From: chadu	Date: November 15th, 2011 08:28 pm (UTC)		(Link)

The language throughout seems to have a few dog whistles for left and right; I suspect it's intentional.

	From: chadu	Date: November 15th, 2011 08:29 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Can you expand your critique, Bill?

	From: whswhs	Date: November 15th, 2011 09:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I've looked at the actual decision, and its key points are quite different from what most people suppose, and less constitutionally arbitrary. Here's a quick summary:

1. When most people say "corporation," they have in mind what you could call a prototypical corporate: A huge, profit-making enterprise operating on a global scale, and owned by shareholders through publicly traded stock. And that arouses a whole range of populist impulses to mistrust "concentrated economic power." But when a lawyer says "corporation," they are referring to a specific organizational form that provides protection from certain types of legal liability—and to any group of people who operate with the protection of that organizational form. A corporation does not have to be large, or publicly traded: There are huge numbers of corporations that are about the size of a successful rpg publisher, and are closely held by a handful of shareholders. A corporation does not have to be profit-seeking: Nonprofit organizations can also be corporations. For example, labor unions are almost all incorporated; many churches are incorporated; most large charities are incorporated. I am an officer of the Libertarian Futurist Society, and we've been incorporated for a decade or more.

Specifically, Citizens United, the "corporation" this case was about, was not a profit-making corporation at all. It was an organization that sought to engage in political advocacy, and that incorporated for its own legal protection.

2. That legal protection is important! I would hardly dare be an officer of the LFS if we weren't a corporation; if we got sued, even unjustly and arbitrarily, I could face the loss of my retirement funds. Our other officers might lose houses in the same way.

3. The Supreme Court Decision rightly pointed to the rights of freedom of speech, of the press, and of association. Every single member of that organization had an absolute personal right to put forth their views on the political issues involved. That right was not diminished by their choosing to associate and put forth their views together. But if you say, "of course you can form an organization to publicize your views, but if you do so, you are legally forbidden to adopt an organizational form that shields your personal assets from lawsuits; you must put everything you own at risk, or not advocate political views," you are burdening the expression of political views. This is a classic example of what is legally called a chilling effect.

4. To be specific, would you want to say that any labor union that advocates a political viewpoint must give up its corporate organization to do so? Labor unions are corporations too. Should your union expose you to the risk of losing your pension and your house if it gets sued for something? Or should it be forbidden to advocate political ideas?

5. Or, for another point, television stations and newspapers are almost all corporations. Should they be silenced, too? Should the New York Times and MSNBC be told that, as corporations, they may not endorse any candidate or ballot proposition? That would seem to throw away the central point of having a free press.

6. Now, there are people who say, "Yes, but that's the press. Citizens United isn't a newspaper, nor is General Motors, nor Apple." But that, in my opinion, is a total misunderstanding of the meaning of "press." If you look back to the time when the Constitution was written, "press" did not mean newspapers, or news reporters; it meant anyone who owned a printing press, or could hire one, as a means of expressing their views more widely than to the audience for a speech. The Internet, now, is exactly what "the press" meant then, and what I am doing now is exercising the freedom of the press to discuss a political issue. And I consider any proposal to limit "freedom of the press" to some specific group—for example, to say that newspapers are "the press," but you and I are not—as subversive of liberty, because it naturally tends to establish an official press that will become the tool of established powers, while denying freedom of expression to independent people who might oppose them.

I think that's as good a brief summary as I can give of the legal issues.

	From: chadu	Date: November 15th, 2011 10:06 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Nice summation.

I think the core issue, at least for me, is that while I'm okay with advocacy protections for corporations, and "money is free speech" for human beings (other Supreme Court rulings), I do not think that a corporation -- however large or small -- should have that particular right.

TSR or GE or News Corp or the AFL-CIO can endorse anybody they want, but allowing them to directly fund super-PACs (if I'm understanding this right) seems dangerous.

I see it as leading to a sort of opposite of the chilling effect you mention: heating spiral?

Does that make sense?

	From: whswhs	Date: November 15th, 2011 10:29 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I don't think so. Remember, "corporation" is a political form.

Do you want to forbid all labor unions to spend any of the dues they collect on supporting political campaigns? (It is legally possible, in California at least, to tell a union that you don't want to join and don't want them to take any money from your pay to support political activity. Obviously unions are engaged in political activity with the funds they collect.)

Do you want to forbid any group that seeks to raise political funds to incorporate?

Do you want to forbid political parties that have raised funds as parties to pas those funds on to candidates they favor? Political parties are normally incorporated, after all, and "money is free speech" is part of how they work.

Or do you want to single out one group of corporations for restraint, while not restraining others? The potential for governmental control of the political process in that sort of thing seems quite alarming.

