Michigan case limiting election funding may fall

[DarkReign]

Michigan case limiting election funding may fall

In decision to revisit related case, High Court questions 1990 ruling on corporate spending

Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to overturn a 1990 decision in a Michigan case that put strict limits on the ability of corporations to try to influence elections.

In an order last week that got little notice outside a circle of court watchers and campaign-finance experts, the court announced it would rehear arguments in another election case, and asked the parties in that dispute to argue whether it should overturn the 1990 case, in which the court upheld a Michigan law that barred political spending directly from a corporation's general fund.

In overturning the Michigan case, the court could dismantle a framework that has for decades governed corporate involvement in campaigns, forcing them to establish separate political action committees that limit their ability to spend large sums supporting or opposing candidates.

"The stakes are whether this Supreme Court will roll back more than 100 years of restrictions on corporate involvement in elections," said Laura MacCleery of the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates limits on the influence of money in elections.

John Samples, a campaign finance expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the threat to fair elections is far less than the damage to free speech by such campaign restrictions. "Many corporations don't even have political action committees now. If they wanted to spend more money now, they could do that," he said.

Both sides of the campaign finance debate agree it's likely the court will overhaul, if not completely toss out, the precedent it set in 1990. The justices could have issued a narrow ruling in the case now before them, but instead took the unusual step of ordering new arguments in September, something they would be unlikely to do unless there was a likelihood the old case would be overturned.

Two justices who dissented in the 1990 ruling -- Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy -- still sit on the high court.

Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are also considered likely to favor overturning the ruling.

In the Michigan case, the state Chamber of Commerce challenged a state law that barred it from buying newspaper ads in a state legislative race. In an opinion written by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court upheld the law and ruled that corporations' ability to amass large sums of money would tilt the political process too far in their favor.

"It's very significant, at least at the time I thought so," said Louis Caruso, a retired Lansing attorney who argued the case as Michigan's solicitor general.

Bob LaBrant, the state chamber's top attorney, said the chamber still believes its free-speech rights entitle it to use its general-fund money for political spending.

The chamber is likely to submit a friend-of-the-court brief asking the court to overturn its earlier ruling.

"We're just glad we lived long enough to see it reversed," he said.


http://detnews.com/article/20090707/POLITICS02/907070356/Michigan-case-limiting-election-funding-may-fall

It would seem this is a state issue by context, but my question is, is there a limit to similar corporate funding in other states?

Seems to me this is a no-brainer in that we as a people should not want our politicians elected on the unlimited funds of corporate sponsorships who they would then be beholden to.

[101A]

http://detnews.com/article/20090707/POLITICS02/907070356/Michigan-case-limiting-election-funding-may-fall

It would seem this is a state issue by context, but my question is, is there a limit to similar corporate funding in other states?

Seems to me this is a no-brainer in that we as a people should not want our politicians elected on the unlimited funds of corporate sponsorships who they would then be beholden to.

Hell, I can't tell WHO the politicians/corporations are beholden to - seems to be simply a mutual admiration society. The power being amassed in Washington (and in the Presidency specifically) is unbelievable - I'm numb to it now. Frankly, I'm for ANYTHING that decentralizes power. If corporations holding undue influence over some elected officials slows the ideological agenda being rammed upon us all right now; I'm all for it.

[DarkReign]

Hell, I can't tell WHO the politicians/corporations are beholden to - seems to be simply a mutual admiration society. The power being amassed in Washington (and in the Presidency specifically) is unbelievable - I'm numb to it now. Frankly, I'm for ANYTHING that decentralizes power. If corporations holding undue influence over some elected officials slows the ideological agenda being rammed upon us all right now; I'm all for it.

Interesting take. I can see the logic, but I can see the overwhelming abuse associated. It would seem to me the bad would far outweigh the good.

But I do see your point.

[Winehole23]

plus, the underlying premise is that corporations somehow have the right to free speech'

last time i checked, corporations weren't a personYou'd be wrong (http://frantzmd.info/Economics%20and%20Politics/Corporate_personhood.htm)about that.

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad(1886) has been held to have established that corporations were persons entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and Buckley vs. Valeo (1976) held


that money was the equivalent of free speech so that expenditures of money from a political candidate’s own resources or the resources of independent organizations not related to the candidate’s campaign could not be restricted by the laws governing elections. In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations were entitled to this free speech right to give money to political causes.

[Winehole23]

In a dissenting opinion Chief Justice Rehnquist (after referring to the flawed precedent of Santa Clara vs. The Southern Pacific R.R) said:

“This Court….decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a ‘person’ entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

[Winehole23]

The liberty of *the money interest*, as Lincoln put it, to participate freely in politics is of relatively recent vintage.

