Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court overturned years of federal campaign finance laws, such as the McCain-Feingold Act, ruling that the corporations and labor unions could contribute freely to political campaigns. Needless to say, this is incredibly dangerous for democracy. A Constitutional amendment must be passed to rectify this threat to democracy.
Unfortunately, the law required the Court to make this decision. Since the late 1800s, corporations have had rights similar to those of people (“natural persons”). Ironically, the Supreme Court made this decision in 1886, ruling that the 14th Amendment – the amendment passed after the Civil War that guarantees equal protection to people of all races – also applies to corporations. The First Amendment, of course, guarantees to all people the right to speak and contribute to the political discourse; this covers monetary contributions as well, because money can be used for printing pamphlets and airing political commercials. Remember A. J. Liebling’s quote: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” Therefore, corporations, since they are “people”, do, under current law, have the right to contribute freely.
This change in the law poses a grave threat to democracy. Now, corporations can donate millions of dollars to their favorite candidates, outweighing the contributions of thousands of ordinary citizens. ExxonMobil, Philip Morris, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola can influence our country’s laws and elections even more. Lobbyists are unnecessary when you can pay pure, multi-million dollar bribes, I mean, campaign contributions.
Even worse is the fact that third-party or reformist candidates, those promising change (as opposed to “change”, but I digress), will have even less of a chance now. Those seeking to change the status quo will face an opponent flooded with “donations” from large corporate donors. The Supreme Court has further sealed the two-party structure into America’s government, almost guaranteeing that non-mainstream candidates will have no chance to spread their message or get elected.
Obviously this is a problem, but what is to be done about it? The political answer is simple: A constitutional amendment. We must declare that the protections of the 14th Amendment apply only to real people, not to corporations. That is, we must specifically repudiate the notion from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad because corporations are not people.
After all, corporations don’t die. They can’t be put in jail for crimes they commit. They don’t have hopes, dreams or a need for freedom like people do. So why give them rights like people?
This concept is called “corporate personhood.” A number of marginal left- and right-wing organizations, such as the Green Party USA and prominent Tea Partiers, have been pushing to get rid of corporate personhood. (Even Al Gore objected to corporate personhood in his 2007 book The Assault on Reason) This wouldn’t, of course, remove all rights from corporations, but merely assert that they are a different class of legal entity than natural persons, with different rights.
Americans are quite unhappy about the threat this poses to democracy. Hopefully, this will be a watershed moment where Americans come to realize that elections shouldn’t be about dollars – they should be about sense. Corporate personhood must be abolished to protect democracy.
Well we sure wouldn’t want Goldman Sachs or large unions like SEIU contributing to anyone’s campaign, would we?
Wouldn’t be right for a labour union to donate $60 million to a young, Chicagoan, labour-friendly candidate’s campaign and mobilze hundreds of thousands of their Acorn affiliates in an attempt to stack the deck in his favour, would it?
Worse yet, we could have a situation where a young and eloquent candidate’s campaign donation website takes off all the credit card verification checks and huge sums of money appear magically (and illegally) from all over the world.
It’s amazing how the recent SCOTUS ruling has turned all of you progressives into champions of the little guy against special interests, isn’t it?
But that would never happen would it?
In your view, did Obama do anything legally in his campaign?
Not only did he accept illegal campaign contributions by not checking credit cards properly [Are you accusing him of encouraging identity theft for the purpose of contributing to his campaign?] and by “magically” accepting overseas contributions, but he also is an illegal immigrant born in Kenya and Indonesia who colluded with ACORN to… falsify voter registrations in firmly blue states?
What next?
Spare me the hyperbole, Jeremy.
I never claimed Obama was born in Kenya or that everything he did was illegal. I do conte
It is a fact that his campaign took in tens of miilions of dollars from undocumented and therefore illegal Internet sources, and the he paid the corrupt org Acorn at least $800,000 to “get out the vote”. Next time, try addressing my argument with a few facts.
I
@ Alan: Do you even understand the history of American politics? The Republican party has always been the party of big business (and until recently, made no bones about it) and the Democrats always championed the worker (and compared to corporate businesses, I think we can safely call them “the little guy[s]“). So when you criticize a union and imply that, an organization whose express purpose is to help individual workers not get fucked by wealthy plutocratic employers, is somehow oppressing…someone (bank presidents? sunday school teachers? apple pie? Aren’t rhetorical questions witty?) you sound like a moron.
