GOP Primary Megathread!

[CountDeMoney]

And since when did "shareholder" become a protected class?  LULZ STRICT SCRUTINY FAIL AND I DIDNT EVEN GO TO LAWLZ SCHOOL

[Razgovory]

Personally, I much more interested in the nuts and bolts of government.  Can bills move through Congress?  Is the bureaucracy running well?  Is the government doing a good job in procurement.  Are regulations being enforced?  Are our roads in good shape?  Do our enemies fear us and do our Allies respect us.  Can the military kill people adequately?  The horse race and drama are mildly amusing, but at the end of the day I want the a government that actually works.

But how you define the answers to those questions will differ based on ideology and priorities.  Similarly the policies you decide to implement will change.  The key is to successfully link the policies that you want to deliver, the metrics of success that you want to measure to the horserace and to a grander campaign.  Without that you end up with the European Commission or the Green Party: well-meaning, occasionally interesting, generally futile.

This is what I mean about the American left annoying me is that they often seem so interested in governing that they actually forget there are voters.  I remember during the healthcare debate  the number of times I'd read left-wing writers and politicians proposing this wonky way of working an individual mandates vs this form of single payer.  There were endless reams of polls showing that actually people quite like the idea if you explain it to them.  All of this was being hashed out in public and in the private committees of which we got innumerable articles.

All the while Republicans went out there and campaigned against it.  They had a simple clear message and they explained it to the voters.  Because of that they were far more successful at defining popular impressions of the reform.  And I remember wondering in all of this where were the left?  I saw a pathetic amount of explaining of the options, or of campaigning for healthcare.  This should have been a moral crusade and it wasn't because too many liberals, in my view, are too into governing.  They look and act like New Dealers who don't realise they've lost their majority.  Weirdly we're going through almost exactly the same thing but in reverse on healthcare right now with the cack-handed coalition reforms.

I think that part of the reason Obama's started to succeed a little bit more (as well, of course, as the economy) is that they're linking politics to government again which you have to do. 

So it's absurd to disdain or ignore the stuff about how someone or a certain issue connects with voters, or what sort of campaign they're trying to create because that will tell you a huge amount about their governing style (as I say I've not been surprised by anything Obama's done so far because I think it's been very continuous from the campaign, from what I've read Clinton was the same).  Much as I love Monti for his technocratic ideas I think his real success has been communication which give them a greater chance of success and a wider measure of public support.

I understand its important, it just doesn't interest me as much.  I also think it's over reported in the news.  Shit, people start running for President before the previous one was sworn in to office.

[Ed Anger]

A political break:

Cats as fonts

http://www.buzzfeed.com/animals/cats-as-fonts

Now you can go back to slinging shit, you babies.

[miozozny]

I meant her.  The topic was attractive women in US politics.

Ok.  I thought it was more over Ide's contention that Republican women are ugly monsters, apparently citing Nancy Pelosi to demonstrate that.  Which is novel.

The Who didn't die before they got old either.

One did...

[Ideologue]

OK then - let's look at the decision itself and see whether all it is doing is putting a sensible stumbling block in the way of Hollywood turning into Stalinist cinema and the other parade of horribles.

First, one must consider the background of legal rights coming into the case.  Individuals have First Amendment rights, and they do not lose those rights by entering into associations, including associations that are creatures of state law like corporations.  This very issue was addressed in Belotti, a 1978 Supreme Court case that applied the correct framework: "The proper question therefore is not whether corporations 'have' First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons. Instead, the question must be whether [challenged legislation] abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect."  That is if a regulation - even if directed at a corporation - has the effect of undermining individual expression or "affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas" then it must be subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Simple application of the Belotti principle would indicagte that CU presents a serious argument about whether the state's interest in applying BCRA's restrictions to a non-profit corporation's display of an artisitic work where the primary (but not sole sole purpose) is for electioneering outweighs the public benefit that can result from such displays in terms of disseminating ideas and provoking public discussion.  What there would not be a serious arugment about is whether no limitation could constitutionally be placed on corporate independent expenditures of any kind.  Clearly under Belotti such limitations are pemissible where there is a compelling state interest in doing so and the communications are of little value in providing a public forum or promoting individual expression.

Then what you want is an effective prior restraint?  To force people to get declaratory relief to show a movie?  Because that's what the CU Court feared, and is basically what CU was attempting--and it's both administratively unwelcome and constitutionally improper to force speakers, under threat of enforcement action and even criminal sanctions, to seek governmental approval prior to dissemination.

Oh:  "Furthermore, a decision allowing the desired expenditures would be an empty gesture unless it afforded appellants sufficient opportunity prior to the election date to communicate their views effectively."

Fwiw, that's from Belloti.  They're discussing the possibility of mootness, but it highlights the underlying problem with the BCRA as well.

From CU: "Here, Citizens United decided to litigate its case to the end. Today, Citizens United finally learns, two years after the fact, whether it could have spoken during the 2008 Presidential primary—long after the opportunity to persuade primary voters has passed."

Also, a lot of CU's alternative arguments were pants-on-head retarded.  "It's not express advocacy," "it's being communicated through a direct-to-video service, so the actual audience is only like 5 per communication."   They should have been rejected.

But the Citizens United Court didn't just want to give a pass to Hillary:The Movie; they wanted to deep six the entire BCRA.  One of the extraordinary features of the decision is that the Court, while ruling for the Plaintiff, disagreed with most of the arguments CU made.  CU itself argued that Hillary wasn't covered by the statute, or that if it was - such an application of the statute should be found unconstitutional.  All this was consistent with the Court's prior precedents and yet the Court rejected all those arguments.