[Winehole23]

Slavery is the legal fiction


that a Person is Property.


Corporate Personhood is the legal


fiction that Property is a Person.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm sure there's a good reason why corporations are considered as people. I'm not quite sure what it is though.

[DarkReign]

I'm sure there's a good reason why corporations are considered as people. I'm not quite sure what it is though.

Here is your reason as I learned it from a video game...


Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.

-Ambrose Bierce


...but I remember it a little differently than Google does...


Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

[Winehole23]

Performance of commercial activities, like sole proprietors, legal liability, etc.... all makes sense as the basis of fictive corporate personhood.

But equal protection under the 14th Amendment -- like freed slaves -- is not an irresistible conclusion, and was mischievously established as a precedent.

[Winehole23]

The danger of corporate personhood is obvious. Corporate persons are potentially immortal, and if allowed to participate unlimitedly in electoral politcs will tend to take it over.

The wisdom of the 19th century saw this clearly. States restricted the hell out of corporations w/r/t politics, and Texas still has some of the toughest laws on the books.

[Wild Cobra]

their main argument is that freedom of speech = freedom to spend money

doesn't fly with me
It doesn't fly with me either, but that has long been decided by the courts. Since a corporation is a group of people who form for a common goal, my viewpoint is that 100% of that group of people would have to agree for it to be considered freedom of speech. Otherwise the majority is using the funding of the minority for things they disagree with. I'd say that's a violation of their rights. I feel the same way about unions spending money in politics.

[Winehole23]

It doesn't fly with me either, but that has long been decided by the courts.Didn't you see the Rehnquist blurb above?

The case law is weak. Obiter dicta from Santa Clara were given precedential value. A narrow, technical ruling has been treated in law as if it touched the constitutional merits. It did not.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hell, I can't tell WHO the politicians/corporations are beholden to - seems to be simply a mutual admiration society. The power being amassed in Washington (and in the Presidency specifically) is unbelievable - I'm numb to it now. Frankly, I'm for ANYTHING that decentralizes power. If corporations holding undue influence over some elected officials slows the ideological agenda being rammed upon us all right now; I'm all for it.

Have those two ever been separate?

[Winehole23]

Roe v. Wade, civil rights law and any number of controversial things are *settled law* too.

Does that mean they that they may not be revisited by the courts or deserve deference from private citizens in online discussions?

It seems to me you gave up a little too easily on this question, WC.

[Marcus Bryant]

The danger of corporate personhood is obvious. Corporate persons are potentially immortal, and if allowed to participate unlimitedly in electoral politcs will tend to take it over.

But..but..what's good for a company is good for free enterprise, no?




The wisdom of the 19th century saw this clearly. States restricted the hell out of corporations w/r/t politics, and Texas still has some of the toughest laws on the books.

Vestige of the populist era, no doubt.

[Winehole23]

But..but..what's good for a company is good for free enterprise, no?Undoubtedly. But this may conflict with what's good for republican government and society at large.

[Marcus Bryant]

It doesn't fly with me either, but that has long been decided by the courts. Since a corporation is a group of people who form for a common goal, my viewpoint is that 100% of that group of people would have to agree for it to be considered freedom of speech. Otherwise the majority is using the funding of the minority for things they disagree with. I'd say that's a violation of their rights. I feel the same way about unions spending money in politics.

Those individuals should be free to spend their money to support that which they wish to in politics, and they obviously can in other ways outside of a corporation in which they hold an interest.

[Marcus Bryant]

Undoubtedly. But this may conflict with what's good for republican government and society at large.

Well, I was thinking that it is not, as companies routinely seek favors from their favorite politicians to stifle competition through regulation, subsidies, etc...

If I had my druthers, any corporate participation in politics whatsoever would be eliminated.

[Winehole23]

Well, I was thinking that it is not, as companies routinely seek favors from their favorite politicians to stifle competition through regulation, subsidies, etc...Good point.

I meant it is good from the standpoint of "free enterprise" as a pro-corporate ideology, as commonly understood. There's no doubt the business lobbies can secure much through the legislative process that is contrary to free competition and free trade.

[Marcus Bryant]

Good point.

I meant it is good from the standpoint of "free enterprise" as a pro-corporate ideology, as commonly understood. There's no doubt the business lobbies can secure much through the legislative process that is contrary to free competition and free trade.

That always seems to be difficult for some to understand, on the left as well on the right.

[DarkReign]

That always seems to be difficult for some to understand, on the left as well on the right.

