• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

possible solution to supreme court decision about corporations

Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
85,136
Reaction score
78,144
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I would like to float a solution that I think might pass constitutional muster.

What do you guys think about a law that prohibits political speech (and money) by a corporation unless there are no foreign investors? Meaning that 100% of stock in that corporation is owned by a U.S. citizen.
 
megaprogman said:
I would like to float a solution that I think might pass constitutional muster.

What do you guys think about a law that prohibits political speech (and money) by a corporation unless there are no foreign investors? Meaning that 100% of stock in that corporation is owned by a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

I think that is about as likely as limiting the freedom of the press for newspapers that have foreign investors. Zilch.
 
Tsunami said:
I think that is about as likely as limiting the freedom of the press for newspapers that have foreign investors. Zilch.
Click to expand...

Has it been tested in court?
 
megaprogman said:
I would like to float a solution that I think might pass constitutional muster.

What do you guys think about a law that prohibits political speech (and money) by a corporation unless there are no foreign investors? Meaning that 100% of stock in that corporation is owned by a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...
This raises an interesting question. It's not allowed for foreign nationals (other than permanent resident aliens possessing green cards) to contribute to political campaigns in the US. Is the most recent SCOTUS decision a way to skirt that rule?
 
Nah, the rights in the Constitution are for everyone, even if you're not a citizen.

The key to the Supreme Court decision is that it holds two things that are not necessarily "self evident":

1. Money is speech

2. Corporations are people

I can see the arguments on both sides of this, but it appears that the only solution will require either (a) a constitutional amendment or (b) one more vote on the Supreme Court.
 
megaprogman said:
I would like to float a solution that I think might pass constitutional muster.

What do you guys think about a law that prohibits political speech (and money) by a corporation unless there are no foreign investors? Meaning that 100% of stock in that corporation is owned by a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

I think you are living in a dream world. And I think it would very detrimental to the USA as well as the rest of the world.
 
megaprogman said:
I would like to float a solution that I think might pass constitutional muster.

What do you guys think about a law that prohibits political speech (and money) by a corporation unless there are no foreign investors? Meaning that 100% of stock in that corporation is owned by a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

Foreigners have a right to freedom of speech too. Congress is forbidden from making a law abridging freedom of speech. Period. Nothing in there about who is speaking.
 
Rassales said:
This raises an interesting question. It's not allowed for foreign nationals (other than permanent resident aliens possessing green cards) to contribute to political campaigns in the US. Is the most recent SCOTUS decision a way to skirt that rule?
Click to expand...

No. All corporations, U.S. or foreign, are forbidden from giving political donations from their treasuries. This decision didn't change that.
 
Tsunami said:
I think that is about as likely as limiting the freedom of the press for newspapers that have foreign investors. Zilch.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
megaprogman said:
I would like to float a solution that I think might pass constitutional muster.

What do you guys think about a law that prohibits political speech (and money) by a corporation unless there are no foreign investors? Meaning that 100% of stock in that corporation is owned by a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

I think that the power to control political speech is so dangerous that people should stop demanding the government have the power to do so.

Progressive Woodrow Wilson signed a law that made it a crime to express opposition to his idiotic venture in World War One. Not only did people go to jail for expressing their opposition, the US Supreme Court upheld their convictions. (Eugene Debb)

A hundred years earlier, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. Those worked as one would expect.

So what is it? Every 100 years or so a bunch of fools come out and try to get the government to stifle speech. How about if you people move to a country that doesn't allow free speech instead? China has an amazing cultural heritage and interesting food.

Move on, instead of trying to wreck the US, okay?
 
Groucho said:
I can see the arguments on both sides of this, but it appears that the only solution will require either (a) a constitutional amendment or (b) one more vote on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


The problem is people attempting to censor speech.

The solution to that is to make sure people understand what the First Amendment says, and enforce that.
 
misterman said:
No. All corporations, U.S. or foreign, are forbidden from giving political donations from their treasuries. This decision didn't change that.
Click to expand...
So what? If they can endorse candidates by name, they don't need to give them money contributions.

What is a "foreign corporation" by the way? If a corporation has its HQ in the US and has articles of incorporation in the US, but is majority owned by someone outside the US, is that an American corporation?
 
Rassales said:
So what? If they can endorse candidates by name, they don't need to give them money contributions.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not complaining about it. They can endorse candidates - and spend money publicizing that endorsement. I'm just saying that other people's claims that this decision changed that aren't true.
 
misterman said:
I agree. I'm not complaining about it. They can endorse candidates - and spend money publicizing that endorsement. I'm just saying that other people's claims that this decision changed that aren't true.
Click to expand...
Not quite clear what you meant by the last "that" in your post.
 