OK, I agree.  So what should they have done?

Are you saying that they should not have reached the question of facial invalidity?  If so, why so?  That claim (or that approach to the First Amendment claim) was preserved.  And especially given the onerous nature of the restrictions, how could they have avoided "deep six[ing] the entire BCRA" and providing CU relief, without perpetuating a system of effective prior restraint?  Kennedy talks about this--the Court should not avoid a broader ruling when it's necessary.  (Heck, for my money courts should not make special effort to avoid broader rulings--I dislike that doctrine as it lends a far too conservative bent to the bench.)

Are you saying that instead they should have considered only the dumb arguments recited above, perhaps found for them on their dumb merits?

Or should they have created a de minimis exception to 441b (ignoring the plain text of the back-up provision in the statute), as suggested by the government?

Or decided for the FEC altogether?

And since existing constitutional doctrine provided no basis for doing that, they had to invent one.  And the way they did that was by rewriting Belloti.  In the majority opinion, Belloti is characterized as holding the speech rights of corporations (as persons) stands with the same dignity as the speech rights of natural persons.  In fact, Belloti has nothing to say at all concerning the ontological status of speech rights of corporations - indeed that was precisely the proposition the Belloti Court viewed as a non sequitur.  Belloti protection of "corporate speech" is simply protection of activities that faciliate the First Amendment rights of natural persons, no more.

Belloti:  "If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation, rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual."

Functionally, what is the difference?  I'm not sure I see the rewriting that you are; in fact, I see many echoes of Belloti in Kennedy's opinion.

If it's wasteful, then that is a governance issue, and I am sympathetic to the possibility of requiring shareholder approval or creating or modifying a derivative cause of action for blowing money on Hillary: What a Bitch, or some legal regime that takes into account those issues and is not simply prohibitory.

If so, that legal regime will have to be created b/c as it exists now, teh BJ rule protects these kinds of decisions.

Heh.  That's true, and that's generally proper.

Also I would seriously question whether opening floodgates of massive private litigation is really a socially superior solution to this problem.

You're right, that one was a silly idea.  Administratively, requiring shareholder approval might be so onerous as to be effectively a serious restraint as well (but maybe not, a yearly "Can we contribute to PACs" vote doesn't seem insane).  I'd have to give a great deal of thought to an alternative means of regulation that I feel would not be either dangerous or deny an intrinsic right.

Speech restraints upon corps (or business entities in general) do impact the individual shareholder's right to express themselves.

I think that is a fantasy.  Corporations can and do impact personal speech rights - by providing means and forums of communcation, and by communicating ideas and concepts to the public and potential consumers, whether in the form of advertising or in more edifying kinds of information (e.g. newspapers or data compilations).  And all these activities have always been subject to protection, not on the basis that a rights-bearing corporate speaker speaks them, but on the basis that the listener or reader hears or reads them.  Individual shareholders OTOH don't buy shares in corporations to vindicate expressive rights, they invest to earn dividends and capital gains.
[/quote][/quote]

I think that's a limiting perspective.  Government impacts profit-making enterprise considerably; of course shareholders don't buy shares to vindicate expressive rights, but in order to earn dividends and capital gains it may prove effective to engage their expressive rights.  And sure, nationalization would solve all this.

But OK, assume I agree--what about unions?

[Ideologue]

And since when did "shareholder" become a protected class?  LULZ STRICT SCRUTINY FAIL AND I DIDNT EVEN GO TO LAWLZ SCHOOL

LOLOLOL clearly.

So, tell me, when did you first start to hate unions, and therefore America?

[fhdz]

US unions in 2012 by and large blow serious donkey cock.

[Neil]

US unions in 2012 by and large blow serious donkey cock.

I don't know if I'd go that far.  I mean, public service unions are troublesome, and in some cases the past successes of the unions have put both workers and employers in a tough spot due to changing conditions.  On the other hand, the employees have to find some way to protect themselves from their employers, who are not their friends.  Banding together in unions and then using that power to lobby the state seems like the best option. 

[fhdz]

Maybe Canadian unions are less corrupt.

[Maximus]

Not in my experience.

[LaCroix]

unions ultimately serve a purpose. there are the rotten eggs, of course, but it's not so simple as a forbes article

[Admiral Yi]

unions ultimately serve a purpose.

So do the Mafia and al Qaeda.  The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.

[Razgovory]

unions ultimately serve a purpose.

So do the Mafia and al Qaeda.  The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.

Curious.  What if something isn't for the "greater public good"?

[LaCroix]

So do the Mafia and al Qaeda.  The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.

that's what i meant. maybe they're not rewarding in every sector, but obviously the answer is not to outright ban them/remove them (not saying anyone is saying this). they obviously do not seem perfect everywhere, but i'd think reform should be the answer if anything

[Admiral Yi]

that's what i meant. maybe they're not rewarding in every sector, but obviously the answer is not to outright ban them/remove them (not saying anyone is saying this). they obviously do not seem perfect everywhere, but i'd think reform should be the answer if anything

I don't see why outright banning them is obviously not the answer.

Unions serve two purposes: they extract rents and they adjudicate work place issues.  The first one is just plain wrong from a public good perspective.  The second one is fine in theory: supervisor fires a worker because he wants to bang the worker's squeeze, that's in nobody's interest except the supervisor.  Bringing it to the attention of managment is a good thing.  But that sort of thing describes a tiny fraction of the type of adjudication/advocay unions do in America.  Mostly they fight to keep dead wood on the payroll.