Dear Alan,
Do us all a FAVOR and learn to spell words like LABOR. For someone who writes like a hick from Nebraska, you have a very European approach to spelling.
Theo:
Perhaps you should dismount from your high horse for just a moment, cool it on the personal insults and take the time necessary to acquaint yourself with the shifting nature of American politics over the past half century. The textbooks you’re reading from and the worldview you’ve adopted hew to old stereotypes about the funding and affiliations of Republicans vs. Democrats. In other words, you’re sadly out of touch, my friend.
If you don’t have much time, simply Google up a look at the relative proportion of “big business” vs. “little guy” campaign contributions in the last presidential election. You’ll find the Democrats received orders of magnitude more in donations from “big business”, such as Wall Street, insurance companies, Big Pharma, Hollywood, and on and on.
Finally, since the point of the original post dealt with the recent SCOTUS ruling and I don’t recall commenting on the relative merits of unions, I’m not sure what precipitated your unhinged, dime-store, class warfare “workers of the world unite” diatribe. Nevertheless, I would advise you to save it for your next SEIU or Acorn meeting – since that intellectually bankrupt crapola has much more effect when the audience actually believes it.
Looking at the OpenSecrets link your ideological compatriot Mr. Question posted, it looks like, once unions and left-wing advocacy groups like EMILY’s List and Human Rights Campaign — who obviously give to Democrats — are factored out, most corporate donations do go to Republicans.
Goldman Sachs (#4) and Time Warner (#26) both gave more to Dems. After those two, you have to go all the way down to Walt Disney (#68) to find another non-union company that gave primarily to Dems. Then, there’s only one more big corporate Dem donor: Vivendi, those high rollers at #100.
I’ll just point out, for fairness’s sake, the top 4 corporate donors to Republicans, likewise excluding unions and advocacy groups (like the AMA and NRA). Y’all’ve got UPS at #20 and Altria (aka Philip Morris) at #21, then Deloitte (#46) and PWC at #49.
I’ve found more corporate donors to Republicans in the top 50 than there are Dem donors in the whole top 100. Looks like the numbers prove Theo to be precisely correct.
“In other words, you’re sadly out of touch,” Alan.
“I’ll just point out, for fairness’s sake, the top 4 corporate donors to Republicans, likewise excluding unions and advocacy groups (like the AMA and NRA). Y’all’ve got UPS at #20 and Altria (aka Philip Morris) at #21, then Deloitte (#46) and PWC at #49.
I’ve found more corporate donors to Republicans in the top 50 than there are Dem donors in the whole top 100. Looks like the numbers prove Theo to be precisely correct.”
Hmmm… You didn’t happen to take your contacts out while you were going over that chart, did you, Jeremy? You do realize that the “top 4 corporate donors” you attribute to the Republican party are in fact companies that gave money equally to both parties? Check out the symbol legend, mate, and then have another look at the metrics before touting your precision.
Instead of fixating on a single chart, it’s time to open your eyes to the big picture. In that regard, rather than reinvent the argumentative wheel, I’ll simply call your attention to a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, hardly a bastion of conservative-leaning commentary. It’s just one of many similar articles you’ll find that explain the Democrat’s cynical, yet no doubt lucrative, embrace of the big business bogeyman:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_democratic-industrial_complex.php
Here’s an excerpt to whet your whistle:
“Early numbers from 2010 election fundraising posted by the Center suggest that Congressional Democrats are approaching and even exceeding the donation shares that Republicans once experienced. So far in this cycle, Democrats are receiving about 66 percent of both the $3.5 million donated by health care companies and the $1.1 million donated by utilities. (Automakers have made negligible contributions to the 2010 race.) Democrats have even pulled ahead of Republican candidates in donations from the overall energy sector, defying conventional wisdom by raising $1.2 million from big energy so far, compared to $850,000 for Republicans. Even the oil and gas industry is hedging its bets, directing 43 per cent of its contributions so far toward Democrats.
With industry, Democrats are making the argument that they are better off working with the majority to shape legislation than joining Republicans in adamant opposition to Obama’s plans. The message to business from Congressional Democrats, Elmendorf says, is that if they don’t work with the party “it is going to be a vastly different bill; if you stay in the tent, we are going to get a more moderate bill.”
