Economics Community
Should Corporations Be Able To Fund Campaign Commercials?
Corporations spend trillions of dollars trying to influence our vote in the supermarket. Should corporations also be able to spend money on ads trying to get us to vote for a specific political candidate?
The Supreme Court announced today that it is now illegal for politicians to put limits on corporate campaign spending.
Is this the end of Democracy? Is this going to fundamentally alter our politics and the economy in this country.
Democracy is supposed to be the rule of the people. If corporations can spend unlimited money to influence people into voting for thier favored candidate, will we still have a democracy?
If elections are mainly determined by who can flood the airwaves with the most political ads, will politicians try to do things for normal people or will they try to do things for the corporations who can make or break their next election with a flood of campaign ads?
Should economic organizations like corporations have the right to spend money on political campaigns?
Tags: campaign commercials, corporations
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Scott on -
I agree that it would be the end of Democracy. I got excited about a resurgence of Democracy as the internet allowed information to be shared in a wider context, but this ruling puts that progress back on its heels.
I agree that the worst thing is that politicians will have to work to make corporations happy instead of the people they are supposed to be representing.
-
Permalink Reply by James Scott on
-
I'm glad President Obama mentioned this in his State of the Union speech, but it was a really quick mention. The response of Justice Alito has given it more attention though. Hopefully more people will understand what this ruling means and support will build for new legislation to block it.
The concept of foreign countries and companies spending money through their American companies to influence elections will probably be the biggest boost to the effort to overturn this ruling. Sustainable energy efforts is a big threat to the oil revenues of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela so these countries might try to funnel money into ads opposing Democrats who want to fund more sustainable energy research. This is just one example of how corporate or foregn money interests will have the desire to influence American elections.
-
Permalink Reply by paul on
-
Have you seen the new ad from the "commission for truth in politics"?
It says that the House Democrats just passed a new $4 trillion dollar bailout for the big banks. The problem is that it isn't true. The banks won't be getting $4 trillion for this bill. The bill just says that a $4 trillion dollar cap (that was already in place) will remain on any future bailouts from the Federal Reserve. Yet, this is used in a dishonest way to make people think the Democrats are giving a lot more money to big banks.
Here's the ad:
Here's some information form FactCheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/the-big-bank-bailout-bill/
People will be making voting decisions based on false advertising like this. With the new ruling form the "not so Supreme Court" it will be hard to tell who is creating and paying for these false ads.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Collins on -
This will make the "swift boat" ads , during the Bush vs Kerry campaign, look like childs play. Big money will controll all elections for ever more. Lord helps!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Larry on -
Thought the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens was interesting. I unfortunately don't have the time to read all 90 pages, but if you'd like check it out:
To quote opinions I share:
"The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its "identity" as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose."
"...the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant.Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters."
Very interesting, interesting application of the third branch of governing "Essentially,five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."
And lastly, always act upon a hunch when applying law, not facts:
"Yet it is a pervasive feature of regulatory systems that unanticipated events, such as new technologies,may raise some unanticipated difficulties at the margins. The fluid nature of electioneering communications does not make this case special. The fact that a Court can hypothesize situations in which a statute might, at some point down the line, pose some unforeseen as-applied problems, does not come close to meeting the standard for a facial challenge.6
The majority proposes several other justifications for the sweep of its ruling. It suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because, if the Court were to continue on its normal course of resolving as-applied challenges as they present themselves, that process would itself run afoul of the First Amendment."
I guess your voice comes from who you own shares with.... can't wait to see how this plays out in 2012; the triangle (elected officials, the people and interest groups) has become an even straighter line.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Collins
-
Sure are long winded aren,t they!!!!!
Welcome to
Economic Chat
About
© 2010 Created by EconomicChat.com on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
