To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[Hansmeister]

The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.

This is the kind of Republican idiocy that led to our mess.  Don't bother creating persuasive arguments to support your desire to further empower the rich and powerful;  make it an axiom.

In real world, outside of groupthink tanks, the Western governments tend to be both the most powerful and the least corrupt.  True, they're not as powerful as the North Korean government, but they have an impressive monopoly on power that few other countries can manage.

 

We have laws and separation of power that constrain government (or at least we used to have before the rise of the administrative state), compared to corrupt third world hellholes were government power tends to be absolute in its arbitrariness. The more discretionary power our government amasses the more corrupt it invariably becomes. I don't expect a stupid leftist to understand that.

[dps]

For campaigns, my favored approach is a simple one. Simply ban the airing of televised campaign ads. Right away that reduces the influence of money in elections, as television campaigns represent an inordinate amount of the campaign spending.

In lieu of the campaign ads, I'd say the broadcast networks (which have control of a public resource and thus can be made to do stuff) would be required to give any candidate in the general election representing a party that received 5% or more of the vote in the previous Presidential election, 30 minutes of air time where that candidate could appear on TV to talk in whatever format they please to espouse their ideas to the public.

While I think that's a not unreasonable approach--I certainly agree that a large part of the reason campaigns cost so much nowdays is the need to buy expensive air time--do you think there is really any chance of a ban on televised campaign ads would pass Constitutional muster?

[grumbler]

I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate.  Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations.  Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections.  Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money.  If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.

My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.

[DontSayBanana]

I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate.  Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations.  Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections.  Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money.  If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.

My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.

How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?

[Neil]

I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate.  Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations.  Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections.  Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money.  If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.

My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.

How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?

Presumably by violence.  Because let's face it:  Violence is the only thing that is going to work.

[OttoVonBismarck]

While I think that's a not unreasonable approach--I certainly agree that a large part of the reason campaigns cost so much nowdays is the need to buy expensive air time--do you think there is really any chance of a ban on televised campaign ads would pass Constitutional muster?

Well it's essentially a fact that media buys are the lion's share of spending, and they probably drive some of the other categories too. That 35% of his campaign spending Romney spent on "consultants", I'm assuming at least some of that was people who specialize in deciding what ads to air, where to air them etc.

But no, I do not believe my proposal would pass constitutional muster, not with the present Supreme Court. But I should note this wasn't an original idea. It's simply how it works in many other countries. Britain has long banned political advertising on TV, and it was hotly contested in the ECHR (the British government narrowly won and the ban persisted.)

Britain is a good place to find lots of good ideas, since most meaningful reforms can be fairly easily implemented with a simple Parliamentary majority (especially after House of Lords reforms throughout the 20th century) a lot of common sense things that would have been law here decades ago are long standing statute in the UK. Now it isn't all peaches and cream, as I'd argue the British have passed some supremely ignorant laws for much the same reason--but then again, the U.S. Congress does that all the time and at least in Britain it's easier to overturn past laws that are bad than it is here.

[Razgovory]

The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.

This is the kind of Republican idiocy that led to our mess.  Don't bother creating persuasive arguments to support your desire to further empower the rich and powerful;  make it an axiom.

In real world, outside of groupthink tanks, the Western governments tend to be both the most powerful and the least corrupt.  True, they're not as powerful as the North Korean government, but they have an impressive monopoly on power that few other countries can manage.

 

We have laws and separation of power that constrain government (or at least we used to have before the rise of the administrative state), compared to corrupt third world hellholes were government power tends to be absolute in its arbitrariness. The more discretionary power our government amasses the more corrupt it invariably becomes. I don't expect a stupid leftist to understand that.

Oh we understand it, it's just that we reject it on both historical and logical grounds.

[OttoVonBismarck]

How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?

The problem with both mine and grumbler's idea (especially mine as it's a blanket ban) would also be free speech rights of individuals. The U.S. First Amendment is one of the broadest (I've argue broadest) rights to public expression in the Western world, to the point of allowing lots of things it probably shouldn't and that are routinely prohibited elsewhere.

[DontSayBanana]

The problem with both mine and grumbler's idea (especially mine as it's a blanket ban) would also be free speech rights of individuals. The U.S. First Amendment is one of the broadest (I've argue broadest) rights to public expression in the Western world, to the point of allowing lots of things it probably shouldn't and that are routinely prohibited elsewhere.

