Everyone here is confused about the SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance

[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":

 

[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

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, "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.