Page 1 of 1 pages
If you would like to see a startling visual representation of the difference between the financial aspects of our electoral processes and corporate “money/speech,” then follow the link:
http://www.cloudbyte.com/spending.html
Posted by Terry Sneller on Feb 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM
The reference to Powell is apt. After writing a memo that outlined a strategy for corporations (written for the U.S. Chamber, now the most powerful lobby in DC) to rescue the “free enterprise system” from the anti-war, consumer (Nader) and environmental movements, he recommended corporations take back the Campus, the Media and the Courts.
Subsequently, the Chamber and Scaife/Olin/Coors/Bradley/Smith Richardson etc. set up the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Chamber’s legal foundation, etc. to guide cases that fit the pro-corporate doctrine of commercial speech and political speech. Powell himself wrote the first such decision (Belotti) and it went from there.
The Amendment idea (see www.freespeechforpeople.org and movetoamend.org) is clearly the way to go. Sure, do the other things like public funding of elections, restrictions on corporations that do bus with the govt (“Pay to Play”) and overseas corporations, etc.—the things Schumer and Van Hollen are pushing, and Allan Grayson, etc., but our job as activists is to set the bar high and challenge the corporate take-over of constitutional rights. So we must Amend the Constitution.
Posted by Charlie Cray on Feb 19, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Not much of this staunchly pro-corporate sentiment was evident at the time the Powell manifesto was written, but it became very evident exactly one decade later. For it was in August 1981 that Reagan busted the Air Traffic Controllers and by default virtually every other labor union. And before that decade was out we had the worst homeless problem than at any time since the Depression years, and the situation remains very acute today.
Many states have declared themselves to be “Right to Work” states. That term is a joke, because it provides absolutely no worker protection. It was supposed to mean that a company cannot force its workers to join a union as a condition of employment. But what it has done is to tilt the axis so heavily on the side of the corporations that the worker literally has a prayer. Back during the postwar age most companies treated their workers with respect and you usually had to do something pretty awful before you were fired. Today you can be fired for just looking at someone the wrong way.
Posted by beechnut79 on Feb 21, 2010 at 3:20 PM
This article displays a fundamental ignorance of what the Supreme Court ruled and how our government works. Campaign finance—that is, corporate financial donations directly to campaigns of office seekers—was not the issue. What the Court said was that the Constitution prohibits limiting how much money corporations spend on creating their own issue- or candidate-oriented “speech.” The way to limit the impact of this ruling is to pass legislation (as they have in England, whose situation is similar) that requires funders of campaign ads to identify themselves and and requires corporations to get the OK of boards or shareholders before spending money on political ads. Even if the government completely funded all campaigns, corporations can, under this ruling, still fund their own ads.
Posted by Eric L. on Feb 27, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Yes, but that is the very problem. Issue ads and “527 groups” like the swiftboat campaigners in 2004 can abuse the system. The McCain-Feingold Law of 2002 banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 10, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Since you perceive Swiftboaters and 527 groups as abusing the system even after the passage of McCain-Feingold, I am not sure why you are concerned about the Supreme Court decision. There has already been introduced a bill that, by requiring full disclosure of ad sponsorship, will no doubt limit the abuse of the system by various groups without stepping on the first amendment, a McCain-Feingold clearly did.
As long as a corporation is considered to be a legal person, which has long been the case (and which admittedly seems at best an odd construction), the Supreme Court was correct in their decision. It is not their job to decide public policy, only to determine the law, based on the constitution.
Posted by Eric L. on Mar 10, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Corporations should not have the legal status of persons. They aren’t.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 11, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
If you would like to see a startling visual representation of the difference between the financial aspects of our electoral processes and corporate “money/speech,” then follow the link:
http://www.cloudbyte.com/spending.html
The reference to Powell is apt. After writing a memo that outlined a strategy for corporations (written for the U.S. Chamber, now the most powerful lobby in DC) to rescue the “free enterprise system” from the anti-war, consumer (Nader) and environmental movements, he recommended corporations take back the Campus, the Media and the Courts.
Subsequently, the Chamber and Scaife/Olin/Coors/Bradley/Smith Richardson etc. set up the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Chamber’s legal foundation, etc. to guide cases that fit the pro-corporate doctrine of commercial speech and political speech. Powell himself wrote the first such decision (Belotti) and it went from there.
The Amendment idea (see www.freespeechforpeople.org and movetoamend.org) is clearly the way to go. Sure, do the other things like public funding of elections, restrictions on corporations that do bus with the govt (“Pay to Play”) and overseas corporations, etc.—the things Schumer and Van Hollen are pushing, and Allan Grayson, etc., but our job as activists is to set the bar high and challenge the corporate take-over of constitutional rights. So we must Amend the Constitution.
Not much of this staunchly pro-corporate sentiment was evident at the time the Powell manifesto was written, but it became very evident exactly one decade later. For it was in August 1981 that Reagan busted the Air Traffic Controllers and by default virtually every other labor union. And before that decade was out we had the worst homeless problem than at any time since the Depression years, and the situation remains very acute today.
Many states have declared themselves to be “Right to Work” states. That term is a joke, because it provides absolutely no worker protection. It was supposed to mean that a company cannot force its workers to join a union as a condition of employment. But what it has done is to tilt the axis so heavily on the side of the corporations that the worker literally has a prayer. Back during the postwar age most companies treated their workers with respect and you usually had to do something pretty awful before you were fired. Today you can be fired for just looking at someone the wrong way.
This article displays a fundamental ignorance of what the Supreme Court ruled and how our government works. Campaign finance—that is, corporate financial donations directly to campaigns of office seekers—was not the issue. What the Court said was that the Constitution prohibits limiting how much money corporations spend on creating their own issue- or candidate-oriented “speech.” The way to limit the impact of this ruling is to pass legislation (as they have in England, whose situation is similar) that requires funders of campaign ads to identify themselves and and requires corporations to get the OK of boards or shareholders before spending money on political ads. Even if the government completely funded all campaigns, corporations can, under this ruling, still fund their own ads.
Yes, but that is the very problem. Issue ads and “527 groups” like the swiftboat campaigners in 2004 can abuse the system. The McCain-Feingold Law of 2002 banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting
Since you perceive Swiftboaters and 527 groups as abusing the system even after the passage of McCain-Feingold, I am not sure why you are concerned about the Supreme Court decision. There has already been introduced a bill that, by requiring full disclosure of ad sponsorship, will no doubt limit the abuse of the system by various groups without stepping on the first amendment, a McCain-Feingold clearly did.
As long as a corporation is considered to be a legal person, which has long been the case (and which admittedly seems at best an odd construction), the Supreme Court was correct in their decision. It is not their job to decide public policy, only to determine the law, based on the constitution.
Corporations should not have the legal status of persons. They aren’t.
register a new account »Posting Security