NYgs23
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,753
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 and here) 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, 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 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. 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 (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. 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
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us
Doug Mataconis, 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.
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 and here) 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, 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 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. 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 (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. 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
Justin Raimondo, The Big Question: Will corporate money change campaigns? (scroll down about halfway)
Matt Welch, Citizens United, Free At Last
Jacob Sullum, It Turns Out the First Amendment Prohibits Congress From Punishing People for Their Political Speech
Jason Pye, Scotus Backs Free Speech in Ruling
Timothy B. Lee, Citizens United and Corporate Money in Politics
Ilya Shapiro, Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us
Doug Mataconis, 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.
