The Supreme Court has just reversed a long-standing law, going back in fact more than a century, to 1907, which barred corporations from contributing money to political campaigns. They still can't give money directly to politicians, but they can purchase advertisement. The Court, in fact, by a 5-4 margin, has ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they please to this end, and that they have as much right as individuals to do so. Presumably, this will in effect also end the ban on labor unions contributing to campaigns. That will be up to the rank-and-file to decide, presumably, if they ever decide to take that up. More than likely, they will just continue doing what they have always done-vote for who they damn well please, as they damn well should.
All of these extravagantly expensive political campaigns you've been seeing over the course of the last few election cycles? Well, they just got a whole lot more expensive.
Teddy Roosevelt pushed and lobbied for the old law way back when, so one can assume he would not be too happy with this latest development, but you know what? Who cares? Back then, corporations were engaged in some pretty bad behaviors, things that make today's corporate sharks look like pantywaists. Today's ruling is a far cry from paving the way for a return to the days of the trusts and monopolies that Roosevelt thought, with some merit, were tantamount to turning the American economy into the personal fiefdom of a select group of corporate titans and their major shareholders. This actually puts things on a more even keel. Corporations now will have the flexibility and the freedom to make the point that they aren't necessarily the bad guys in all cases, that overly-intrusive government bureaucracy, taxes and regulations, are at least as much responsible for rising prices and high unemployment as corporate greed and corruption.
Take what they say with a healthy, skeptical grain of salt, sure, but don't begrudge them their rights to make their case just like nearly anyone or anything else does.
8 comments:
Here is my opinion on the subject:
A union is made up of members (individual citizens.) If a union wishes to have a voice it should use the voices of its voting members.
A corporation is a non-voting entity that is inherently involved in the economics of a country. It needs ways to communicate to the voters its needs and desires.
Good points, especially about the unions. It never ceases to amaze me that union officials seem to think they have the right to donate the money of rank-and-file members to political candidates those members do not support, in a great many cases. If they want to pass a law against something, pass one against that. Don't hold your breath for that to happen though.
I certainly think corporations should be able to make their point and I don't begrudge them their corporate nature.
But, if a grassroots candidate runs and their campaign might in some way negatively impact a corporation, how could they compete with that sort of media budget?
I take it you support the grassroots, right? So, what if a Tea Party is running Candidate A to win, who is way outside the establishment, and say Boeing wants the establishment Candidate B to win. How could the Tea Party compete in the public square, given that the winners of races tend to be the ones who can afford to really get their message out?
I mean, I don't know the answer. But can you see where it could make it harder to take back the government from the hacks and lobbyists?
Yeah, I know there's no easy answers. It can get messy and complicated. I'm just thinking, and hoping, this will make it easier for conservatives to get their message out in a way that can help them define themselves, as opposed to letting the other side define them.
So different groups that might not be inclined to vote for conservative candidates might get a clearer picture of how conservative policies can benefit them, if they are women, black, gay, students, elderly, etc, not just the angry southern white guy too many of these groups thinks is the sum and substance of conservative politics.
Even most pagans and other members of alternative religions have been mislead, in my opinion, into thinking conservative policies are the bane of all that is good. And it's all because Democrats have these special interest groups that pump money their way. This might, just might, even the playing field.
But yeah, you're right, there can be drawbacks to it as well. That's why I advise to take things with a healthy level of skepticism, but with an open mind at the same time.
This decision might make it easier for a labor party to form. The right may regret it.
Ren-
The right wouldn't care, they'd be ecstatic. A labor party would just siphon more votes from the Democrats. Not much, maybe just one or two percent at best, but every little bit helps.
For a "labor party" to become a major party in the US, there's one group of voters it needs that I doubt it will ever get-workers.
Now if they worked at increasing their influence in the Democratic Party, that might be a more viable strategy, don'cha think? Of course, that would only work as long as labor bosses actually took into consideration the actual feelings and values of their rank-and-file, something they seldom do outside of a handful of issues, if that.
A labor party is never going to win and keep the loyalty of rank-and-file union members, let alone non-union workers, as long as they persist in promoting or supporting things the rank-and-file and non-union workers are dead set against.
The other thing is, given the fact that DC has made it clear that they're willing to funnel money to companies that are struggling, how long will it take for some firm on Wall Street to say, "We'll get you elected, and then you'll get us on the government tit"?
Rufus, they do that anyway, through the private donations of CEOs. When those guys donate money, it comes with the implicit understanding that they are expecting something in return, mainly in the area of business.
There's a limit to what people can donate, per campaign, but they can do all kinds of things besides that, like for example, sponsor fund raising drives, dinners, etc. You know, that old bit where a candidate appears at a dinner and gives a speech, and people pay twenty-thousand dollars a plate, mainly for the meet-and-greet after the speech. You know, where you can have your picture taken with a politician who smiles at the camera while he's standing there with you, and twenty seconds later he probably won't remember your name.
What do you want to bet these companies have all kinds of slush funds set up to do all these things though third parties funded through off-shore accounts.
It's like I said, I know there can be problems with this, but people just have to start paying attention to what's going on.
And by the way, do you see what I mean now about politicians having way too much power? A company that makes hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars a year shouldn't feel like it needs to go begging a political party for favors. The fact that they feel they do might be an indication that some of these people have arranged things precisely so these companies are under their thumbs.
They play this old bait and switch game with people. Yeah, you are in such and such tax bracket, but as long as you do A, B, and C, we can whittle it down to where it's well under twenty percent. Toss a little into the kitty for us somehow, hell, you might not owe a dime, wink wink.
A long time ago, the highest tax bracket was, I think, way up to something like eighty percent or maybe even higher than that. They knew that wasn't sustainable, so they inserted all of these clauses and loopholes that made it impossible for a large business to thrive unless they played by the rules the politicians set up.
Three guesses who those rules were mainly intended to benefit. A hint, it wasn't you and me.
Post a Comment