So far, Obama and Congressional Democrats have strengthened their ties to these industries without inciting a backlash from the traditional party interests-environmentalists, consumer groups, labor-dubious of them. That challenge will grow more complex as cap-and-trade legislation continues its advance through Congress and both chambers begin seriously considering health care reform, which will directly pit traditional Democratic interests like labor against the medical industry on questions such as establishing a public competitor to private insurance companies.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats can continue to balance those interests as effectively as they have so far, the legislative, political and financial rewards could be substantial. For the moment, at least, key components of big business seem happy to stay in the Democratic tent, and the Democrats’ campaign coffers are showing it.–”
1) Republicans = bad big business money and Democrats = good individual donations is silly and naive. There’s no reason why a labor union’s multimillion dollar donations are better than Chevron’s. You can make a case against lobbying in general, but I don’t see a reasonable case favoring union donations and condemning corporations. Both are trying to influence legislation to better their economic interest. And if your defense is that labor unions consist of a many individuals, then so do corporations in the form of shareholders. None of the big companies on the opensecrets list are family owned businesses. Their share ownership is highly diversified and often with individual investors. In my view, both labor unions and corporations are expected to lobby and neither has the moral high ground. Lobbying by definition is short circuiting public opinion.
2) Corporations don’t lobby according to political beliefs. They back winners. Financial companies overwhelmingly donated to Obama over McCain towards the end — not because they favor his policies but because he was going to win. Since legislation can have a measurable impact on the bottom line, corporations will want to back winners and have favorable public policy. This transaction isn’t inherently democratic or republican.
My Take:
I could not agree more.
1.) One definitive difference between unions and corporations is that the unions are directly accountable to their members’ political will while corporations have a duty to their shareholders’ financial interest. Union leaders who make contributions to a disfavored candidate or party will be voted out; most shareholders don’t have any way to approve campaign contributions. Indeed, Congressional Democrats have proposed requiring all corporate donations to get shareholder approval. That’s fine with me.
Also, even if union donations are just as bad as corporate donations, why are many Democrats seeking to ban or limit both? Either they’re biting the hand that feeds them, or making a stand on principle. (Or making a [smart, for once] political move to try to win over anti-corporate Tea Partiers.)
2.) You’re correct that corporations do lobby winners, but they also donate to candidates they favor. Does Altria just do a bad job judging election winners, or do they, cigarette manufacturers, anticipate a more friendly political climate with Republican politicians? Clearly the latter. We can judge contributions based on politics, but keeping in mind your point.
“One definitive difference between unions and corporations is that the unions are directly accountable to their members’ political will while corporations have a duty to their shareholders’ financial interest.”
Nice try, but there is no difference whatsoever between “political will” and financial interest. And shareholders have just as much power to change the direction and amount of their company’s donations as rank and file union members. (which is not much, by the way)
there is no difference whatsoever between “political will” and financial interest.
Another example of the crass conservative worldview? Sometimes there are things more important than money…
Oh brother.
Since you insist on taking my words out of context, let me explain that most reasonable people would understand that I meant that comparison in relation to your statement regarding unions and corporations.
You, on the other hand, merely use the opportunity to take another cheap, self-aggrandizing shot.
I understood what you meant. I still think you’re wrong. Corporations and unions both can have a political will outside of their pure financial interest: consider Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto (whether or not they follow it). Also consider that they’re likely to stop actively trying to not be “evil” once Sergey and Larry sell their majority holding.
Think what you will, Jeremy. I was simply making a specific reference in response to this rather limited statement of yours:
“One definitive difference between unions and corporations is that the unions are directly accountable to their members’ political will while corporations have a duty to their shareholders’ financial interest.”
If you can’t allow that my response was circumscribed by that statement, and that I made no attempt to suggest there might not be corollaries to the concepts of political will and or financial interest outside of their basic common cause, then feel free to take me out of context.
And by the way, touting Google as an exemplar of a company that places corporate beneficence over profits (despite your easy qualifications) is not exactly helping to make your argument. There are countless brave dissidents in China either dead or suffering in horrific jails at the moment thanks to the “corporate goodwill” of your enlightened friends Sergei and Larry. I guess, in the end, pure profit does play a part.
Again, I understood what you meant. However, a union may legally act in its members political or moral interest, but against their financial interests. In an important difference, corporations (more specifically, the appointed executives) are legally bound to act in the shareholders financial interest by what’s called “fiduciary duty.”
Regarding Google, I don’t mean to get into whether or not they actually are “not evil,” as evidence by my statement “whether or not they follow [their motto].” Google’s recent decision to curtail activities in China, while it may have been partially a business decision, was certainly motivated to some extent by ethics/politics.