Rassales said:
Not quite clear what you meant by the last "that" in your post.
Click to expand...

I meant some people believe this SCOTUS decision got rid of the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It didn't.
 
misterman said:
I meant some people believe this SCOTUS decision got rid of the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It didn't.
Click to expand...
Right, but that's a distinction without a difference, since they are allowed to run their own communications of any kind that say exactly what a campaign ad from the candidate would.
 
Rassales said:
Right, but that's a distinction without a difference, since they are allowed to run their own communications of any kind that say exactly what a campaign ad from the candidate would.
Click to expand...

Well, not entirely. First of all, alot of people (not me) see something more sinister in giving money to a candidate than simply stating your support for one. And the campaign ad may not quite say what the candidate would say. A candidate cannot coordinate with a corporation and ask them to run a certain ad or message, that would amount to an illegal contribution. So the corporations have to run ads they think help, but who knows? It might not be what the campaign wants. And the campaign might not want people to be reminded that a certain corporation or whatever supports him/her. This applies to political groups and even individuals too, of course.

But overall, I agree, which is why I don't get all upset about campaign contributions.
 
misterman said:
Well, not entirely. First of all, alot of people (not me) see something more sinister in giving money to a candidate than simply stating your support for one. And the campaign ad may not quite say what the candidate would say. A candidate cannot coordinate with a corporation and ask them to run a certain ad or message, that would amount to an illegal contribution.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how anyone would prove they did not collude. For example, what if a candidate produced a commercial and then the corporation simply paid for airing it? No money would exchange hands. Or if a strategist for the candidate quit in the middle of the campaign and then was hired as a consultant by the corporation? Or if the collusion between the corporate leaders and the candidate's campaign consists of a series of phone calls or a meeting at a hotel. Pretty hard to prove.

So the corporations have to run ads they think help, but who knows? It might not be what the campaign wants. And the campaign might not want people to be reminded that a certain corporation or whatever supports him/her.
Click to expand...
Is the corporation required to identify itself in the advertisement? Often contributors pool their money behind a front organization called "Americans for a sound nation" or some such. How would anyone know? Or even if the info is public knowledge, how widely will it be reported? I find all of this quite troubling.

This applies to political groups and even individuals too, of course.

But overall, I agree, which is why I don't get all upset about campaign contributions.
Click to expand...
We live in a time when politicians spend the majority of their time raising money. So much money is involved in the production of political campaigns that only big players or massive groups of people working together have any hope of influencing the process. That why I DO get upset about contributions. Politics has become a shell game of involving an ever-smaller number of ever-more-powerful and self-interested players.
 
Rassales said:
I'm not sure how anyone would prove they did not collude. For example, what if a candidate produced a commercial and then the corporation simply paid for airing it? No money would exchange hands.
Click to expand...

But very public. How would they hide it? It's an ad on TV.

Or if a strategist for the candidate quit in the middle of the campaign and then was hired as a consultant by the corporation?
Or if the collusion between the corporate leaders and the candidate's campaign consists of a series of phone calls or a meeting at a hotel. Pretty hard to prove.
Click to expand...

A prosecutor who suspected something would start issuing subpeonas and getting depositions. It's not like similar crimes aren't uncovered all the time.

We live in a time when politicians spend the majority of their time raising money. So much money is involved in the production of political campaigns that only big players or massive groups of people working together have any hope of influencing the process. That why I DO get upset about contributions. Politics has become a shell game of involving an ever-smaller number of ever-more-powerful and self-interested players.
Click to expand...

The only massive groups of people who have any power are the voters. They choose who or what will influence them.
 
misterman said:
But very public. How would they hide it? It's an ad on TV.
Click to expand...
How would anyone know who did what?
A prosecutor who suspected something would start issuing subpeonas and getting depositions. It's not like similar crimes aren't uncovered all the time.
Click to expand...
My concern is that it isn't a crime--the law only forbids contributions to campaigns and was passed before the days of radio. I'd be curious about the details.
The only massive groups of people who have any power are the voters. They choose who or what will influence them.
Click to expand...
Political scientists and psychologists (and PR and advertising people) would disagree. Lots of research shows that people are far less self-directed and self-aware than we like to believe.
 
Rassales said:
How would anyone know who did what?
Click to expand...

What I mean is you can't exactly hide the fact that you ran someone's ad. It's very public after all.

My concern is that it isn't a crime--the law only forbids contributions to campaigns and was passed before the days of radio. I'd be curious about the details.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a crime to pay for a candidate's ad by running it yourself, or anything like that. Basically, it counts as a contribution to a candidate - and so if you are forbidding from contributing, it is an illegal contribution.

