Clicky poll: FoS or Money's got da Power?Follow

Yesterday the SC nullified a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Law when they overturned an earlier ruling disallowing corporate and union treasury funds to be used for 'sham' issues.

CJ Roberts says, "when core values are at stake a tie goes to the speaker and not the censor. (ok, not likely an EXACT quote but close enough for you ruffians).

I'm not keen on corporate funded political advertisment to begin with (and I'll include quasi-corporations like unions) but the bill seemed unconstitutional from the get-go.

The problem with trying to separate corporations and unions from the political process is that ultimately, both organizations are structurally "groups of people". It's a bit hard to argue that individuals have freedom of speech, but not groups of people. The SC is going to tend to always err on the side of free speech in cases like this, doubly so when it comes to political speech.

The counterargument is that those organizations are "for profit", and lots of people try to make that distinction. There's some merit to that since one can argue that the entity (corporation or union) becomes institutionally self-interested as a for-profit organization and may not represent even the interests of those who's money they hold. But then this puts us in the uncomfortable position of arguing the same "group versus individual" issue. Afterall, most individuals are "for profit", right? You pursue your career with the goal of making a living, thus you may equally be swayed by things that benefit your goals in that regard. If you make the arguement that for-profit organizations can't participate in political speech, the same argument ultimately applies to individuals. The only difference is whether one is a group or not.


And if that's the key difference, then why exempt non-profit organizations? They are just as prone to using their funds for things their donators may not agree with. Many people donate to non-profits based on the work they do (organizations like the Red Cross for instance). They may or may not also agree with how those organizations may spend money on lobbying or campains either. It's hard to say that one has more or less control whether they are an investor in a business, a member of a union, or a donator to a charity in terms of how some of those funds may be used politically.


Haven't seen the SC decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if some/all of those issues were relevant to the case.

The problem with trying to separate corporations and unions from the political process is that ultimately, both organizations are structurally "groups of people". It's a bit hard to argue that individuals have freedom of speech, but not groups of people. The SC is going to tend to always err on the side of free speech in cases like this, doubly so when it comes to political speech.
--------------------------------------------------------

the only real solution to stopping the influnce of special interest groups is to stop all political contributions alltogether.

create a federal web site, post their bio,s and hold a few federally funded debates and vote.

never gona happen. too much money swapping hands and a whole lot of incentive to keep making it happen. new rules just means finding new ways around it. like bundeling.

our system is as corrupt as any other system. but atleast we get to choose which crook gets their hands on the tax payer money pile. so atleast we get some consideration. better than none at all. better than most political systems.

needs alot of work, but still better than the rest.

Made ya' look...