I understand the concept of fiduciary duty. But corporations and unions are not so different in that regard. I would suggest that even the most corrupt union officials would not survive for long if they continually and egregiously acted outside the best financial interests of their dues-paying members.
Whether fiduciary duty is a legally mandated responsibility or one backstopped by the power to vote out offenders, both systems present powerful incentives for proper conduct. That is not to say offenses do not take place, only that there is a high likelihood that they will be properly rectified in the fullness of time.
As for Google, I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word of their new age, warm and fuzzy, higher purpose blather. S & L know very well how to boost the bottom line, and if it means throwing a few rhetorical bones to the sanctimonious, enviro-friendly progressive plebes along the way, that’s no biggy. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.
Jeremy,
1) I agree with your point that corporate donations are less accountable to shareholders than union donations are to members. But you have to admit that fiduciary accountability as a difference is a hug step away from Big Evil Corporations baking Republicans to the little guys backing Democrats. Both unions and corporations are still lobbying for their economic interest. I fail to see how the moral legitimacy of rent seeking is decided by the seeker. Both corporations and unions are trying to sidestep 1) markets, and 2) public opinion, by effectively buying policy positions.
2) Agreed. Obviously they back winners and politicians who are sympathetic to their policy positions. That said, many major corporations — especially financial corporations — sit on the fence. Altria and Phillip Morris don’t face regulations that can change overnight and disrupt markets. Ideologically, Republicans are probably more sympathetic to financial innovation and cross-border finance, but you don’t find Soros or Citi backing the Republicans 100%.
1.) I don’t think I’ve been arguing that union donations are good. They are corrupting. I completely agree that unions and corporations do “buy” policy positions and this corrupts our democracy. I would say that union donations are “less bad” for democracy, but still bad.
In this comment subthread, I’ve been arguing that, contrary to Alan’s factually-deprived opinion, Republicans are the largest recipients of corporate, non-union largesse. No moral judgments about it.
2.) Well, I’d disagree about your example. Altria/Philip Morris stands to lose huge amounts of revenue when NYC bans outdoor smoking as Bloomberg has proposed or when NC (yes, the former hub of cigarette manufacturing) bans smoking in bars and restaurants. Altria will probably support Republicans in NC in 2010, since the NC smoking ban was passed on a near-party line vote. They do face market disrupting regulations.
Regarding finance, Republicans (and Democrats) have their nativist camps. NAFTA, a big step towards globalization and free trade, was opposed by members of both parties. You are right, of course, that big financial companies support both parties with some degree of equality. Whether that’s a function favor-buying or supporting favorable candidates is not a judgment I have the data to make.
Jeremy says: “I would say that union donations are “less bad” for democracy, but still bad.”
Gee, there’s a surprise.
Jeremy also says: “I’ve been arguing that, contrary to Alan’s factually-deprived opinion, Republicans are the largest recipients of corporate, non-union largesse.”
Since you insist on missing the point here, Jeremy, let me explain it in small words even you can understand:
- Democrats are just as captive to moneyed special interests as Republicans
- Although their power base has typically been built on union money, in recent years, the trend has been for Democrats to be on the receiving end of increasingly large donations from the oh-so-hated hated “big business”sector, so much so that there is now little difference between the parties in relative amounts “earned”
- given that premise, which contrary to your assertion is supported by a wealth of facts, it is childishly naive or plain disingenuous of you or someone like your buddy Theo to rant in simplistic terms about “Republicans = bad big business money and Democrats = good individual donations”
That dog doesn’t hunt anymore.
I wouldn’t disagree with your first “premise”, that Democrats are “captive” to special interests, just like Republicans.
I also wouldn’t disagree that Democrats are getting more money from business.
So, the question remains: Why are Democrats opposed to the court’s opinion in Citizens United? It must either be on principle or — in direct contradiction to your as-yet-unproven claims — Republicans will benefit more from unchecked corporate donations.
I’d also point out that I have not made the argument that “Republicans = bad big business money and Democrats = good individual donations.” In fact, my original article mentioned neither the Democrats or the Republicans. You’re the one who brought all this ridiculous partisan spin.
Democrats are opposed to the SCOTUS opinion because Democrats are opposed to any measure that increases rather than decreases free speech.
It also happens to be yet another cynical way Obama can trot out his faux populism and hammer some big bad corporate special interests while doing some bank bashing.
