is right and wrong.

Politicians and prostitutes have some things in common and it may be quite some time before truly principled men take positions of power, until that time, it may be best to consider buying politicians so
that they support your views. After all, it works for those who detest liberties.

"Put your money where you mouth is". A sign of a degraded society is having to buy morality back.

[NYgs23]

The SCOTUS has now created a legal avenue for any foreign government (any foreigner too) to influence the elections of our country.

I haven't heard that. I'm sure if this ruling did that we would have heard about it. Governments aren't private entities. In any case, if the Chinese govt takes over the American govt maybe they'll make it more capitalistic :rolleyes:


Our freedom will be non-existent until we figure out a way to stop the influence of powerful corporations - both domestic and foreign - over our politicians.

When did this site become NoamChomskyForums.com? I care more about politicians holding power over businessmen than businessmen holding power over politicians. What do you think the problem is? The power of the state? Or only the power of the state wielded by private businesses? If it's the latter, you're just another leftist. That's what they worry about. They're perfectly fine with the all-powerful state, so long as it's not influenced by those eeevil businesses.


I don't claim to have all of the answers but - I hate to say it - it will likely take some sort of reform that limits this OUTSIDER influence.

Do you trust Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to write and enforce laws "limiting outsider influence" from Congress?


We have to use force AGAINST the government to MAKE them work for us...

"We have to use force to make sparkley unicorns to fly out of magic bags."

[NYgs23]

Corporate money used for political influence may not reflect the political vews of shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company.

So? The shareholders give the executives the authority to do what they choose with their money. If I hand George my money and say, "Spend this on what you think best." I can't complain if he spends it on something I don't like.


In my opinion, political contributions, whether direct or indirect, should be subject to shareholder approval

That should be decided by the individuals involved, not the govt. When did everyone on this site completing lose their understanding of how voluntary interaction works and how the state works?


It will strengthen the bonds between corporations and governments and make it harder for government to govern over them with an unbiased view.


Yeah, and water will become wet, the sky will become blue, and shit will start to stink.


It also empowers a generally more wealthy class of people (ie. shareholders)[with stronger political influence

I thought you said the problem was that the shareholders didn't have the power. Also, how do you know the shareholders are generally rich? Is everyone with money in 401(k)s, CDs, and mutual funds rich? Also, so what if they were rich? Does that mean they have less rights over their property than the working class? Again, when did this become NoamChomskyForums.com???


...corporate donations than the average citizen who may be a simple worker who only gets to vote every now and then.


Well, here at NoamChomskyForums.com we believe in raising the minimum wage, making the income tax more progressive, strengthening the "social safety net," and tightening regulations on safety in the workplace, non-discrimination, and on complicated financial derivatives. Right? Or did I come to the wrong place?


In short, this decision, does not serve the average american citizen, but could be made more palatable with transparency requirements for the shareholders.

I strongly approve of McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, and Barney Frank's new financial regulations, don't you?


...if anyone doesn't want to be a corp slave, they can start a business.

Strengthening the antitrust laws will help that. Perhaps we of NoamChomskyForums.com should beg our wise congressmen to simply prohibit businesses from growing beyond a certain size. What a great win for egalitarianism and worker's struggle!

[Bossobass]

Wal-Mart for President 2012

Bosso

[Thrashertm]

More articles by libertarians on the statist aggression called campaign finance reform:

Ron Paul, [URL="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336"]"Campaign Now, what more do I have to do? Beat (some) people over the head with a non-aggression club?

Thank you for starting this thread. I agree 100% with you. The infantile libs refuse to acknowledge their responsibility in being citizens and standing against corporate interests. As usual, they want the government to take care of it for them.

[Thrashertm]

only individuals have rights.

which frankly, makes this law moot to me.

I mean, sure, we can prohibit corporations from doing things because they have no rights, but we can't stop individuals from doing things, which makes enforcement pretty much impossible.

But the govt can't prohibit corporations from engaging in speech, as that violates the 1st amendment. The Bill of Rights restricts government power.

[Thrashertm]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

Yes, corps should be able to donate directly to candidates (they pretty much do that anyway). We just need to be more vigilant and use sites like opensecrets.org and vote in the marketplace with our wallets and stock.

[Met Income]

And so we should regulate individuals who associate with corporations? :rolleyes:

No, we shouldn't give special status to abstract ideas. If individuals want to donate, go for it.

[Met Income]

Those of you who support the ruling - would you also support direct campaign contributions to the candidates?

How far should we let "freedom" take it? Should corporations be allowed to send direct deposits of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of candidates? They already wine and dine them and give them high paying jobs once out of office. But hey - corporations should be allowed to do what they want with their money right?

This is not a free markets issue. This is a free elections issue.

Our political system was set up so that our politicians would represent the PEOPLE not corporations. Be HONEST - which do politicians today represent? Since we all know the answer is corporations - now ask yourself why? It's obviously because the corporations buy them off. It is corporate money that gets them re-elected and we ALL know it.

We must put an end to this. You can call me a marxist if you want to - I don't care. I'm sick of corporations controlling the money supply, our foreign policy, and pretty much everything else. I'm sick of our corporate owned congress giving untold billions in bailouts to the corporations.

