"The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns." Campaign finance law supporters expect the 5-4 vote in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to result in "a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections." So that's exciting.
I'm not sure I am prepared for the onslaught of candidates wearing sheer garments funded by American Apparel.
That actually sounds like a silver lining to me.
have you seen politicians lately?
So this is how Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority will come to pass. Uh... neat!
I'm scared sarge.
Don't worry, the unions will balance the corporations. Also double don't worry, because it's not like dems aren't beholden to corporate interests.
but I'm a member of the green party...and Before anyone says anything, in D.C. the Green Party is the Statehood party.
C
can't wait to see the bright orange tide business suit.
Should make C-SPAN more interesting.
I will only vote for candidates sponsored by top-shelf booze and Dunhills.
I will only vote for candidates sponsored by rotgut. Don't need to fancy-ass politicians in office.
The blue ones . . . for the ladies.
Oh so we can keep Blue States / Red States, thank God!
I hope they can wear their sponsorships during campaigns so it will be easier to decide who to support.
So basically John McCain's only achievement in his lifetime of public service has been wiped out. Sweet.
Let's just cut the posturing and start directly electing corporations to public office.
Monsanto/Halliburton in 2012!
This comment was brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Shouldn't it be "Citizens" United?
If corporations have the same rights as people, when they do wrong, can we PUT THEM IN JAIL?
Silly atipofthehat. They only have the same rights as people when that's convenient. They have better-than-people rights when it's not -- as when, say, being sued or wanting to donate unlimited cash to political campaigns.
Anyone in Montreal want to marry me? I clean up nice, speak ok French, and, can, um, translate Homer? Anyone?
If I murder a corporation if my state, am I eligible for the death penalty?
Rare, and strange-sounding, as it may be, there actually is such a thing as a "corporate death penalty."
There are some plus sides to this. Removing limitations in this way will make it easier to identify the largest corporate backers of candidates. Since "anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors," it will become quickly apparent which corporate interests our politicians stand for. The more heavy the interest, the more outsized the show of support. Seems like a decent trouble flag to me.
This is pretty naive. They'll continue to conceal their involvement through convoluted front groups with names like "Citizens United". And how realistic is it to ask citizens to do background research on every message they see?
Public financing of elections is the only way forward. But it's going to get worse before it gets better.
The only way for public financing to work is to ban private (including individual and non-profit) financing, which is a) kinda problematic and b) super hard to sell people on. (Also where is all this money coming from?)
On top of that, public financing entrenches the two parties really hard! They can set up all sorts of dumbass policies preventing third parties from getting public financing, and banning them from getting private financing. Eugh.
It's naive to ask citizens to do background research on their candidates? If this is the case, how will public funding of elections clarify the message? The messages will be the same, except for the lack of a big "Paid for by Big Pharma" stamp at the end of the ad. Seeing who a politician's biggest backers are clearly defines where they stand. Even if corporations hide behind names like "Citizen's United", it's a quick step to know who is really paying the bills.
I know. The fear is about drowning out dissenting opinions. But there is big money behind both ponies in every race we have. That's the system we are stuck with. It's pretty naive to think that public financing will suddenly erase corporate interests in politicians.
deepomega: entrenchment is the least of our worries. you think this is what's keeping a third party from succeeding? Anyway, we already have systems in place surrounding matching funds in the presidential. non-D/R candidates have qualified. It's just that the money's too small.
fjordfiesta: yeah, it is unrealistic. How many people do you think realize that that nice man on TV who wants to build windmills is the guy who bankrolled the swiftboat vets? And that was an incredibly prominent example. Even professionals in this town (yes, DC) can't keep up with all the webs of funding.
Here's the thing: it's not actually quid-pro-quo. Look at the political science literature: money does not buy floor votes. But the necessity of the fundraising treadmill does mean that it buys access, and that shifts the Overton Window for the basically well-meaning politicians we elect.
Nor is every election an endless arms race. Voters get saturated and begin to react negatively. Public financing diminishes the important of supplemental fundraising, and hopefully makes legislators spend a little less time with the people cutting checks.
I hear what you are saying. And to be clear, I am a proponent of full public funding of elections. But I still think that the silver lining to this ruling is that disproportionate interests will simply be made more obvious after removing the leveling effect of contribution caps. Certainly not everyone will research everything, but for those that care, patterns will be a little more obvious. Even if that pattern is simply that someone is WAY more funded than the other. This does nothing for equality or advancement towards the way things SHOULD be. But it's something.
Not even a silver lining. A "plus" to an otherwise goofy ruling.
How exciting, indeed:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/corporations-as-political-donors.html#comments
It's not the corporations, politicians are simply bad people:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/a-simple-theory-of-political-jobs.html#comments