This nonsense, from a man who was aptly described today by Victor Davis Hanson:
“No presidential candidate did more to destroy the idea of public campaign financing than Barack Obama, who set a record in private donations from Wall Street, ended a three-decade-long bipartisan tradition of curbing presidential campaign expenditures, and, once elected, proceeded to nominate a number of Wall Street insiders.”
As for your contention that I was the one “who brought all this ridiculous partisan spin.”, I just find it interesting that someone who very likely voted for megabucks, public financing eschewing, special interest group lackey candidate Obama would have the unbridled nerve to proclaim:
“This change in the law poses a grave threat to democracy. Now, corporations can donate millions of dollars to their favorite candidates, outweighing the contributions of thousands of ordinary citizens. ExxonMobil, Philip Morris, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola can influence our country’s laws and elections even more. Lobbyists are unnecessary when you can pay pure, multi-million dollar bribes, I mean, campaign contributions.”
Methinks thou dost protest too loudly.
Here’s another more eloquent reply to your question from Thomas Lifson in the AmericanThinker.com:
“No more need to set up political action committees in order to have a constrained voice. [Corporations] can pay for their own ads, though they cannot contribute directly to campaigns. … The political dialogue in America will become more varied and intense, with for-profit and nonprofit corporations able to spend money in order to influence politics. The changes should be far-reaching. This diminishes the power of the Left overall, as corporations now have the ability to speak as loud or louder than unions, who have been unfettered. …”
“‘Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case means that the anti-incumbent furor that has been growing is partly released from the shackles created by “incumbent protection” election and campaign finance laws,’” which is exactly how I characterized McCain-Feingold, the Incumbent Protection Act. “The dirty little secret about all campaign finance laws passed by Congress since 1972 is that they were designed to protect incumbents by stifling competition,” and restraining their opponents.”
The troll doth misquote Shakespeare, methinks…
Democrats oppose free speech? That’s frankly ridiculous and I won’t waste my time trying to disprove it.
Besides, while I did vote for Obama (and would do say again when faced with the alternative of Sarah Palin), I don’t particularly support public financing. Doesn’t seem fair to make people who don’t care about politics pay for it out of their tax dollars.
Well, well. You’re awfully testy today, Jeremy. Calling someone a troll carries with it more than a faint whiff of a bit of a desperation, doesn’t it?
It’s nice that you will admit to voting for Obama, though – How’s that working out for you?
I don’t recall mentioning Sarah Palin, but I’m not surprised to hear that you’ve made up your mind not to vote for her if given the chance. Unfortunately, that decision may be rendered moot, since she may not even run for office.
At least you have the good sense to disagree with public financing of elections…But if you honestly believe:
“… Doesn’t seem fair to make people who don’t care about politics pay for it out of their tax dollars.”
Then you should also agree with this statement:
“… Doesn’t seem fair to make people who don’t care about [insert cause or policy here] pay for it out of their tax dollars.”
I don’t much appreciate a lot of what Obama’s done. That said, I’d vote for him any day over McCain/Palin. You’d see a few of my complaints about Obama’s bad policies in various blogposts, as well as in the CPS’s upcoming print issue.
Regarding tax dollars paying for unsupported policies, it would be nice (and an interesting intellectual exercise) to find a way so that people wouldn’t have to pay for policies they didn’t like. It probably isn’t going to happen though.
However, your argument for public financing would seem to justify any public program, even one that has no benefit to most Americans (as public financing would have to the Americans who don’t vote). That’s not a good stance for a self-described conservative…
I don’t agree with public financing.
I was just asking you if your beliefs about selective taxpayer support for policies from which they do not benefit extended beyond election financing.
If so, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to consider the social and political ramifications of that posture.
UPS gave 63% of its contributions to Republicans and 36% to Democrats.
Altria: 72% and 27%.
Deloitte:64% and 35%.
PWC: 62% and 36%.
Clearly, since those number are nowhere near equal; quite obviously, those companies did not give money equally to both parties. I’m really astounded at your lack of understanding of what’s presented on that website.
Regarding the Atlantic, that publication is merely complaining that Democrats are accepting funds from sources they don’t like, like energy and health insurance companies. That criticism may be well taken, but it doesn’t change the fact that Republicans have accepted far more corporate, non-union donations than Democrats as shown on OpenSecrets.org.
The point I am trying to make, and that you seem to be missing completely, is that the percentages in recent years have been changing heavily in favour of the Democrats. This is proven out by the figures quoted in the Atlantic article as well as those featured on the OpenSecrets chart.