Obviously, the only true solution is to sink the size of the federal government to as small a size as possible. But will we EVER be able to lower taxes and shrink the size of government so long as corporations own our politicians? HELL NO.

The OP and others claim that corporations are simply made up of a group of people - investors. As I wrote in my last response, this is not even close to being the truth. Shareholders aren't binding together (like we did on here for the blimp and other things) to take political action. The corporations have a few elites at the helm sending untold millions to the politicians. It's the banks that own a great deal of the shares to begin with. Get with the picture people!

Our founding fathers said we the PEOPLE. Not we the Goldman Sachs. Not we the Haliburton.

Campaign contributions can cause corruption. No doubt. But it's still just a voluntary transaction, so it cannot be immoral. The problem is that is the State. Fix that and then campaign contributions don't matter.

[Thrashertm]

I would say no, but so much for "good government" reasons, but because those are Chinese taxpayer dollars. To accept them is like accepting stolen goods, making one an accessory to the crime. Therefore, it's an aggressive crime with victims (the Chinese taxpayers).

See, I don't see how under a consistent reading of the 1st amendment the federal government can ban foreign governments from donating. The 1st amendment is brief and clear - it restricts the govt from making any law to restrict speech.

That said, perhaps states could pass laws preventing their national politicians from accepting this kind of cash or that kind of cash.

[NYgs23]

No, we shouldn't give special status to abstract ideas. If individuals want to donate, go for it.

The funds in the corporate account used to purchase the ad would not be an abstract idea. Nor would the person who actually withdraws them in order to purchase it. The only question is: does that person have the right to withdraw those funds in order to purchase that ad. I say yes.

[MichelleHeart]

The funds in the corporate account used to purchase the ad would not be an abstract idea. Nor would the person who actually withdraws them in order to purchase it. The only question is: does that person have the right to withdraw those funds in order to purchase that ad. I say yes.

You go, girl! :D

[NYgs23]

See, I don't see how under a consistent reading of the 1st amendment the federal government can ban foreign governments from donating. The 1st amendment is brief and clear - it restricts the govt from making any law to restrict speech.

That said, perhaps states could pass laws preventing their national politicians from accepting this kind of cash or that kind of cash.

Well, I was thinking in terms of the natural law. I don't know about the constitutional legality. I thought maybe it could be considered treason but I see the Constitution states, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I wouldn't have a problem with a constitutional amendment to that effect. States are aggressive institutions. Morally speaking, they do not have the right to spend their forcibly acquired money, any more than pirates do.

[NYgs23]

You go, girl! :D

Thanks, but I'm a man.

[MichelleHeart]

Thanks, but I'm a man.

I know. I was just being encouraging. Keep preaching, dude! :cool:

[denison]

NYgs23 - you are making a lot of good points. But....I still have an uneasy feeling about this ruling.

Could you(and anybody else reading) please answer a few questions I have:

1) How do you feel about foreigners, or foreign companies spending money on such ads? What about foreign governments? What if China or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela decided to spend billions in ads for or against a candidate during a US election? How about overseas corporations? How about corporations based in the United States which have heavy foreign investment?


America meddles in the politics of foreign countries all the time, i.e. assassinating democratically elected leaders(Iran/South America etc...) , you're afraid that they'll give you a little taste of your own medicine?


Tough cookie.

[zade]

While it may be true that by the principles of a perfect libertarian world, corporations should be able to air whatever they want whenever they want, we don't have that ideal world, we should be realistic, and so this ruling is not a step I view as wise at this time.

It is part of an ongoing trend of increasing the power, influence, and "rights" of the corporations while the trend of individual rights is that they are being trampled upon.

Much like many of us would say we should make our priority getting rid of corporate welfare rather than targeting poor people on welfare, we should not be focusing on how we can expand a "corporation's right" to free speech, while violations of individual free speech still exist.

The influence of this is that candidates are now going to benefit more than ever by selling themselves to corporate interests and special interests. Since that's already a problem, I am content with restrictions on the "free speech of corporations" (those poor corporations!) They'll survive.

[Andrew-Austin]

I guess what I am most worried about is the corruption that spawns from allowing corporations to make political ads in favor of their stooges. After all not many corporations favor lassiez-faire, they favor any form of anti-free market interventionism that favors them at the expense of others. But the root of this problem comes from the corruption and infeasibility of democracy itself however.

Its good to see the Supreme Court stick up for liberty when it matters the most. /sarcasm :rolleyes:

[RonPaulCult]

When did this site become NoamChomskyForums.com? I care more about politicians holding power over businessmen than businessmen holding power over politicians. What do you think the problem is? The power of the state? Or only the power of the state wielded by private businesses? If it's the latter, you're just another leftist. That's what they worry about. They're perfectly fine with the all-powerful state, so long as it's not influenced by those eeevil businesses.

When did this site become MakeTheSameUnfunnyJokeOverAndOverForums.com?

All you want to do is call people who slightly disagree with you leftists or other such slurs.

