tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post2562842470847344740..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: CCA reinstates money laundering case against DeLay associatesGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20315613758713418522010-04-29T14:46:32.864-05:002010-04-29T14:46:32.864-05:00I would propose that more speech equals greater op...I would propose that more speech equals greater opportunity for the voter to be informed. However....<br /><br />If I propose a suggestion for how such and such should be handled by the elected individual and another speaker who has contributed orders of magnitude more to the campaign tha I have proposes an opposing viewpoint to the same issue, I believe that most of the elected would be swayed more by the larger donor.<br /><br />Having said that, I fundamentally agree with Grits. Especially about the law of unintended consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65600288281032174072010-04-29T14:34:31.163-05:002010-04-29T14:34:31.163-05:00Setting aside the constitutional arguments, Michae...Setting aside the constitutional arguments, Michael, campaign finance reform laws just don't work. They inevitably worsen the problems they aim to solve. I've never seen nor heard of a law that worked well and didn't have severe unintended consequences.<br /><br />Also, corporations have varying, often competing interests. They're not a monolith. Oil companies and wind power companies may have diametrically opposed agendas. And to say corporations don't "advance society" ignores 20th century history from Ford to Google. It's just not true.<br /><br />As mentioned, most campaign finance reform advocates also don't want corporate officers to be able to give however much they want as individuals, so it's really about limiting spending, not the corporation vs. person distinction. Reducing money in campaigns as a practical matter reduces communications with voters, and IMO we need more of that, not less.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26354126342591760802010-04-29T13:20:37.713-05:002010-04-29T13:20:37.713-05:00Scott, again, First Amendment protections do not r...Scott, again, First Amendment protections do not restrict the states; Fourteenth Amendment protections do. Specific Bill of Rights protections only restrict states if they protect a liberty interest within the "life, liberty, and property" clause. The restriction is not absolute, but requires that the deprivation of that right must be subject to due process of law.<br /><br />Do you think corporations want to increase voter debate and lessen ignorance? Corporations want to get their laws passed and their advocates elected! They exist to make money, not to advance society. ckikerintulia's points are very well taken.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06800907780727476826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39061283995583607222010-04-29T09:53:21.485-05:002010-04-29T09:53:21.485-05:00Well, gravyrug, most campaign finance reform advoc...Well, gravyrug, most campaign finance reform advocates also support limiting how much they can give as individuals.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying there's no harm, just that every solution I've ever seen enacted worked worse than the status quo. Austin's city races are a great example of a completely dysfunctional finance system that makes elections a bad joke where uninformed voters choose between candidates they know nothing about.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26903684326345792942010-04-29T09:41:03.197-05:002010-04-29T09:41:03.197-05:00The individuals making up a corporation are person...The individuals making up a corporation are persons, and have the ability to contribute to political campaigns as such. Why should they get the opportunity to contribute again as a corporate person?gravyrugnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47887472048444682702010-04-29T09:27:57.450-05:002010-04-29T09:27:57.450-05:00"I don't really have a voice in how, for ..."I don't really have a voice in how, for example, American Century Investments conducts its day to day business."<br /><br />However, those who do are actual human beings. Companies are not run by automation.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91675914057217196342010-04-29T09:11:13.344-05:002010-04-29T09:11:13.344-05:00Grits, I think we're going to amicably disagre...Grits, I think we're going to amicably disagree on this one.ckikerintuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02670661043872744115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-15778530749615251622010-04-29T09:09:16.310-05:002010-04-29T09:09:16.310-05:00A corporation is hardly a free association of indi...A corporation is hardly a free association of individuals. I own stock in several, via mutual funds and retirment accounts. But I don't really have a voice in how, for example, American Century Investments conducts its day to day business. I did receive a proxy notice which I finally signed, after much urging from the company. I could have just abstained, or attended their meeting which was not really feasible and would not have been effective. Bottom line is I don't feel I'm really a part of a free association of individuals. I'm not complaining about ACI or Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board of American Baptist Churches. They have done as well as or better than could be expected in the 2008-09 financial meltdown. But I don't feel I really have a voice in either organization.ckikerintuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02670661043872744115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7136764667507636782010-04-29T08:54:41.819-05:002010-04-29T08:54:41.819-05:00But in elections, Charles, communicating with vote...But in elections, Charles, communicating with voters costs money and limiting contributions in practice only means the public hears less debate and votes out of ignorance, which is partly why voter participation is often low.<br /><br />I understand the harms campaign finance reform wants to remedy, I just think the cure is worse than the disease.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-57362103420106023892010-04-29T08:38:24.724-05:002010-04-29T08:38:24.724-05:00Grits, the problem IMO with money as speech is tha...Grits, the problem IMO with money as speech is that it gives a much louder voice to those with money. Instead of one person one vote, its a million dollars a million votes. It undermines participatory democracy.ckikerintuliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02670661043872744115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-48093345490102631342010-04-29T08:07:41.430-05:002010-04-29T08:07:41.430-05:00"do you believe corporations are persons?&quo..."do you believe corporations are persons?"<br /><br />Certainly they're groups of people, and the First Amendment also extends to freedom of association, etc..Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77575570321659698672010-04-29T07:18:00.939-05:002010-04-29T07:18:00.939-05:00Scott, do you believe corporations are persons? T...Scott, do you believe corporations are persons? That's not a rhetorical or frivolous question. The First Amendment does not prohibit Texas from passing any laws restricting free speech; it only applies to the federal government, just like all the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights. Our free speech rights are protected from state interference by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause -- but it only applies to persons, not corporations.<br /><br />That is, of course, until the Supreme Court assumed without deciding that corporations are citizens in the 19th century case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This case's central proposition is the ridiculous position that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were trying to protect corporations, not freed slaves. This case is an abomination, and 125 years is not too late to overrule it at the Supreme Court's first opportunity.<br /><br />So believing money is speech -- which I also think is wrong -- is one thing. But you also have to believe a corporation has constitutional rights. And it helps to believe that night is day.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06800907780727476826noreply@blogger.com