20 United Parcel Service $24,064,929 Dem 42% Repub 57% (vs 36/63)
21 Altria Group $23,888,416 Dem 47% Repub 52% (vs 27/72)
46 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $15,903,470 Dem 49% Repub 50% (vs 35/64)
49 PricewaterhouseCoopers $15,385,893 Dem 47% Repub 52% (vs 36/62)
Look at the most recent cycle of that graph and tell me that Dems are not embracing big business donations on a scale previously unheard of. As My Take pointed out, “Republicans = bad big business money and Democrats = good individual donations is silly and naive.”
However, if you want to live in that black and white world, Jeremy, that’s your choice.
Whether increased donations to Democrats is indicative of a shift in Democrats’ policies and corporations’ political interests or, as My Take said, merely indicative of the fact that Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress and corporations are trying to curry favor.
I never made the argument that “Republicans = bad big business money and Democrats = good individual donations.” I’m merely arguing that big business (and union) money has a corrupting effect.
And let’s suppose for a moment that Democrats get a lot of corporate donations. What would their strong opposition to Citizens United tell us? Either that they’re incredibly stupid politically (unlikely, even the Dem leadership isn’t that dumb) or that they’re making a stand on principle. And that’s fine by me.
“I never made the argument that “Republicans = bad big business money and Democrats = good individual donations.”
How quickly you forget. Scroll up a bit and you’ll find your own spirited defense of Theo’s assertion of exactly that point.
“Either that they’re incredibly stupid politically (unlikely, even the Dem leadership isn’t that dumb) or that they’re making a stand on principle.”
I suggest it’s the former, since the later is clearly something that is beyond their capacity.
How quickly you forget. Scroll up a bit and you’ll find your own spirited defense of Theo’s assertion of exactly that point.
Not so, Alan. My post was meant to prove one, single, easily proven point, that “most corporate donations do go to Republicans.” I believe the evidence from OpenSecrets supports that; you haven’t refuted it in any way.
American:
Thank you for your astute observations and cosmopolitan display of tolerance.
I am quite sure you had much content of epistemological value to add to the dialectic herein, and many points to refute my argument, but felt that the kind and proper thing to do was to prevent me from further embarrassment by “correcting” me on my spelling.
One can only hope that those poor “hick” Nebraskans to which you refer can evolve over time toward as enlightened a state as yours.
Speaking of “intellectually bankrupt crapola”…
I’m a philosophy and linguistics major, so I know a lot about convoluted arguments and big words, but I think you don’t understand what those words mean.
Perhaps the philosophy and linguistics major would like to spend less of his time making unfounded assertions and more actually explaining why in his expert opinion those words were used incorrectly.
You’d be able to figure it out yourself if you knew what epistemology or dialectics were.
I love it when you go all “ad hominem”. It demonstrates with great clarity the lack of substance in your argument.
There’s nothing ad hominem about pointing out the fact that you misused some big words in order to sound intellectual. I’m criticizing your argument, not you.
However, you do have a penchant for insulting other people and me on this blog. It’s awful hypocritical for you to criticize me for alleged ad hominem attacks…
I don’t recall saying anything nasty about a particular person without provocation, Jeremy, however if I did, consider this my sincere apology for having done so.
On the other hand, if you’re referring to my admittedly acerbic responses to being needlessly attacked herein as “a moron”; or called “a hick from Nebraska” by some dweeb who confuses spelling correction for argument; and yes, even labelled “a troll”by someone who should know better, then I see absolutely no need to apologize. I don’t back down when provoked.
And by the way, I don’t need to use “big words to sound intellectual”. I am intellectual — as is anyone who appears on a blog or in a debate and is willing to argue their earnestly held philosophical positions in good faith with those who do not agree with them.
As for your specific criticism, you have yet to explain why you feel those terms were “misused” in a pretentious way. I’m sure you’re aware (having taken those philosophy and linguistics courses) that as one definition states:
“Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two or more people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference.”
Epistemology is defined as: “Analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification.”
So when I admonished my spell-checking friend by writing: “I am quite sure you had much content of epistemological value to add to the dialectic herein, and many points to refute my argument, but felt that the kind and proper thing to do was to prevent me from further embarrassment by “correcting” me on my spelling.”