	From: chadu	Date: November 16th, 2011 02:38 am (UTC)		(Link)

Do you want to forbid all labor unions to spend any of the dues they collect on supporting political campaigns? (It is legally possible, in California at least, to tell a union that you don't want to join and don't want them to take any money from your pay to support political activity. Obviously unions are engaged in political activity with the funds they collect.)

Actually, yes -- directly. (And I am a huge fan of labor unions.) They can spend all they want on advocacy (answerable to their membership), and not one single penny to PACs or campaign election funds: nothing that puts money into a campaign's war chest. State your position, however you will, and that is cool with me. Give people money to give money to people to do stuff you might not want them to do with it? No frakking way.

Do you want to forbid any group that seeks to raise political funds to incorporate?

Maybe. (See below.)

Do you want to forbid political parties that have raised funds as parties to pas those funds on to candidates they favor? Political parties are normally incorporated, after all, and "money is free speech" is part of how they work.

No, but I think they'd need to be a special case/exception.

If they must exist.

(I'd prefer a "no outside money from what is given by the federal government" idea, where candidates are given $X and a certain amount of free time on all comm networks administered by the FCC.)

Or do you want to single out one group of corporations for restraint, while not restraining others?

Maybe. An LLC of 20 small business owners is different, in scope and in effect, than a multi-billion dollar mega-corp, in the monetary leverage they can provide. So, maybe, yeah -- I would be in favor so singling out a class of corporations (maybe if a corp reports $5 mil+ in after-expenses revenues in a year, they get restrained).

The potential for governmental control of the political process in that sort of thing seems quite alarming.

I agree. I also say that corporations' monetary influence upon the political process is also quite alarming.

And happening, now, as we speak.

Please feel free to respond.

It is nice to have a rational political discussion without rancor.

	From: whswhs	Date: November 16th, 2011 03:31 am (UTC)		(Link)

Well, in the Citizens United case, the corporation was formed for the specific purpose of making a film critical of (then Senatorial candidate) Hillary Clinton. That is, what they were doing, as a corporation, was precisely to State your position, as you put it. They apparently were told that it was illegal for them to do so; they appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed with them and (it seems) with you.

I am against having any special category of organizations who are "special case[s]/exception[s]" to the general rules. That way lies the Powers That Be deciding that the people who hold opinions favorable to them are engaged in legitimate expression of opinion, and the others are violating the law and may be shut down. And then you can forget about "the consent of the governed" playing any real part in the political system.

As to the influence of corporate money (and let's add union money and nonprofit money—the AARP is high on my list of the most evil organizations in American politics), of course it's a problem. It's called rent-seeking, and it has been analyzed in detail by brilliant scholars such as Mancur Olson and Gordon Tullock. But the answer I favor is simply to strip government of the power to make regulatory decisions that favor one organization and hinder another, or preserve one organization and destroy another. If that power is there, then special interests, not being blind to their own gain, will seek to corrupt it, and will inevitably succeed, for reasons that Olson's The Logic of Collective Action spelled out in detail. And they'll be able to pay politicians and ideologists to come up with plausible reasons for believing that their abuses are for the public good, too.

	From: chadu	Date: November 16th, 2011 04:18 am (UTC)		(Link)

In the Citizens United case, the corporation was formed for the specific purpose of making a film critical of (then Senatorial candidate) Hillary Clinton. That is, what they were doing, as a corporation, was precisely to State your position, as you put it. They apparently were told that it was illegal for them to do so; they appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed with them and (it seems) with you.

I am actually cool with that; I count it as advocacy.

The side-effects of the decision are what I seem to be against (re-exploring my position).

I am against having any special category of organizations who are "special case[s]/exception[s]" to the general rules. That way lies the Powers That Be deciding that the people who hold opinions favorable to them are engaged in legitimate expression of opinion, and the others are violating the law and may be shut down. And then you can forget about "the consent of the governed" playing any real part in the political system.

While you have an ideological point that I agree with (in general), my "pragmatic" part thinks this can and will be abused by people who don't share my -- or your; or our, or anyone's -- ideological issue.

Also: is it possible that the OWS and other Occupy movements are already victims of "the Powers That Be deciding that the people who hold opinions favorable to them are engaged in legitimate expression of opinion, and the others are violating the law and may be shut down"? Worth thought.

As to the influence of corporate money (and let's add union money and nonprofit money—the AARP is high on my list of the most evil organizations in American politics), of course it's a problem.

Hear, hear.

It's called rent-seeking, and it has been analyzed in detail by brilliant scholars such as Mancur Olson and Gordon Tullock. But the answer I favor is simply to strip government of the power to make regulatory decisions that favor one organization and hinder another, or preserve one organization and destroy another. If that power is there, then special interests, not being blind to their own gain, will seek to corrupt it, and will inevitably succeed, for reasons that Olson's The Logic of Collective Action spelled out in detail. And they'll be able to pay politicians and ideologists to come up with plausible reasons for believing that their abuses are for the public good, too.