Let me make it clear for you NewYorkGoldmanSachs23 - I am NOT down with an all-powerful state. Although, I probably PREFER it to an all-powerful state in the hands of corporations which is what we have now and which we will probably always have thanks to things like this recent ruling.

Maybe it isn't free-market or libertarian of me - but I don't like putting my country up for sale on ebay every election cycle.

Nobody here wants to limit freedom of speech or even the freedom of business to do as it pleases. But remember our FIRST priority should always be limiting the power of the government. When our politicians are allowed to be bribed by ultra powerful corporations we are giving them too much power. Our politicians belong to us and not wall street. Why are some afraid to hold power over our government?

[NYgs23]

Nobody here wants to limit freedom of speech or even the freedom of business to do as it pleases.

You do indeed. You want to have politicians pass decrees to send men in blue costumes to break down the door of a businessman's home, put a gun to his head, and throw him in a cage, if he spends money that was voluntarily placed under his management and control to purchase an ad of a sort you don't like. That's the reality of it, no matter how much you argue otherwise.


But remember our FIRST priority should always be limiting the power of the government.

Which you somehow want to do by given the state even more power.


Our politicians belong to us and not wall street.

No, our politicians don't belong to us; they are our slavemasters and always will be. The state will always be controlled by the powerful few, no matter what laws you pass or how many times you pull the lever in the booth.

[akforme]

Here's 3 things that I see

1. They did not decide corporations are people, they decided that a long time ago.

2. Because of that ruling we can either lets corps have the 1st and all of us, or take it from all of us.

3. Ok, lets take the assumption they made the mistake and gave corps too much power. But are you willing to give up your rights to fix it? Then why are you against the patriot act? It's a fix to our mistake of being in the middle east for so long. And doesn't this encourage the government to make more mistakes that can result in us giving up our rights?

[FrankRep]

Veterans Today: Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227976

[NYgs23]

Veterans Today: Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227976

Those articles are total bunk. First of all, SCOTUS did not say and has never said that corporations are people. The law doesn't say that. It's never said that. That's paranoid hysterical socialist garbage. A "legal person" is just a convenient construct used in specific circumstances for the sake of efficiency that could be imitated through a series of contracts. And it has nothing to do with this ruling, which is about real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings spending actual money that they just happen to have pooled inside a corporate structure. So this crap about "corporate people" running for president is just a cartoon reality, where when the sun "smiles" upon you, it actually has a face. I'm sick and tired of this anti-business propaganda.

[robert9712000]

I think your looking at the issue from just one perspective,when it applies to many that need there proper consideration.

First off ,is the deal with foreign companies being allowed to donate to our candidates.The issue with that is that it creates a conflict of interest,because some corporations are run completely by there governments and that would open the backdoor to allow other governments to try to influence our government through a third party.

This is the same concept of why the office of presidency must be by a natural born citizen as to hinder other countries from trying to have influence on our government

The second issue is the fear of corporations representing there interests not the individual.A libertarians biggest fight is individual rights,not collective rights.The collective rights is what says we should all be garuteed health insurance.

another real life example of a possible situation of conflict of interests is say that corporation A wants to build a new plant on farmer B's property but cant get the land because the farmer B doesn't want to sell and the current law wouldn't allow them to take it ,so they find a congressman in there district who would change the law so that the corporation A could take farmer B's land.So to help get him elected they flood his campaign with money.

You then need to ask yourself whose rights are more important to protect when there's a conflict of interests the farmer B as a individual or the corporation A as a collective interest

The final issue is if you want to be fair,either let the individual be able to donate as much as they want to a candidate or limit the amount a corporation can donate just like the individual is limited

[teacherone]

Originally Posted by NYgs23
When did this site become NoamChomskyForums.com? I care more about politicians holding power over businessmen than businessmen holding power over politicians. What do you think the problem is? The power of the state? Or only the power of the state wielded by private businesses? If it's the latter, you're just another leftist. That's what they worry about. They're perfectly fine with the all-powerful state, so long as it's not influenced by those eeevil businesses.

you're either trolling or you're a gleeful ignorant.

the reason i fear business controlling our politicians is because politicians control MY, YOUR, EVERYONE's money.

you know as well as i do the corporations only donate to political candidates to get a chance to dig their fingers into the public trough.

as long as government has the power to TAX, and use public money to contract the services of corporations, give them favorable tax breaks and subsidies WITH MY MONEY, then i would rather not have businesses controlling said politicians.

if the day comes when government a) stops taxing the public, or b) stops contracting corporations and subsidizing them... then great, corporations can give all they want to any politician they wish.

perhaps a happy medium would be a bill which forced any politician who received money from a corporation to recuse himself from any legislation which affected that corporation in any way. this would not LIMIT your beloved businesses in any way, but rather LIMIT government...something we all want to do.

then the corps could donate away. and i couldn't care less if they did.

[low preference guy]

Glenn Greenwald writes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html):


So I'll ask again -- of you and anyone who claims that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights under the Constitution:

Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Do they have the right to do that to the offices of labor unions?

How about your local business on the corner which is incorporated?

The only thing stopping them from doing this is the Fourth Amendment. If you believe that corporations have no constitutional rights because they're not persons, what possible objections could you voice if Congress empowered the FBI to do these things?