…I was simply saying that it was obvious they had offered nothing of real substance to the back and forth discussion in search of a common truth or truths, nothing to justify the nature and substance of whatever core beliefs they may have held — or cause anyone to doubt or even evaluate theirs — and nothing that would further anyone’s understanding of the issues at hand.
Perhaps my wording was less than perfect, but when one is typically responding in a hurry via iPhone or similar, core message, not spelling or even exact wording, should be king.
Who elected you “Blog Philosophy & Semantics Police Chief”, anyway?
Don’t play innocent. You use unnecessarily hostile and nasty language — without provocation — all the time on this blog. That’s fine, I don’t particularly care. Just don’t complain when you get as good as you get.
Funny. I don’t recall complaining about it at all.
Theo,
Do trail lawyers count as the little guys?
Also,
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Great link, Question! Thanks for chucking that into the mix.
I has forgotten about the trial lawyers as well…
had forgotten.
What happened to the vaddest and evil-est corporation of them all: GOLDMAN SACHS!!
Also, what about the trial lawyers. They’re not little guys. They’ll probably sue you if you call em that.
Blah is right. Check out:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085
“Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs.”
Follow the money…
Yup.
Of course this is troubling. But rest assured that the left isn’t ignoring this. My favorite author/blogger, Glenn Greenwald at Slate had a pair of interesting posts about it: The events preceding Goldman Sachs’ new “blowout profits” and Another Goldman executive named to key government post as its profits skyrocket.
But please, don’t pretend this is unique to Democrats. Bush, of course, appointed tons of oil execs to Dept. of Energy positions, etc. This is a huge problem with politics in general. One solution might be finding a way to prevent many corporate contributions… exactly as I’ve been arguing.
This debate is getting repetitive and pointless. Let’s settle on the following statement:
Neither party is free from the corrupting effects of lobbying by organizations trying to buy policy that is in their economic interest. On average, corporations tend to side with Republicans and unions with Democrats. The moral high ground depends on how you view corporations and unions in general (I personally find no grounds for preferring either). Financial firms tend to be evenly spread and end up influencing policy regardless of party. In the 80s, S&Ls were successful with the Republicans and Citibank effectively dictated Glass-Steagall to the Clinton Administration and Republican Congress.
From what I’ve read so far, both Alan and Jeremy should agree with this statement. Jeremy may find union donations less intolerable than Alan, but that’s about it.
For those waiting to jump into the discussion, please save us from the ‘your party represents the moneyed interest’ Perhaps one reading of the opensecrets chart that we can all agree on is that both parties accept big money!! If they didn’t, such expensive campaigns could not be financed.
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
I’m afraid I got my back up when the suggestion was made that somehow the GOP was worse in this regard, and morally inferior to the Dems. Both parties are guilty of the practice.
Have a look at this video put out by the Cato Institute, which discusses First Amendment rights in context of the recent SCOTUS ruling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM
You may not agree with everything they say, but there are some interesting points made.
Alan,
You are not an American. Shut up.
Love,
Uncle Sam
If that’s the best you can do, my friend, rage on. Just make sure you don’t get spittle on yourself while you’re sharing your foaming at the mouth comments with the rest of us.
And, really — and I mean this with all sincerity — if that’s the type and quality of enlightened discourse you have learned to engage in during your time at one of the most prestigious, respected and resource-rich campuses in all of academia, you should do the school, your parents, your classmates and yourself a big favour and drop out now. You may as well save the money and time and get your application into Starbucks while they’re still hiring.
Oh please, do drop out! The country was oodles better when people on the Left dropped acid and dropped out. The problem is now they think elevating compassion to the status of a virtue should somehow be the basis of their politics.
Do you, Charles, believe that compassion is not a virtue?
Read some classics and get back to me. It’s obvious that compassion over reason is the very antithesis of the philosophical life, properly understood.
How very early Enlightenment. Kant would certainly disagree that reason is categorically opposed to compassion.
That depends on whatever balance you apply to your categories of understanding, doesn’t it?
I agree. Thomas Sowell explains that self-congratulatory posture quite well in his “Vision of the Anointed”.
You simply must read Intellectuals and Society if you like V of the A.
It’s next on my list!
I’m just in the middle of TS’s “Affirmative Action Around the World” right now….
I’m revelling in a Sowell-athon!
Agreed in part, but I don’t think Glass-Steagall was a good piece of legislation deserving of enactment. Therefore, I was quite pleased when it was repealed.