I dont believe they (ie politicians) missed that point so much as they ignore it and remember which side their bread is buttered on and by whom, specifically.

[Marcus Bryant]

I dont believe they (ie politicians) missed that point so much as they ignore it and remember which side their bread is buttered on and by whom, specifically.

But elections really matter, right?

[DarkReign]

But elections really matter, right?

George Carlin is spinning right now :downspin:

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, elections do matter for some. We're screwed regardless. At least until the Democratic-Republican Party goes away. Well, that's assuming we don't end up with something worse, but at least there won't be any false advertising then.

[DarkReign]

Well, elections do matter for some.

Me.


We're screwed regardless.

You and everyone else.

Sincerely,

Corporate Business

[Winehole23]

I'll buy that.

[Wild Cobra]

no, i said the premise is that corporations are persons

i'm not wrong

it's the whole fucking system that's wrong

:makemyday
I agree too. The constitution should not apply as far as it has towards corporations.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135829.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393250083568972.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

[Winehole23]

As for Cohen's argument that corporations don't have a "right to speak," bear in mind that most newspapers and other news organizations also happen to be corporations. Surely the First Amendment applies to them? Yet following Cohen's logic to its conclusion, there's nothing to prevent the government from interfering with the content of an op-ed (or a cable news show) in the run-up to a federal election. They may call themselves "the press," but why should News Corporation or the New York Times Company get to spend their evil corporate money with impunity?Because "the press" is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment. A rather weak link in Mr. Root's argument, it seems to me.

Mr. Root takes for granted the equivalence of money and speech as well as that of corporations and citizens. But these are both relative novelties and not foundational at all. In essence, his First Amendment absolutism promotes the continued corporate rapine of elections and the legislative process.

Mr. Olson engages in similar mystifications. He calls the unlimited tolerance of media opinions in elections a "loophole." Perhaps. Most of us call this loophole the First Amendment, which again, specifically protects the freedom of the press.

He then poses a phony equivalence of the press to special interest groups:


Time after time the Supreme Court has recognized that corporations enjoy full First Amendment protections. One of the most revered First Amendment precedents is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which afforded publishers important constitutional safeguards in libel cases. Any decision that determines that corporations have less protection than individuals under the First Amendment would threaten the very institutions we depend upon to keep us informed. This may be why Citizens United is supported by such diverse allies as the ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Mr. Olson then goes on to characterize the limitation of corporate participation in elections as the "rationing" of speech.


Persons of modest means often band together to speak through ideological corporations. That speech may not be silenced because of speculation that a few large entities might speak too loudly, or because some corporations may earn large profits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to handicap speakers based on their wealth, or ration speech in order somehow to equalize participation in public debate.This is a canard. In fact limitations on corporate speech are intended protect elections from being captured by them to the detriment of the people. This, not rationing -- or, more absurdly, "equalizing" -- speech, is the putative aim of electoral reform.

[boutons_deux]

The radical right SCOTUS assholes who elected dubya in 2000 and are radically "activist", legislating from the bench, dissing stare decisis, are now going to put the final nail in the coffin of US democracy, while assuring the eternal life (at least until the Chinese run the world) of an autocratic, oligarchic corporatocracy that will decide, with its money, who gets nominated and therefore who gets elected.

Citizens voting will be (even more of) a charade.
Total disenfranchisement.

101a is typical businessman, eternally pro-business/destroy-government, while its his class of businessmen who are raping democracy and controlling govt at every level.

Predatory, parasitic, gangster business will have no limitations on buying the govt it wants, the govt that will pore $Ts of tax dollars into business treasuries.

Environmental protections, consumer protections, employee protections, citizen protections will all be gutted.

[Marcus Bryant]

The radical right SCOTUS assholes who elected dubya in 2000 and are radically "activist",

Oh yeah, like this "radical right" member:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/rehnquist_dissent_bellotti.php

Put the barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger already.

[Marcus Bryant]

Though if we are concerned about the influence of wealthy non-persons on our government and in our society in general, then I'm not sure how tax-exempt foundations and charitable trusts escape scrutiny.

[DarkReign]

Though if we are concerned about the influence of wealthy non-persons on our government and in our society in general, then I'm not sure how tax-exempt foundations and charitable trusts escape scrutiny.

Wouldnt most NPOs fall under the humanitarian blanket, though?

Surely there is a difference between a GE political contribution and the same from (idk) Red Cross.

Of course, Blue Cross is a NPO and I would never mistaken their devices to be anything but self-interested.

Its hard to have a dilineation between what constitutes an acceptable corporate political donation, it seems.