Can they seize the property (the buildings and cars and bank accounts) of those entities without due process or just compensation? If you believe that corporations have no Constitutional rights, what possible constitutional objections could you have to such laws and actions?

Could Congress pass a law tomorrow providing that any corporation - including non-profit advocacy groups -- which criticize American wars shall be fined $100,000 for each criticism? What possible constitutional objection could you have to that?

[klamath]

you're either trolling or you're a gleeful ignorant.

the reason i fear business controlling our politicians is because politicians control MY, YOUR, EVERYONE's money.

you know as well as i do the corporations only donate to political candidates to get a chance to dig their fingers into the public trough.

as long as government has the power to TAX, and use public money to contract the services of corporations, give them favorable tax breaks and subsidies WITH MY MONEY, then i would rather not have businesses controlling said politicians.

if the day comes when government a) stops taxing the public, or b) stops contracting corporations and subsidizing them... then great, corporations can give all they want to any politician they wish.

perhaps a happy medium would be a bill which forced any politician who received money from a corporation to recuse himself from any legislation which affected that corporation in any way. this would not LIMIT your beloved businesses in any way, but rather LIMIT government...something we all want to do.

then the corps could donate away. and i couldn't care less if they did.

The general assumption that the only reason corporations donate to politicians is bull.
Let's make a up a little senario. Say five guys get together "incorporate" and pool their money and buy a tract of forest land, a feller buncher and a yarder. Say they harvest their tract of land in a sustainable way and provide for their faimily by the wealth they create. Now lets say a radical environmentalist runs for congress on the platform to ban all logging on private land. The guys decide that they want the other guy that says that as long as the loggers don't harm others with the harvest it is none of the governemnts business. So the the free trade congressmen wins but he is barred from voting on any logging legislation.

[Pauls' Revere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

[I]Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[4][/I

It sounds like the 12th man on the field while the other team has 11.

and we bitched because RP didnt get airtime!?!

[NYgs23]

Judge Napolitano agrees with ruling:

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI&feature=player_embedded)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - A Non-Deranged, Law-Based Special Comment! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFGpoxnbfeI&feature=player_embedded)

[RonPaulCult]

you're either trolling or you're a gleeful ignorant.

the reason i fear business controlling our politicians is because politicians control MY, YOUR, EVERYONE's money.

you know as well as i do the corporations only donate to political candidates to get a chance to dig their fingers into the public trough.

as long as government has the power to TAX, and use public money to contract the services of corporations, give them favorable tax breaks and subsidies WITH MY MONEY, then i would rather not have businesses controlling said politicians.

if the day comes when government a) stops taxing the public, or b) stops contracting corporations and subsidizing them... then great, corporations can give all they want to any politician they wish.

perhaps a happy medium would be a bill which forced any politician who received money from a corporation to recuse himself from any legislation which affected that corporation in any way. this would not LIMIT your beloved businesses in any way, but rather LIMIT government...something we all want to do.

then the corps could donate away. and i couldn't care less if they did.

All people know how to do on this forum is call others trolls. Ugh.

And I agree with everything you just said so I guess I'm not all that ignorant. Or both of us are.

I'm just not sure how we're going to get government to stop taxing us when corporations love the taxes because it is stolen from we the people and given to them.

[nayjevin]

It seems that there are folks at LibertyForest who disagree with these articles?


More articles by libertarians on the statist aggression called campaign finance reform:

Ron Paul, "Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=336)
Lew Rockwell, Corruption in Government? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/4-97.html)
Anthony Gregory, Campaign Finance Reform, Censorship and Michael Moore (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html)
Stephan Kinsella, What's Wrong with Campaign Finance Regulations? (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010646.asp)
Jude Blanchette, The Corruption of Reform (http://mises.org/story/625)
Tibor Machan, Corruption and Campaign Finance (http://mises.org/story/316)
Richard Pilon, Constitutional Issues Related to Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp072299.html)
Robert Levy, Money, Politics and the Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9443)
Patrick Basham, Campaign Finance Fantasyland (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4275)
Bradley Smith, Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238.html)
Lillian BeVier, Campaign Finance "Reform" Proposals: A First Amendment Analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html)
Penn Jilette, Campaign Finance's Funny Loophole (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n2/jillette.pdf)
Jonathan Rauch, McCain-Feingold at Rest (http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/09/mccain-feingold-at-rest)
Brian Doherty, The Big Money Boys of Campaign Finance Reform (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/14/the-big-money-boys-of-campaign)
Bradley Smith, John McCain's War on Political Speech (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/john-mccains-war-on-political)
Jacob Sullum, Another Provision of the Incumbent Protection Act Falls (http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/30/another-provision-of-the-incum)
Sheldon Richmond, Did Business Want Campaign-Finance “Reform”? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406b.asp)
Jacob Hornberger, Real Campaign-Finance Reform (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0203e.asp)
Russell Roberts, Will Campaign Finance Reform Enhance the Power of the People? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/will-campaign-finance-reform-enhance-the-power-of-the-people/)
John Wenders, Campaign Finance: The Symptom, Not the Problem (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/campaign-finance-the-symptom-not-the-problem/#)
Robert Higgs, The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=221)
Jeffrey Milyo, Do Campaign Contributions Corrupt Politics? (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=448)

Learn first!