Back to Jeremy’s OP: This synopsis from the Heritage Foundation:
Citizens United v. FEC: A Landmark Decision in Favor of Free Speech
The “First Principles” on which this country were founded are the principles that the Heritage Foundation works to advance everyday. In today’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. FEC, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate.
It is no surprise that these rights are in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders, who had fought a long, hard war with the English crown to establish our independence, knew that the ability to associate freely (think the Sons of Liberty) and to engage in political speech without being censored by the government were fundamental rights crucial to our republic. That is why the Supreme Court’s decision throwing out a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations (including non-profits) is a return to, as the Court said, “ancient First Amendment principles.”
The Supreme Court overturned its prior decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. FEC. It rejected the very idea that the government can decide who gets to speak and that the government can actually ban some from speaking at all, particularly those doing their speaking through associations of members who share their beliefs.
Almost every one of the many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members in the political arena over which particular candidates should be elected to uphold the positions on important issues of public policy that their members believe in unless they complied with certain very restrictive, complex provisions.
For-profit corporations and labor unions were also prohibited from engaging in independent political activity even though their businesses and the jobs of their employees and members can be greatly affected, damaged, or even lost because of the actions taken by elected members of Congress. There is no rational reason why they should not be able to engage in independent political activity.
The Court, led by Justice Kennedy, held that the First Amendment stands against attempts to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. In so doing, the Court declared that the government cannot impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers such as corporations.
The Court also found that free speech rights under the First Amendment do not depend on a speaker’s financial ability to engage in public discussion – the fact that some speakers may have more wealth than others does not diminish their First Amendment rights.
Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, the basis for upholding other campaign finance restrictions. Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy and the means to hold officials accountable to the people. As such, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it.
Those who criticize this decision have lost sight of a basic truth: the answer to speech they disagree with is not to restrict that speech, but to answer it with more speech. This decision will ensure that, as Justice Kennedy said twenty years ago in his dissent in the Austin case, there is no stifling of “the voices of some of the most respected groups in public life on subjects central to the integrity of our democratic system.” The First Amendment specifically says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to speak. Justice Scalia properly addresses the applicability of this right to corporations (profit or nonprofit):
The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.
…sounds reasonable to me.
By the way, since some folks around here can’t believe that foreign monies might have found their way into US election campaigns, and even Barry O himself felt the need to upbraid the Supreme Court for their recent decision by saying (incorrectly) that it would “open the floodgates” to foreign donations and control, I thought this might be an interesting read. It’s from William A. Jacobson, an Associate Professor at Cornell Law School.
Challenge to Obama – Request Special Counsel As To Foreign Contributions
During the State of the Union address, Barack Obama singled out the Supreme Court for ridicule on its recent campaign finance ruling, which Obama asserted could open the door for foreign campaign contributions:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
As I previously posted, Obama was wrong on the holding of the case at issue and engaged in unjustified demagogory by confronting the Justices on the issue at the State of the Union address. Justice Alito’s act of mouthing the truth to power in response has dominated the post-SOTU discussion.
Nonetheless, if Obama really is concerned about foreign campaign donations, then Obama should request that Attorney General Eric Holder (or an Acting Attorney General since Holder likely has a conflict) appoint a special counsel with the power to investigate, and if justified, prosecute violations of the laws, and conspiracies to violate the laws, forbidding foreign contributions.
And the place the special counsel can start is with Obama’s 2008 campaign, which disabled security features in its credit card web portal so as to allow donors to evade restrictions on numerous aspects of the federal campaign laws, including the prohibition on foreign contributions:
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed….
The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.
That the Obama campaign received foreign donations as a result of this scheme may be the only thing agreed-upon by both Pamela Geller and Charles Johnson. Indeed, Obama for America has admitted receiving foreign contributions. The fact that the Federal Election Commission is not investigating the allegations necessitates a special counsel.
These laws barring foreign contributions remain untouched by the recent Supreme Court ruling, so Obama need not worry about the validity of the relevant laws on the books. (If Obama didn’t understand that prior to the SOTU, he surely understands that now.)
The federal conspiracy laws surely could be used to prosecute such a scheme, if the investigation bears out the necessary elements of a criminal conspiracy to violate the campaign laws. The fact that some or all of the contributions were returned after negative publicity does not negate any criminal conspiracy.
So President Obama, with all due respect, I call upon you to request that Attorney General Holder appoint a special counsel to investigate and prosecute any and all crimes committed in connection with foreign campaign contributions during the 2008 presidential election cycle.
Or was your attack on the Supreme Court just words?