Actually, your blanket ban might be the better option in this case: we have restricted tobacco advertising, despite it being for legal products: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#United_States

Grumbler's restrictions might fail on due process claims, rather than free speech claims.

The case just needs to be made that A) it's sufficiently in the public interest to curb excessive campaign advertising, and B) sufficient alternative advertising methods exist that removing the avenue isn't stifling their free speech.

[Berkut]

While I think that's a not unreasonable approach--I certainly agree that a large part of the reason campaigns cost so much nowdays is the need to buy expensive air time--do you think there is really any chance of a ban on televised campaign ads would pass Constitutional muster?

Well it's essentially a fact that media buys are the lion's share of spending, and they probably drive some of the other categories too. That 35% of his campaign spending Romney spent on "consultants", I'm assuming at least some of that was people who specialize in deciding what ads to air, where to air them etc.

But no, I do not believe my proposal would pass constitutional muster, not with the present Supreme Court. But I should note this wasn't an original idea. It's simply how it works in many other countries. Britain has long banned political advertising on TV, and it was hotly contested in the ECHR (the British government narrowly won and the ban persisted.)

Britain is a good place to find lots of good ideas, since most meaningful reforms can be fairly easily implemented with a simple Parliamentary majority (especially after House of Lords reforms throughout the 20th century) a lot of common sense things that would have been law here decades ago are long standing statute in the UK. Now it isn't all peaches and cream, as I'd argue the British have passed some supremely ignorant laws for much the same reason--but then again, the U.S. Congress does that all the time and at least in Britain it's easier to overturn past laws that are bad than it is here.

My point here is to discuss options in the reality of a world where the USSC has already stated quite clearly that any such attempts like this are not acceptable.

I think that was perhaps one of the most damaging, stupid, and short sighted decisions ever made by a judicial body in the history of manking, but make it they did.

I would, of course, MUCH rather have the opportunity to deal with this without the need for an amendment, since the idea that corporations and unions are people + the idea that any and all spending on political campaigns is "free speech"  except insofar as it is "CORRUPTION" (very narrowly defined) are both stunningly stupid.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm glad you at least said "+ Unions" as it shows you haven't fully transformed into a Daily Kos reading de Money, but you're 95% of the way there. Interestingly union political spending was far higher than corporate or "rich guy" political spending over the past few election cycles. The WSJ put together an interesting comparison of just how little the Kochs, for example, had spent when compared to the literal mountain of money that had rolled in from Unions.

Like most legal infants who don't understand what a corporation actually is though, I note that when I asked what rights and privileges should a corporation have you had no response. I wonder if that means they shouldn't have say, property rights, or the right to enter into contracts? Should we be able to sue corporations in court, or should they provide no liability shield for their investors and officers? The legal fiction of corporate person hood is centuries old and very essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Daily Kos types like yourself want to throw the baby out with the bath water, mostly because you seem deeply ignorant of what corporate person hood really is.

[Berkut]

There is no point in even talking to you - I never said anything about property rights of corporations, because they aren't relevant to the discussion. Noting that corporations are not people, and hence should not have the rights of people in regards to "free speech" has nothing to do with the utility of corporations in other legal processes. I won't use the term "right" because it is, IMO, kind of stupid to reference "rights" as they pertain to a corporation in any fashion. "Rights" in this context are things that *people* have.

I have no problem with corporations in general of course, and it feels idiotic to have to state that no, I don't think corporations should be dissolved or no longer be allowed to own property or fill any of the myriad of functions they currently fill under the terms of their legal definitions as legal entities. It is moronic to even suggest that this has anything to do with the corporate liability shield, for example.

[Berkut]

I'm glad you at least said "+ Unions" as it shows you haven't fully transformed into a Daily Kos reading de Money, but you're 95% of the way there. Interestingly union political spending was far higher than corporate or "rich guy" political spending over the past few election cycles. The WSJ put together an interesting comparison of just how little the Kochs, for example, had spent when compared to the literal mountain of money that had rolled in from Unions.

Unions are no more people than corporations are.

However, I think your numbers are completely bullshit, which of course, is why Republitards are so in favor of this rise of the super wealthy as the funders of election campaigns - they think the super wealthy mostly support their tribe, so they figure that subverting the democratic process is a small price to pay for "winning".

Super-Pac spending in 2012 was VASTLY in favor of Republican candidates/opposed to democrats. And most super-pac funding comes from corporations and rich individuals, to speak nothing of dark money spending.

I don't really care what the union/corporation/rich individual breakdown might be, since it is immaterial to my basic point. It doesn't really matter unless you care about partisan cock measuring. You and DGuller are welcome to fight that one out.

What I do care about is that the amount of money being spent has crushed the relevance of the actual political process.

[The Minsky Moment]

Like most legal infants who don't understand what a corporation actually is though, I note that when I asked what rights and privileges should a corporation have you had no response. I wonder if that means they shouldn't have say, property rights, or the right to enter into contracts? Should we be able to sue corporations in court, or should they provide no liability shield for their investors and officers? The legal fiction of corporate person hood is centuries old and very essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Daily Kos types like yourself want to throw the baby out with the bath water, mostly because you seem deeply ignorant of what corporate person hood really is.

That's quite a straw man you've thrashed there.

Can't speak for Mr. Kos, but the answer is: of course corporations have the power to enter into contracts, to hold and dispose of property, to sue and be sued, and so on.  They have those powers because the state statutes that provide for corporate existence in the first place grant them those powers . For example, the Delaware code, provides explicitly for all the things you mentioned: rights to acquire, hold and dispose of property (122(4)), to enter into contracts (122(13)), to sue and be sued (122(2)), along with many other powers you didn't list, such as perpetual succession, making of charitable donations, participation in partnerships and joint ventures, provision of insurance, and the catch-all power to exercise any incidental powers necessarily or convenient to carry out its business purpose.

The vast ensemble of powers of privileges that a state legislature chooses to confer upon corporations is what lawyers and jurists are referring to when they use the term "legal personhood" or "legal personality" in reference to corporations.  Corporate "personhood" is thus just a term used as a convenient stand-in for what otherwise would be a long and complex list.  It is a metaphorical shorthand to describe certain characteristics of an instrumentality that is been fabricated by a legislature, it is not a reification of a creature of state law into a living, breathing subject.

The "legal infants" here are those that would take the metaphorical concept of corporate personhood - which was created and exists solely for utilitarian purposes - and transform the fictitious person into an actual constitutional subject.  Simply because the state of Delaware (or Maryland or California or [insert here]) has elected to define a legal concept of something called a corporation and imbue that construct with certain powers normally exercised by individual humans, doesn't make that construct a member of "we the people" who are the subjects of the constitution.  It doesn't require us to accept that a piece of paper filed in Wilmington is endowed  with the right to vote, to exercise religion, or to bear arms.  That is an absurdity.

Of course it is also true that given the existence and ubiquity of the corporate form, the enjoyment of individual rights may require careful analysis of whether state action, as applied to corporations, unduly cabins the effective exercise of those rights by individuals.  But that is a very different proposition from saying that the mere entities have those rights in and of themselves. 

[crazy canuck]

Like most legal infants who don't understand what a corporation actually is though, I note that when I asked what rights and privileges should a corporation have you had no response. I wonder if that means they shouldn't have say, property rights, or the right to enter into contracts? Should we be able to sue corporations in court, or should they provide no liability shield for their investors and officers? The legal fiction of corporate person hood is centuries old and very essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Daily Kos types like yourself want to throw the baby out with the bath water, mostly because you seem deeply ignorant of what corporate person hood really is.

You missed the most important and fundamental aspect of a corporation.  Limited liablity for its shareholders.  That is what makes a corporation so important to an economy.  An investor's exposure to liability is limited the amount they invest to purchase shares in the company.  If those shares become worthless the investor loses that investment.  No one can go after the investor for any greater amount.   In return for that limited liability the investor also accepts that they have a separate identity from the company.  That fundamental principle was ignored by recent rulings of the US Supreme Court which has conflated the rights of shareholders and the rights of corporations.

Corporations were never intended to have full personhood.  Instead that have the legal fiction of an individual for certain limited purposes.  They have always been creatures of statute and the common law which give prescribed rights. Unfortunately we live in a world of legal infants who have given corporations more status, rights and authority than was ever intended because of ideological zeal.

Imo the US has started down a very precarious path as has been discussed at some length in other threads.  But Berkut's point nicely illustrates another problem of viewing corporations in this way.