[axiomata]

This libertarian movement is getting awfully populist lately.

I understand the emotional appeal of populism, and it can be a useful tool at times, but intellectually it leaves a lot to be desired.

For example, I don't mind that anti bankster populism because it meshes with the intellectual argument against bailouts and special privileges for the financial class. Likewise, I don't mind anti-corporation populism so long as it is in relation to opposition to subsidies and special preferences. However, we've got to put our foot down at anti-corporation populism as it relates to this ruling.

Intellectual debates about concepts of corporate personhood, whether the state is necessary for corporations etc. are perfectly valid, but they are theoretical and do not directly play a role in the simple question of whether given the system we have now, regulations on corporate spending on political elections violates the 1st Amendment.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Intellectual debates about concepts of corporate personhood, whether the state is necessary for corporations etc. are perfectly valid, but they are theoretical and do not directly play a role in the simple question of whether given the system we have now, regulations on corporate spending on political elections violates the 1st Amendment.

Its not theory. It's pretty clear to people that understand the current system of rights and government privileges the only reason corporations (which are an entity created and empowered in state law, not an association of people with natural rights) have constitutional standing is the state creates and gives it standing. It's like the federal reserve but instead of creating money out of thin air the state creates people out of thin air. If you voluntarily choose to conduct business under this government privilege don't bitch when government regulates it in a manner you do not like. If the state has the power to create a person and constitutional standing out of thin air it has the power to regulate any aspect of it. And it does because there are statues in state laws that create limitations on directors, etc that do not provide for the same natural rights an individual has. Here is an excerpt of my state statues:

607.0302 General powers.--Unless its articles of incorporation provide otherwise, every corporation has perpetual duration and succession in its corporate name and has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs, including without limitation power:

(1) To sue and be sued, complain, and defend in its corporate name;

(2) To have a corporate seal, which may be altered at will and to use it or a facsimile of it, by impressing or affixing it or in any other manner reproducing it;

(3) To purchase, receive, lease, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, improve, use, and otherwise deal with real or personal property or any legal or equitable interest in property wherever located;

(4) To sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, create a security interest in, lease, exchange, and otherwise dispose of all or any part of its property;

(5) To lend money to, and use its credit to assist, its officers and employees in accordance with s. 607.0833;

(6) To purchase, receive, subscribe for, or otherwise acquire; own, hold, vote, use, sell, mortgage, lend, pledge, or otherwise dispose of; and deal in and with shares or other interests in, or obligations of, any other entity;

(7) To make contracts and guarantees, incur liabilities, borrow money, issue its notes, bonds, and other obligations (which may be convertible into or include the option to purchase other securities of the corporation), and secure any of its obligations by mortgage or pledge of any of its property, franchises, and income and make contracts of guaranty and suretyship which are necessary or convenient to the conduct, promotion, or attainment of the business of a corporation the majority of the outstanding stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by the contracting corporation; a corporation which owns, directly or indirectly, a majority of the outstanding stock of the contracting corporation; or a corporation the majority of the outstanding stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by a corporation which owns, directly or indirectly, the majority of the outstanding stock of the contracting corporation, which contracts of guaranty and suretyship shall be deemed to be necessary or convenient to the conduct, promotion, or attainment of the business of the contracting corporation, and make other contracts of guaranty and suretyship which are necessary or convenient to the conduct, promotion, or attainment of the business of the contracting corporation;

(8) To lend money, invest and reinvest its funds, and receive and hold real and personal property as security for repayment;

(9) To conduct its business, locate offices, and exercise the powers granted by this act within or without this state;

(10) To elect directors and appoint officers, employees, and agents of the corporation and define their duties, fix their compensation, and lend them money and credit;

(11) To make and amend bylaws, not inconsistent with its articles of incorporation or with the laws of this state, for managing the business and regulating the affairs of the corporation;

(12) To make donations for the public welfare or for charitable, scientific, or educational purposes;

(13) To transact any lawful business that will aid governmental policy;

(14) To make payments or donations or do any other act not inconsistent with law that furthers the business and affairs of the corporation;

(15) To pay pensions and establish pension plans, pension trusts, profit-sharing plans, share bonus plans, share option plans, and benefit or incentive plans for any or all of its current or former directors, officers, employees, and agents and for any or all of the current or former directors, officers, employees, and agents of its subsidiaries;

(16) To provide insurance for its benefit on the life of any of its directors, officers, or employees, or on the life of any shareholder for the purpose of acquiring at his or her death shares of its stock owned by the shareholder or by the spouse or children of the shareholder; and

(17) To be a promoter, incorporator, partner, member, associate, or manager of any corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, or other entity.

[newbitech]

So I wonder why corps are allowed to take out tv ads and NOT allowed to contribute to candidates? Hmmm... Sounds like a contradiction there.

This ruling is like inviting Ron Paul to a debate and asking him 1 question and then going, "See we included him in the debate!" Yay victory for the Ron Paul campaign, he got asked a question!