Well, fuck wow, Bill: I cannot respond to that, because you just unleashed references on shit I do not know about, like big-time.

I need to do some reading before I can respond fully and appropriately.

HOWEVER.

Special protections for a corporation or industry shouldn't normally happen.

But the answer I favor is simply to strip government of the power to make regulatory decisions that favor one organization and hinder another, or preserve one organization and destroy another.

Maybe. I am generally against favor and preservation, I am somewhat in favor of hinder and destroy hostile/overwhelming forces.

I am assured by people here (that would know+, that no one in Congress will NEVER EVER give up self-regulation.

I have worked for certain departments that may best be destroyed (and rebuilt, better).

Entrenched (political) civil servants need to be shown the door.

Campaign donations limited to $500 per 6 months. Period.

	From: whswhs	Date: November 16th, 2011 04:52 am (UTC)		(Link)

What do you mean by "hostile/overwhelming," though?

Are we talking about the use of force or fraud? If so, that shouldn't need regulation; it just needs the enforcement of the criminal law. And certainly there's a proper role for the federal government to step in if local law enforcement has sold out.

If no force or fraud is involved, I think the actual problem is on the other side. Gabriel Kolko's Railroads and Regulation analyzed the actual pattern of the 19th century: large enterprises attempted to secure above market returns through monopolies and cartels, but their arrangements fell apart, every time, because a big shipper could always go to one firm and say, "give us a rebate if you want our business," and they wouldn't hold the line. So they started working to have increased government regulation to enable cartelization.

Businesses in fact are not very good at coercion; it has a high overhead cost that has to be paid whether you're using it or not, and an organization that specializes in coercion can't easily specialize in production and trade as well. And even a very powerful business does not have the coercive powers of a weak government. Microsoft, for example, cannot come into my home and seize my Mac Mini, or force me to install Microsoft software on it that I don't want to use, or make me pay for Windows even though I don't run it, or fine me for having the wrong kind of computer; still less can they put me in prison for it, or destroy my Mac Mini. Businesses that want to coerce their rivals outsource the job to government agencies. This is what Ayn Rand called "the aristocracy of pull," and what Sarah Palin has lately taken to calling "crony capitalism"—and I think her political economy, sad to say, is light years more sophisticated than that of the OWS crowd, in that she doesn't just talk about "the 1%," but makes a clear distinction between "crony capitalism" and "free market capitalism." I don't hold her up as a titan of intellect, but she or whoever writes her economics speeches has a sound grasp of some basic points that go beyond simple "us-versus-them" hostility to the wealthy—which strikes me as no more likely to lead to sound conclusions than any other sort of "us-versus-them."

Incidentally, I want to remark that I share your pleasure in having a political discussion based on appeals to reason and evidence. I don't get as much of that as I would like.

	From: zonemind	Date: January 6th, 2012 02:53 am (UTC)		(Link)

What I see here are two sides. Metaphorically: one side is calling for legislation to save the unicorns, the other for legislation to abolish unicorn hunting. They share the same laudable goal, disagree vociferously on the details of how to achieve that goal, and utterly disregard the fact that unicorns have never existed.

I'm also going to mention one of my favourite axioms now: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."

In the specifics of this case, I happen to agree with Bill. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was not a travesty, and was in keeping with the Constitutional tenets currently ascendant.

I'll refrain from discussing the general, because it's been established that this is a "high class" thread.

	From: chadu	Date: January 6th, 2012 03:45 am (UTC)		(Link)

Montejon, feel free to discuss the general. It's cool.

(High class? REALLY? Ok.)

(You already know that we can vehemently disagree and still be friends; so, what's the risk?)

(Same for Bill, yo.)

I agree with you that the "Constitutional tenets currently ascendant" are kosher qua kosher, but (once again) I'm not sure the Constitution MEANT that.

I feel, supported by my independent exploration of the subject, that the Constitution was built to resist popular opinions (majority vs. minority), while allowing minority ways to check majority (if needed) by supplying a structure built outside of 18th century class/money concerns (popular vote).

In the interest of checking power, reflected in the checks and balances of our three divisions of government, I look with the stink-eye towards corporations. And money-men. And what money can buy, today.

Part of me really wants unions and other organizations I support to be able to throw bigtime money at candidates. Part of me hates that big banks/investment houses can shower a candidate with gigantic money.

Mixed feelings, I have. (/yoda)

Thus.

Cut. It. All.

No money other than an equal government stipend for campaigning and only strictly allotted airtime.

No requests for donors, not sly corporate ads (lost cause).

Just ideas.

Get a lifetime nonpartisan (well, as much as you can) civil servant(s) to regulate it; their interest is in that the government works smoothly, not who's in charge of said government. For the most part.

Might be neat, plausible, and wrong: but I know why it's trending.

The establishment would never allow it.

That's what we have to work with.