The court was hearing a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission for not allowing the release of the movie critical of Hillary Clinton during her campaign for the Democratic nomination. So what the court was literally ruling on was that the federal government doesn't have the power to censor political films. They then expanded the ruling to allow all corporations to not be limited in their political advertising. What the ruling does not allow is ability of corporations to give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. They can only spend it expressing their own opinions, as they would a commercial for their product. Another reason not to worry about the decision is that 26 states already allowed this kind of spending on local politicians. Also, for years PACs have been a huge loophole in the ability for anyone to spend large sums of money in support or condemnation of any candidate. There is even some evidence that donations don't actually effect political decisions if you hold constituency and politician's beliefs constant.
Since the founding of this nation we have allowed one specific type of business to spend all of their resources on informing and often swaying the public on political topics. The press has been given the freedom to implicitly and for centuries explicitly influence American politics. Few would complain about our free press, which is guaranteed in the Constitution. In the same way I don't see Constitutional limits of citizen spending for political campaigns (which is actually limited currently). Nor are there Constitutional limits on groups of citizens spending their money on politics. It's not about what you want, it's about what the Constitution intends. Admittedly, the intention is up for debate, but that debate is decided on by the Supreme Court. Judicial review, although not explicitly in the Constitution, is thought by many to be implied. Don't worry, the irony of relying on the implied power of the Supreme Court to reject the implied power of corporate donations is not lost on me.
The problem is that money has influence on politics, even with campaign finance restrictions. Unless you intend to remove all political speech, there is very little to be done to prevent that influence. Donation disclosure is one way to hold politicians accountable for the money they take, but it's not the answer. The answer isn't to get businesses out of politics, it's to get politics out of business. As long as corporations or unions can use their influence to change the rules of the game, the game will be changed in their favor. Limiting expenditures on political speech limits Constitutional freedoms and actually hurts the chances of minor politicians. Limiting our government is the only way to limit money's influence in it.
I don't think you've ever written a post I disagreed with more, and that's saying a lot! This could easily be a 100 comment debate and I'm not sure this is the best forum for it. So I'm going to avoid that and just stick out my tongue and say I emphatically and without question believe you are completely wrong about this. But hey, it's your opinion, and I respect that.
ReplyDeleteJust want to throw out another possibility- what about giving all politicians a certain amount of free time on the airwaves?
ReplyDeleteMakes sense to me. I'd be interested to hear arguments against this. Maybe a few, Justin?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erin. And I totally disagree with every single thing you said. But as Justin pointed out, there's too much to debate. However there are two things about the media that I have to address.
ReplyDeleteDo you understand the first amendment? "The press has been given the freedom to implicitly and for centuries explicitly influence American politics." What? NO! The first amendment explicitly prevents the government from limiting a person from voicing their opinion, whether as an individual or in the press. That's hugely different from "the media is allowed to explicitly influence politics".
Also, you completely twisted the information from the podcast you linked to about the media. In fact, what it was saying actually disproves much of your post. It explained the history of having an independent press. In the first century of our country's existence, newspapers had to rely on funding from political candidates and political parties because of the high cost of printing. Because of that financial source, newspapers were blatantly partisan. When paper pulp was developed more than a century ago, cost of production plummeted, and newspapers could turn a profit simply from selling their papers to the public - a public that wanted to hear facts from both sides. Thus it was in the media's economic interest to become independent. That shows that when you took biased funding out of the media, information became more free. So not only does that not show that the media has been explicitly allowed for centuries to influence politics (where you linked it in your post), but it also shows that when you take away "corporate" funding, you get a more free exchange of ideas.
Dude, I know you want your libertarian candidates to see some sunshine, but allowing corporations into political advertising is not the answer.
Yea Harrison, you're dead wrong on this, sorry. Gotta say I emphatically disagree with you, but I like the counterpoints swirly raised. I pretty much disagree with everything you said, so I'll just leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a lot of dissent without a lot of reasons. Let me try and put forth my main thoughts and see if we can have a beneficial conversation.
ReplyDelete1) All previous attempts at limiting money's influence on politics has failed, not because the laws weren't right, but because it is impossible. If you disagree, please layout a law that would work.
2) With this specific case in mind, I don't think the government should have the right to limit the release of political films.
3) When discussing the press, I was only trying to show that newspapers are just like any other business, whether they should be or not. The press is allowed to spend huge sums of money overtly supporting candidates, why can't other companies? What is the inherent difference between a newspaper and a company that wants to inform the public of their specific viewpoint.
4) I believe that the primary reason campaign finance reform exists now is because it is legislation that will get current politicians votes. Also, by limiting the amount of money that can be given to politicians, it puts more emphasis on name recognition giving incumbents the advantage over their competitors.
Erin: I don't think this is better because of reason #4. Unless these public options give money to any candidate, no matter how small, they will only continue the dominance of the two major parties.
Swirly: Yes I understand the first amendment. I was only asking what the fundamental difference was between the press and a company that release a film. I did not mean to twist the NPR story, the only point I was trying to make with that is showing just how bias our media has been.
I don't think allowing corporate and union interests will help libertarian candidates. In fact, it is likely to hurt them. I don't care about libertarian candidates, I care about libertarian ideals. I think this issue is about freedom of expression, and the last thing I want my government to limit is speech about government.
"There seems to be a lot of dissent without a lot of reasons."
ReplyDeleteWe have reasons, Harrison, they're just so numerous we don't feel it's worth having an epic online debate about. But since you and Brad asked me for some of my thoughts, here they are. Regretfully this will be my last comment.
Regarding your original post:
"So what the court was literally ruling on was that the federal government doesn't have the power to censor political films."
Wrong, in my opinion. Campaigns can make as many films as they want to, as they have in the past. It is corporate spending that is limited.
"Another reason not to worry about the decision is that 26 states already allowed this kind of spending on local politicians."
Wrong, in my opinion. Just because the states didn't have laws on the books about it doesn't mean they allowed it. Federal law prevented it. I think you have misinterpreted the article you linked to.
"Also, for years PACs have been a huge loophole in the ability for anyone to spend large sums of money in support or condemnation of any candidate."
So? I don't like PACs either. I don't think this is evidence of the failure of campaign finance law. If anything it's a good reason for more of it.
"There is even some evidence that donations don't actually effect political decisions if you hold constituency and politician's beliefs constant."
...because of campaign finance law and precedent.
"Few would complain about our free press, which is guaranteed in the Constitution. In the same way I don't see Constitutional limits of citizen spending for political campaigns (which is actually limited currently)."
Here I think your logic is bad. Those two examples aren't even close to the same thing.
"It's not about what you want, it's about what the Constitution intends."
People who disagree with this ruling (like me) think the Constitution does not intend for corporations to have free speech. Please give us a little credit.
"The problem is that money has influence on politics, even with campaign finance restrictions. Unless you intend to remove all political speech, there is very little to be done to prevent that influence."
I disagree -- there goes the baby with the bathwater. The law is something that can be done, and has been done for the last 30 years. Just because it wasn't perfect doesn't mean it wasn't helpful.
"Limiting expenditures on political speech limits Constitutional freedoms and actually hurts the chances of minor politicians."
This is a chance for campaign finance reform (what the High Court should have done), not destruction.
"Limiting our government is the only way to limit money's influence in it."
More opinion I disagree with. I agree limiting gov't is a good way to limit corporate interest -- but not the only way. I think we'll see how much good the law was doing come November, when it no longer holds sway.
Cheryl's two points were excellent. I would add them here.
Regarding your last comment:
1) McCain-Feingold and all other laws pertaining to campaign finance law and precedent. You have no way of knowing that these laws didn't work because you haven't provided any evidence they didn't work, just evidence that they didn't work perfectly. Again, we need reform not destruction.
2) The gov't doesn't have that right, now or ever. It had the right to limit corporate spending on political films, and now it doesn't. You have not shown that this is the same thing.
3) The Constitution regards the Press as a completely separate, special entity (as noted in the 1st amendment). I think your belief that it's just another industry is in conflict with that.
4) Maybe so, but again, this is a good reason for reform, not destruction.
Peace,
Justin
Ok ok I know I said my last comment would be my last, but I found out I was wrong about something. I said that federal law restricted campaign spending on state elections -- that's not true. There are actually three states (one of them is Ca) that allow unlimited corporate spending on state elections like what the Citizens United case has made possible on the federal level. There is also evidence that this doesn't make much of a difference (some of the biggest donors are still individuals).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still think things will be much different at the federal level. An international corporation like Exxon-Mobil could get a lot more out of influencing a Senator to hinder say, cap and trade legislation, than it could influencing a state legislator to do so.
My info on this came from here:
http://bit.ly/cR3jW2