This ruling is a slap in the face to any individual who values their free speech. This ruling is like the Federal Reserve pumping trillions into the economy and the stock market rising on inflated dollars and then Bernake going, "See its a recovery!"

Sorry, I disagree with the judge. If this ruling was about free speech, then why are corps still not allowed to contribute directly to a candidate?

And oh by the way, the individuals in those corps were never prohibited from airing the video AS A CORP if they would have followed the law AS A CORP. Nope, they wanted to be able to contribute shadow money, that is, money that was being aimed a politics representing views that might not necessarily been the views expressed when they solicited the funds. Shame on the corp that cannot follow the rules that allowed it to exist. And shame on the judges for trying to use the first amendment as a reason to bend those rules to some arbitrary explanation of person-hood while consolidating even more power in the hands of the almighty Federal Government. All in the guise of free speech.

This ruling hasn't helped me ONE BIT and I have no confidence that the "libertarian" cheer leading is going to embolden the SCOTUS to begin trending towards negating even more unconstitutional laws. Quite the opposite, the trend has been for the SCOTUS to overturn state and local laws in areas having no bearing on the federal government or federal laws. IN effect, the SCOTUS is creating new Federal legislation that renders states impotent when it comes to regulating intrastate commerce.

The more I think about this ruling and how people are cheering on the SC, the more sick I feel about the willingness for people to just take whatever their "leaders" say as absolute truth. Sure there is a victory in that the Supreme Court actually upheld the constitution. But that was only part of the ruling. This wasn't just about McCain-Feingold. I am sorry, but that 2 minute Judge soundbite didn't even scratch the surface.

Lets let our libertarian leaders have some time to chew on this constitutionally irrelevant decision and see if the opinion changes after the consequences of dropping the leash on corporations ability to mix profits with politics become evident. That is a bloody cocktail if you ask me.

[low preference guy]

So I wonder why corps are allowed to take out tv ads and NOT allowed to contribute to candidates? Hmmm... Sounds like a contradiction there.

The case was based on the restrictions to broadcast Hillary: The movie. Since that was not a contribution to the candidates, the SC couldn't judge on that issue. The current SC did not have yet a chance to judge whether one should be able to donate to a candidate without limitations. Hopefully they hear a case like that soon and also strike down restrictions of individuals and corporations to candidates.

[newbitech]

The case was based on the restrictions to broadcast Hillary: The movie. Since that was not a contribution to the candidates, the SC couldn't judge on that issue. The current SC did not have yet a chance to judge whether one should be able to donate to a candidate without limitations. Hopefully they hear a case like that soon and also strike down restrictions of individuals and corporations to candidates.

individuals AND corporations? what the hell? So you want to allow privileged entities the ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians?

Do you not see how corporations are created by state laws? If State law is going to create a privileged entity the least the state can do is make sure that entity has some limitations. There is a pretty good reason that American's demanded limits on campaign contributions from corporate profits.

I guess people are saying fuck it to these types of words...



"I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country"


IMO
It is misguided principles that are strictly adhered to by well intentioned folks lead to thinking that says I hope corporations are allowed to contribute unlimited sums of money to politics. That flies directly in the face of the principles, attitude, and spirit that this country was founded on in my opinion.

You are asking that the restraints on the aristocracy be removed. I hope for our sake that if that happens, it will run off a cliff and fall to its death and do so before it manages to rip whats left of the heart out of our country.

FWIW, this might be that thing I was feeling for the last couple of months. Sure does fit the bill so far.

[newbitech]

From the dissent.


The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process

[tonesforjonesbones]

This forum is not the same as it used to be. This is a conservative Hate forum and they probably DID get quotes from Michael Moore's films. These are , for the most part, leftists and not real libertarians.

[teacherone]

This forum is not the same as it used to be. This is a conservative Hate forum and they probably DID get quotes from Michael Moore's films. These are , for the most part, leftists and not real libertarians.

I hardly see how it is leftist to propose legislation which would force any politician to recuse himself from participating in the creation of/ voting on any bill concerning any company from which said politician received campaign donations.

This would limit GOVERNMENT not businesses.

[silverhandorder]

I hardly see how it is leftist to propose legislation which would force any politician to recuse himself from participating in the creation of/ voting on any bill concerning any company from which said politician received campaign donations.

This would limit GOVERNMENT not businesses.

So instead of campaign donations these politicians will receive favors that are a lot harder to track then campaign donations.

[qwerty]

This wouldn´t even be an issue if politicians would follow the constitution --> corporations wouldn´t have much to lobby for.

But this is a HUGE problem until they start following the constitution and cut back goverment.

Yes, i think there is nothing in the constitution which gives federal goverment the power to regulate these things. But it only works when the federal goverment starts respect the constitution FULLY not PARTLY!

[FrankRep]

The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228114

[erowe1]

I hardly see how it is leftist to propose legislation which would force any politician to recuse himself from participating in the creation of/ voting on any bill concerning any company from which said politician received campaign donations.

This would limit GOVERNMENT not businesses.

