Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Funding

[Christopher]

Hmmm, if this is being portrayed accurately in the news, then apparently unlimited campaign funding can be collected from corporations?

Let's assume for the moment I understand this correctly, then there seems to be some issues at stake:

1. corporate money belongs to the individual shareholders. If a majority of shareholders elect to donate campaign money to a candidate, that majority should have a limited degree to do so. The limitation comes from the fact that not 100% of shareholders would elect to make such a move. Of course, shareholder elections probably would not take place for such donations anyway. Regardless, the ruling seems ethical from this angle.

2. corporate donations may imply a connection between business and government. Relationships between business and government have historically not favored freedom and personal rights (almost necessarily all relationships have a level of personal, non-universal non-ideal self-favoritism involved). Therefore pragmatically it may be that such donations will result in greater collusion and diminishment of universal rights' protection. This ruling would then appear unethical.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Alfonso Jones]

Hmmm, if this is being portrayed accurately in the news, then apparently unlimited campaign funding can be collected from corporations?

Let's assume for the moment I understand this correctly, then there seems to be some issues at stake:

1. corporate money belongs to the individual shareholders. If a majority of shareholders elect to donate campaign money to a candidate, that majority should have a limited degree to do so. The limitation comes from the fact that not 100% of shareholders would elect to make such a move. Of course, shareholder elections probably would not take place for such donations anyway. Regardless, the ruling seems ethical from this angle.

2. corporate donations may imply a connection between business and government. Relationships between business and government have historically not favored freedom and personal rights (almost necessarily all relationships have a level of personal, non-universal non-ideal self-favoritism involved). Therefore pragmatically it may be that such donations will result in greater collusion and diminishment of universal rights' protection. This ruling would then appear unethical.

Thoughts, anyone?

A fast response:

Your thinking runs up against the nature of a corporation. Would you argue that a corporation cannot make any decision except "to a limited degree" because a minority of shareholders may object? The structure of a corporation is that the shareholders do not have day to day, line-by-line budgetary control of the decisions made.

Bill P

[Selene]

Chris and Bill:

My understanding is that what a shareholder can and cannot do is specifically delineated in their agreements.

I can own a company the makes centrifuges, but I could not make them use them in a specific manner.

A shareholder elects a board of directors to manage the company correct?

This is about the first amendment: Congress shall make NO law.

It does not say, except on alternate Tuesdays or when you get crotchety and your panties are twisted.

The essential element of this decision is that "money is speech" and you cannot abridge the free exercise thereof.

Long overdue.

Fucking asshole McCain with his bullshit about getting money out of politics - God that man drives me nuts.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Chris and Bill:

My understanding is that what a shareholder can and cannot do is specifically delineated in their agreements.

I can own a company the makes centrifuges, but I could not make them use them in a specific manner.

A shareholder elects a board of directors to manage the company correct?

This is about the first amendment: Congress shall make NO law.

It does not say, except on alternate Tuesdays or when you get crotchety and your panties are twisted.

The essential element of this decision is that "money is speech" and you cannot abridge the free exercise thereof.

Long overdue.

Fucking asshole McCain with his bullshit about getting money out of politics - God that man drives me nuts.

Adam

Exactly, Adam.

I don't know of any corporation which requires that 100% of the shareholders agree in order to permit a given corporate action.

Regards,

BIll P

[Christopher]

The big issue is dealing with a non-perfect system. In a perfect system, there is no ethical justification for preventing corporations from donating to political parties. In a non-perfect system, evidence is very clear that money manipulates laws (we call this politics, and terms exist such as pork-barreling, etc).

My pragmatic stance here is more along Milton Friedman's position: that we must prevent the centralization of power where that power is capable of over-riding the rights of man. In the case of corporations, evidence suggests that the involvement of corporate money in politics tends to produce political gestures in favor of the businessmen who donate (and not in favor of rights or equality).

[Selene]

The big issue is dealing with a non-perfect system. In a perfect system, there is no ethical justification for preventing corporations from donating to political parties. In a non-perfect system, evidence is very clear that money manipulates laws (we call this politics, and terms exist such as pork-barreling, etc).

My pragmatic stance here is more along Milton Friedman's position: that we must prevent the centralization of power where that power is capable of over-riding the rights of man. In the case of corporations, evidence suggests that the involvement of corporate money in politics tends to produce political gestures in favor of the businessmen who donate (and not in favor of rights or equality).

Careful Chris...

if you follow that logic on the ever centralizing of money, power, structure, rules, regulations, laws ...

winds up being a very compelling argument for the exact obverse which is of course...Anarchism...ta da...

Can't find the one we flew which was pure black with a solid gold dollar sign.

Adam

[Selene]

Stossel commenting on the recent decision over the Hilary Clinton movie which was closely decided by the Supreme Court.

"The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He couldn't have been more clear: 'When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.'"

"He also said, 'Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy — it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people — political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it.'"

Here is the article by Stossel:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/100126-stossel-free-speech.php

Adam