The Supreme Court must be wondering: When will you blockheads get the message? Limits on political giving are OK. Limits on political spending are not.
The decision in the Citizens United case is indeed dramatic, overturning campaign laws first adopted more than a century ago. But the relentless drive of the speech regulators to tighten limits has pushed the country to a truly absurd point: the attempted outlawing of an advocacy documentary about a candidate for president. Really – if that is to be forbidden, what’s permitted?
For 35 years, so-called campaign finance reformers have been addressing non-problems in ways that make those non-problems bigger. They wanted to curb campaign spending and enhance transparency. Their measures have brought us to a point where so-called 527 groups can spend unlimited money in ways more secretive than ever. If there has ever been a policy failure, this is it.
The court has again and again struck speech restrictions to the ground, only to be confronted with ever new attempts to control speech.
Will we ever have a back to the drawing board moment on campaign finance? If so, now should be it.
As Peter Wallison argues in his great book on party finance, the real evil of American politics is that politicians must beg interest groups for the money to finance their campaigns. What we need is not “less money” and CERTAINLY not less speech – but more distance between donor and recipient. The mechanism for that is the political party. Reformers should be focusing on lifting limits on the flow of money from parties to candidates and restoring the role of the parties as the funders of campaigns. Instead of Candidate Smith asking Donor Gonzalez for money – and Donor Gonzalez asking for a favor in return – party chairman Robinson will ask thousands of donors for money on behalf of a slate of candidates, who will never know precisely whose gift was directed to them. That step will diminish corruption and the appearance of corruption.
The outlawing of speech by corporate group on the other hand only diminishes liberty.
corwin613 // Jan 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm
The real issue isn’t going to be about how much is actually spent. That is clumsy and far less productive. What will happen instead is that any entity, individual, corporation, or even foreign national will sit in a candidates office and say they will spend $100 million to defeat said candidate if they don’t support positions x,y, and z. Not one dime spent, so no disclosure in this case, but the threat will do incredible harm to our democracy, and the effects will be cumulative. Even if you’re ok with Exxon doing this, are you really ok when China or Saudi Arabia do it too?
teabag // Jan 22, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Once again if you want these people to have huge influence in American politics then give a huge Hurrah for the SCOTUS/GOP ruling.
Kanzeon // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:21 pm
COProgressive @ 9
“Corporations enter political contest not in the public interest, the supposed purpose of the political parties, but for a solely business purpose of gaining a favor, an advantage, that will increase their bottom line. Nothing more. Business doesn’t contribute to political campaigns altruistically for the most part, with few execeptions like sinz’s Ben and Jerry’s example.”
I don’t see why that makes a difference. I might say, depending on my view point, that the NRA or NARAL don’t serve the public interest. Corporations are concerned with things that affect their bottom line: some of those may be admirable, some not, but most are probably neutral. I the corporation is something you approve of, like a hospital lobbying for more stem cell research or a green energy company, then you would say they serve the public interest. But people who think we can drill our way to energy independence think that removing restrictions on offshore drilling is in the public interest.
“My objection is the notion that corporations are “persons” just doesn’t pass my smell test.”
It makes sense to me. If a networks airs a controversial program, shouldn’t it have protection? Shouldn’t corporations have the rights to their patents and trademarks and their advertising? And if you grant them protection there, where do you start to say they don’t? When the CEO speaks in favor of a tax, or against a restriction, or for a subsidy that affects the business, is that ok? If Obama criticizes Wall Street, shouldn’t a Wall Street bank be able to issue a press release in disagreement? If the local city councilperson accuses a hospital of performing unsafe abortions, can they have any political statements in their response?
sinz54 // Jan 23, 2010 at 9:17 am
balconesfault:
I keep explaining to you that old-style broadcasting is DYING.
The Government has virtually no control over what is sent over a coax TV cable or what is sent over the Internet. Look at the polls. Young people, in particular, get most of their news from Jon Stewart and the Internet. They don’t watch Katie Couric.
In today’s world, even if you mandated that CBS or NBC or ABC or their affiliates must allow X amount of “free speech,” its impact would be miniscule compared to the impact it would have had 40 years ago when Walter Cronkite’s show on CBS was watched by 30 million people (at a time when the U.S. population was 20% smaller than today).
balconesfault // Jan 23, 2010 at 11:33 am
In today’s world, even if you mandated that CBS or NBC or ABC or their affiliates must allow X amount of “free speech,” its impact would be miniscule compared to the impact it would have had 40 years ago when Walter Cronkite’s show on CBS was watched by 30 million people (at a time when the U.S. population was 20% smaller than today).
It would still have an impact. And conservatives know it.
For example – if the media that is still broadcast over our airwaves is unimportant, why are conservatives constantly fulminating over the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine being resuscitated?
I’m not calling for the fairness doctrine … but I’m saying that we could easily require those we give our airwaves to to include significant free airtime for political advertising during campaign season. And “it wouldn’t have as much impact as it would have 30 years ago” is not really a good reason why that shouldn’t be done.
teabag // Jan 23, 2010 at 12:34 pm
From Unbossed. com
Go for it I say.
That’s the way to keep the foreigners out of USA politics
The Boss Tweed-ization of national politics | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:28 am
[...] by E.D. Kain “Reformers should be focusing on lifting limits on the flow of money from parties to candidates and restoring the role of the parties as the funders of campaigns. Instead of Candidate Smith asking Donor Gonzalez for money – and Donor Gonzalez asking for a favor in return – party chairman Robinson will ask thousands of donors for money on behalf of a slate of candidates, who will never know precisely whose gift was directed to them. That step will diminish corruption and the appearance of corruption.” ~ David Frum [...]
Pop Some Popcorn: We Finally Get To See The Hillary Movie « Around The Sphere // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:37 pm
[...] #2: via E.D. Kain, David Frum at [...]