I like your thinking here on the level of basic principles. I agree you're not necessarily coming from a leftist perspective to say something like this. But I don't think it's a workable idea. Hardly any legislation ever concerns a specific company by name. But they regulate things in certain specified ways that have certain intended effects on certain intended companies. But then if you broaden out the idea to say that every legislator has to recuse himself from voting on any legislation that has any effect on anyone he received campaign contributions from, then every legislator will have to recuse himself from voting on everything.

[RonPaulCult]

This forum is not the same as it used to be. This is a conservative Hate forum and they probably DID get quotes from Michael Moore's films. These are , for the most part, leftists and not real libertarians.

Too funny! Your signature says "Glen Beck Worshiper"

I was just about to respond to you saying maybe this forum is filled with neocons when...go figure....you apparently worship one.

[klamath]

individuals AND corporations? what the hell? So you want to allow privileged entities the ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians?

Do you not see how corporations are created by state laws? If State law is going to create a privileged entity the least the state can do is make sure that entity has some limitations. There is a pretty good reason that American's demanded limits on campaign contributions from corporate profits.

I guess people are saying fuck it to these types of words...



IMO
It is misguided principles that are strictly adhered to by well intentioned folks lead to thinking that says I hope corporations are allowed to contribute unlimited sums of money to politics. That flies directly in the face of the principles, attitude, and spirit that this country was founded on in my opinion.

You are asking that the restraints on the aristocracy be removed. I hope for our sake that if that happens, it will run off a cliff and fall to its death and do so before it manages to rip whats left of the heart out of our country.

FWIW, this might be that thing I was feeling for the last couple of months. Sure does fit the bill so far.

This is like saying marriage is created by government. People have been pooling their money for capital ventures long before states started trying to regulate it.
This is a clear violation of the right of free assembly.

[erowe1]

Apart from the issue of freedom of speech, there's another very basic constitutional way to oppose federal limitations on people spending money via corporations on political speech. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do that.

The most important way the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government is by enumerating those powers it has, and excluding from it all things that are not enumerated. This basic concept is one of the ones we talk about the most here, and it's his commitment to it that has earned Ron Paul the reputation as Dr. No that most of us admire so much.

For those who support federal limitations on our spending money on political speech via corporations, do you think that this is among the enumerated powers of the federal government? If so, where specifically in the Constitution have we delegated that authority to the government?

[axiomata]

This wouldn´t even be an issue if politicians would follow the constitution --> corporations wouldn´t have much to lobby for.

But this is a HUGE problem until they start following the constitution and cut back goverment.

Yes, i think there is nothing in the constitution which gives federal goverment the power to regulate these things. But it only works when the federal goverment starts respect the constitution FULLY not PARTLY!

Your concerns are warranted and it is important to remind people that in order for politicians to sell something to a corporation it is not only necessary that the corps have the means to buy, but that the politicians have something to sell.

For the longest time they mostly followed the constitution and the only thing they could sell were protective tarrifs (a flaw in the constitution IMO.). Now they sell things they do not even have the constituional authority to sell, they sell things that are to remain with the people or their states, they sell things they steal.

Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right. The rule of law necessitates that the first amendment be upheld, even as other provisions are ignored.

[pacelli]

My biggest concern, bigger than all of these, is people here are becoming too obsessed with the desire for political victories, to the point where they are willing to compromise their principles.

Quoted for truth.

[teacherone]

I like your thinking here on the level of basic principles. I agree you're not necessarily coming from a leftist perspective to say something like this. But I don't think it's a workable idea. Hardly any legislation ever concerns a specific company by name. But they regulate things in certain specified ways that have certain intended effects on certain intended companies. But then if you broaden out the idea to say that every legislator has to recuse himself from voting on any legislation that has any effect on anyone he received campaign contributions from, then every legislator will have to recuse himself from voting on everything.

perfect case closed-- the separation of government and economy has been achieved here on Ron Paul forums.

Good work people. Thanks for coming out!

[anaconda]

Great OP with razor sharp thinking. I look forward to exploring the links you provided.

My only concern is that it is not necessarily the rank and file laborers in the corporation that choose to pool their capital for political advertising. It may be the upper management/board of directors who have a revolving door with the Federal government and the Courts. But I think you expressed your concern about this also and I agree that to try to regulate campaign spending does nothing to address this evil alliance.

[teacherone]

For those who support federal limitations on our spending money on political speech via corporations, do you think that this is among the enumerated powers of the federal government? If so, where specifically in the Constitution have we delegated that authority to the government?

Again, if the onus was on the politician to recuse himself from dealing in legislation with a perceived conflict of interest then the limitation would be placed on government not business.

This would force the american people to realize that it is not business that is corrupt-- once the politicians rip off the american people and pool the stolen wealth in Washington corporations would be bloody idiotic not to donate money in expectation of favored status, subsidies and contracts.

The crime is in the acceptance of corporate money in exchange for the above.

Such a policy would outlaw this:




Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Campaign Contributions
Name Office Party/State Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

[erowe1]

Such a policy would outlaw this:

Yes. It would also outlaw all of Ron Paul's votes.

[teacherone]

Yes. It would also outlaw all of Ron Paul's votes.

please explain.

[erowe1]

please explain.