Political scientists and psychologists (and PR and advertising people) would disagree. Lots of research shows that people are far less self-directed and self-aware than we like to believe.
Click to expand...

Then why do we let them vote in the first place? You're making a great case for getting rid of democracy. The voters are 100% responsible for their votes. Just like you are responsible if you buy Big Macs and get fat - you can't go suing McDonald's for influencing you with their ads.

The government has no business deciding what voters should or shouldn't hear or see.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
What I mean is you can't exactly hide the fact that you ran someone's ad. It's very public after all.
Click to expand...
Except that who produced the ad and how paid for running it are hard to track down. It's certainly not evident from the ad itself.
Yes, it is a crime to pay for a candidate's ad by running it yourself, or anything like that. Basically, it counts as a contribution to a candidate - and so if you are forbidding from contributing, it is an illegal contribution.
Click to expand...
Again, what if you just trade strategists. I can see lots of ways around this law.
Then why do we let them vote in the first place? You're making a great case for getting rid of democracy. The voters are 100% responsible for their votes. Just like you are responsible if you buy Big Macs and get fat - you can't go suing McDonald's for influencing you with their ads.
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to people voting and I'm a strong supporter of democracy. But there's a huge difference between voting and eating a Big Mac--eating the Big Mac only hurts that individual.
The government has no business deciding what voters should or shouldn't hear or see.
Click to expand...
My suggestion wouldn't be to forbid any political communication, but when you equate money and speech (as SCOTUS has done several times), you grant more speech to some people than to others. You allow people with more money (be they corporations, unions, or consortiums of rich guys) to purchase more of what is supposed to be the right of anyone. To me, that's a problem.
 
Rassales said:
Except that who produced the ad and how paid for running it are hard to track down. It's certainly not evident from the ad itself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Again, what if you just trade strategists. I can see lots of ways around this law.
Click to expand...

Lots of laws have ways around them, but we manage to enforce them.

Remember, all expenditures by a campaign - ever penny - must be reported to the FEC. If something doesn't show up on a report, it sticks out.

I'm not opposed to people voting and I'm a strong supporter of democracy. But there's a huge difference between voting and eating a Big Mac--eating the Big Mac only hurts that individual.My suggestion wouldn't be to forbid any political communication, but when you equate money and speech (as SCOTUS has done several times), you grant more speech to some people than to others. You allow people with more money (be they corporations, unions, or consortiums of rich guys) to purchase more of what is supposed to be the right of anyone. To me, that's a problem.
Click to expand...

So would you want to ration spending on speech, and put a cap on how much every single American can spend on it? How is that going to work out with the First Amendment?
 
misterman said:
Remember, all expenditures by a campaign - ever penny - must be reported to the FEC. If something doesn't show up on a report, it sticks out.
Click to expand...
Right, but we aren't talking about expenditures by a campaign, as some of the scenarios suggested don't involve that. And that's just what I could think of off the top of my head.

Something tells me that we'll need more legislation to clean this up, and it will be written by the same politicians beholden to the same contributors who want to use their wealth as leverage in this process.
So would you want to ration spending on speech, and put a cap on how much every single American can spend on it? How is that going to work out with the First Amendment?
Click to expand...
First, remember that equating money with speech isn't a necessary step--it's just the one our SCOTUS has chosen. It seems to me that publicly financed campaigns, as much as I don't really want to pay for them, are the only way out of this. As long as money = speech, the people with the money will dominate our political process more and more. As I see it, that's a fundamental problem--it's inherently corrupting. Politics should not be made, by necessity, a profit-seeking enterprise.
 
Last edited:
Rassales said:
Right, but we aren't talking about expenditures by a campaign, as some of the scenarios suggested don't involve that. And that's just what I could think of off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Right. So if an ad ran but the expenditure didn't show up on the report, that would stick out, and could be easily checked.

Something tells me that we'll need more legislation to clean this up, and it will be written by the same politicians beholden to the same contributors who want to use their wealth as leverage in this process.
Click to expand...

It's worked just fine so far.

First, remember that equating money with speech isn't a necessary step--it's just the one our SCOTUS has chosen.[/QUOTE]

How can you not equate the two when it costs money to reach people in a meaningful way these days?

It takes money to run ads. Also to print fliers, rent billboard space, or buy a megaphone. Giving Congress the power to limit spending on speech gives it the power to ban all communication that doesn't involve the direct spoken voice. That's crazy.

It seems to me that publicly financed campaigns, as much as I don't really want to pay for them, are the only way out of this. As long as money = speech, the people with the money will dominate our political process more and more. As I see it, that's a fundamental problem--it's inherently corrupting. Politics should not be made, by necessity, a profit-seeking enterprise.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a problem, and publicly financed campaigns isn't a bad solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom