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

[garbon]

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.

All that spending and yet they got a Dem president, continued Dem control of Senate (+increase in Dem seat holders). I guess positive for those spenders was that Republicans kept onto House, though even there Dems saw gains.

[The Minsky Moment]

All that spending and yet they got a Dem president, continued Dem control of Senate (+increase in Dem seat holders). I guess positive for those spenders was that Republicans kept onto House, though even there Dems saw gains.

Superpacs are not the only source of funds for politicians . . .

[garbon]

All that spending and yet they got a Dem president, continued Dem control of Senate (+increase in Dem seat holders). I guess positive for those spenders was that Republicans kept onto House, though even there Dems saw gains.

Superpacs are not the only source of funds for politicians . . .

Of course. It just seems that these Republican superpacs didn't get much bang for their buck if they spent boatloads of money to get their guys elected.

[The Minsky Moment]

CC- it is a peculiarity of American law that most corporate and commercial law is articulated at the state level.  The Supreme Court justices, although uniformly brilliant and talented jurists, are selected primarily from persons who have spent most of their careers as government lawyers and as judges in the federal system.  Those who did serve in private practice tended to have narrow or specialized practices (like Roberts who was a dedicated appellate lawyer).    The last Supreme Court justice to have broad commercial and corporate law experience was Lewis Powell.  It is not totally surprising that the Supremes sometimes seem to struggle with seemingly basic concepts of corporate law - they simply lack familiarity as a matter of experience.

[crazy canuck]

CC- it is a peculiarity of American law that most corporate and commercial law is articulated at the state level.  The Supreme Court justices, although uniformly brilliant and talented jurists, are selected primarily from persons who have spent most of their careers as government lawyers and as judges in the federal system.  Those who did serve in private practice tended to have narrow or specialized practices (like Roberts who was a dedicated appellate lawyer).    The last Supreme Court justice to have broad commercial and corporate law experience was Lewis Powell.  It is not totally surprising that the Supremes sometimes seem to struggle with seemingly basic concepts of corporate law - they simply lack familiarity as a matter of experience.

That does explain such a basic error.

[DGuller]

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.

It's kind of hard to solve a problem you claim to care about if you don't really want to identify the causes.

[Berkut]

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.

It's kind of hard to solve a problem you claim to care about if you don't really want to identify the causes.

I grant you that the cause are the Green Drazi, and you should totally be super pissed at them and spend all your time going on about what assholes they are. Have at it.

[crazy canuck]

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.

It's kind of hard to solve a problem you claim to care about if you don't really want to identify the causes.

He has identified the cause.  The issue of which group is the greatest offender isnt all that relevent if all groups do to some extent.  Whatever the solution is for limiting the influence of political donations it should be universal and not targeted at any particular group.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

Most election statistics don't count union spending in the same way they do Super PAC spending, which is where your incorrect view on the numbers comes from.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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

What Berk said was:

Amendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.

I asked specifically what rights of people corporations should not have. Do you deny that the right to own and hold property, and to not have said property taken from you without due process, is a right held by people? Since Berkut was unable to expand on the specifics I can only assume he meant the most retarded thing possible, given his general opinions/beliefs these days.

[crazy canuck]

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

What Berk said was:

Amendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.

I asked specifically what rights of people corporations should not have. Do you deny that the right to own and hold property, and to not have said property taken from you without due process, is a right held by people? Since Berkut was unable to expand on the specifics I can only assume he meant the most retarded thing possible, given his general opinions/beliefs these days.

Its the other way around.  Corporations are given only those rights which are contained in the legislation which allows them to be created.  By definition they do not therefore have the rights of real people.  I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

I mentioned limited liability, actually. But property rights are an individual right that corporations also must have to function. Without them investing in corporations would be foolish, since the government could just dispossess them at whim.

I've never argued corporations should have identical rights to human beings or be treated legally the exact same as human beings. I just asked what specific rights they should or shouldn't have, if any. Joan seems to think they should have no rights and instead be subject solely to the strictures of statute. That's not entirely unreasonable since corporations are a creature of statute, but such a view to my mind would make it unreasonably easy for government to just dispossess corporations at whim. Which would have a major adverse effect on lots of actual people and their own property rights, when considering the investors and various other stakeholders. Corporations require and should have some extra-statutory rights above and beyond just what statute says about them.

I do find it strange that if I start a political party, which in form is very similar to any corporation, it has broad rights to advertise and do various things, though. It's strange to me where people choose to draw the line on what types of "collective groups" should be allowed to engage in political activities. The Constitution doesn't provide for organized political parties, and the Founder's were openly against them.

[OttoVonBismarck]

More broadly speaking, corporations needs some level of due process rights and protection from things like ex post facto laws or they could not exist in a stable fashion in the face of a ruinous government. Most governments would not seek to just randomly destroy corporations, but corporations need protection from that above and beyond statute. Those protections in our system of government would by any neutral party be called "rights", and would be adjudicable by courts that weigh such rights. Some of those rights are identical to rights that people have, so someone that says corporations should not have any of the "rights" of people, I think, is speaking far too broadly.

[crazy canuck]

I've never argued corporations should have identical rights to human beings or be treated legally the exact same as human beings. I just asked what specific rights they should or shouldn't have, if any. Joan seems to think they should have no rights and instead be subject solely to the strictures of statute. That's not entirely unreasonable since corporations are a creature of statute, but such a view to my mind would make it unreasonably easy for government to just dispossess corporations at whim. Which would have a major adverse effect on lots of actual people and their own property rights, when considering the investors and various other stakeholders. Corporations require and should have some extra-statutory rights above and beyond just what statute says about them.

I do find it strange that if I start a political party, which in form is very similar to any corporation, it has broad rights to advertise and do various things, though. It's strange to me where people choose to draw the line on what types of "collective groups" should be allowed to engage in political activities. The Constitution doesn't provide for organized political parties, and the Founder's were openly against them.

Otto, you fundamentally misunderstand the law.  Joan doesnt just think corporations are subject to the structures of statute.  Corporations only exist because of the statute that defines the powers that corporations may have.

[Valmy]

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.

I like it.