He would have to recuse himself from voting on anything that affects anybody who donated money to his campaign.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is like saying marriage is created by government.

It is :rolleyes:. Don't convert a natural religious right to a privilege and then bitch about government regulating your exercise of the privilege in divorce court. You can only lead a horse to water. Another excerpt from my state statues:


741.01 County court judge or clerk of the circuit court to issue marriage license; fee.--

(1) Every marriage license shall be issued by a county court judge or clerk of the circuit court under his or her hand and seal. The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue such license, upon application for the license, if there appears to be no impediment to the marriage. The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall collect and receive a fee of $2 for receiving the application for the issuance of a marriage license.

And another excerpt:

741.04 Marriage license issued.--

(1) No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person unless there shall be first presented and filed with him or her an affidavit in writing, signed by both parties to the marriage, providing the social security numbers or any other available identification numbers of each party, made and subscribed before some person authorized by law to administer an oath, reciting the true and correct ages of such parties; unless both such parties shall be over the age of 18 years, except as provided in s. 741.0405; and unless one party is a male and the other party is a female. Pursuant to the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each party is required to provide his or her social security number in accordance with this section. The state has a compelling interest in promoting not only marriage but also responsible parenting, which may include the payment of child support. Any person who has been issued a social security number shall provide that number. Disclosure of social security numbers or other identification numbers obtained through this requirement shall be limited to the purpose of administration of the Title IV-D program for child support enforcement. Any person who is not a citizen of the United States may provide either a social security number or an alien registration number if one has been issued by the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who has not been issued a social security number or an alien registration number is encouraged to provide another form of identification. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to mean that a county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall not issue a marriage license to individuals who are not citizens of the United States if one or both of the parties are unable to provide a social security number, alien registration number, or other identification number.

(2) No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person unless there shall be first presented and filed with him or her:

(a) A statement in writing, signed by both parties, which specifies whether the parties, separately or together, have completed a premarital preparation course.

(b) A statement that verifies that both parties have obtained and read or otherwise accessed the information contained in the handbook or other electronic media presentation of the rights and responsibilities of parties to a marriage specified in s. 741.0306.

(3) If a couple has not submitted to the clerk valid certificates of completion of a premarital preparation course, the effective date of the marriage license shall be delayed 3 days from the date of application. The effective date shall be printed on the marriage license in bold print. If a couple has submitted valid certificates of completion of a premarital preparation course, the effective date of the marriage license shall not be delayed. Exceptions to the delayed effective date must be granted to non-Florida residents seeking a marriage license from the state and for individuals asserting hardship. Marriage license fee waivers shall continue to be available to all eligible individuals. For state residents, a county court judge issuing a marriage license may waive the delayed effective date for good cause.

And another excerpt:

741.08 Marriage not to be solemnized without a license.--Before any of the persons named in s. 741.07 shall solemnize any marriage, he or she shall require of the parties a marriage license issued according to the requirements of s. 741.01, and within 10 days after solemnizing the marriage he or she shall make a certificate thereof on the license, and shall transmit the same to the office of the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court from which it issued.

And another excerpt:

741.07 Persons authorized to solemnize matrimony.--

(1) All regularly ordained ministers of the gospel or elders in communion with some church, or other ordained clergy, and all judicial officers, including retired judicial officers, clerks of the circuit courts, and notaries public of this state may solemnize the rights of matrimonial contract, under the regulations prescribed by law. Nothing in this section shall make invalid a marriage which was solemnized by any member of the clergy, or as otherwise provided by law prior to July 1, 1978.

(2) Any marriage which may be had and solemnized among the people called "Quakers," or "Friends," in the manner and form used or practiced in their societies, according to their rites and ceremonies, shall be good and valid in law; and wherever the words "minister" and "elder" are used in this chapter, they shall be held to include all of the persons connected with the Society of Friends, or Quakers, who perform or have charge of the marriage ceremony according to their rites and ceremonies.

And another excerpt:

741.211 Common-law marriages void.--No common-law marriage entered into after January 1, 1968, shall be valid, except that nothing contained in this section shall affect any marriage which, though otherwise defective, was entered into by the party asserting such marriage in good faith and in substantial compliance with this chapter.

And another excerpt:

(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union.

And for those people who actually thought underage sex was completely illegal. Underage marriage is provided for in law as well....

741.0405 When marriage license may be issued to persons under 18 years.--

(1) If either of the parties shall be under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years of age, the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue a license for the marriage of such party only if there is first presented and filed with him or her the written consent of the parents or guardian of such minor to such marriage, acknowledged before some officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments and administer oaths. However, the license shall be issued without parental consent when both parents of such minor are deceased at the time of making application or when such minor has been married previously.

(2) The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.

(3) When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:

(a) To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or

(b) To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female's application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.

(4) No license to marry shall be granted to any person under the age of 16 years, with or without the consent of the parents, except as provided in subsections (2) and (3).

[MichelleHeart]

YouTube - Judge Napolitano on State of the Union Address: Obama Should Apologize to Supreme Court (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m86sme2oo6Q)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - 3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU&feature=related)

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - James Bopp Jr. discusses Citizens United (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSGDny2nppE&feature=player_embedded)