Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Expected Political Ad Transparency
T Murphy writes "The Supreme Court, when ruling that corporate and union political donations were allowed under free speech, assumed the source of the donation would be disclosed immediately under current donation laws. Due to loopholes, this has not been the case, eliminating the hoped-for transparency the Supreme Court ruled to be vital to democracy. Justice Kennedy, who sided with the majority on the ruling, has been called naive for his expectation that there would be greater transparency. In the meantime, campaign spending for House candidates alone is expected to reach $1.5 billion."
Something tells me that Kennedy is the only Justice who didn't realize the loopholes existed.
Blar.
I fail to understand how SCOTUS could be so short-sighted. When they made the ruling, I agreed with their judicial logic, but that was a case where very clearly the ruling was not in the good of the general population. I don't know how much transparency matters; if you can buy an election, you need not bother with appeasing the populace - you can just ignore it.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
I call bullshit. The court knew exactly what it was doing and knew that loopholes big enough to drive a dump truck full of money through were in place.
The problem is not corporate/union donations to individuals, the problem is one of transparency. Focus on that and on closing the "loopholes" mentioned in the summary, rather than beating your chests about the supposed unfairness surrounding the act of individuals joining together to pool their resources for political change. Anything else is merely a red herring.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
So what we need then is a group of people to run the country that properly represents it's citizens. We need the 20-somethings working alongside the 60-somethings. Why shouldn't our government be representative of age distribution too?
Yeah, cause old men know nothing about the internet.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
Easier fix: all funding must come from the gov't, in equal (and relatively small) amounts for each candidate. Offer each candidate who gets the required number of signatures to be on the ballot, a set amount of TV time, a set amount of ad money, and tell everyone else to butt the fuck out of the process.
As long as you can win by drowning your opponent in money, the system is fucked.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
>>>that individual citizens are forevermore
Don't exaggerate. The Supreme Court is free to change their mind. They once ruled that segregation was legal, and then later changed their minds. Also take heat in the words of Thomas Jefferson (founder of the Democrat-republicans):
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
The STATES are the ultimate deciders.
If they don't like this decision and the Court does not change its mind,
they have the otion to amend the Constitution and remove donations from corporations.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The same part that has people confused about "shall not be infringed".
People don't know what "no" means anymore; from spoiled kids to congress, "no" is just one of those words that means "you can probably do it anyway".
>>>Just because people chose to exercise their right to assemble into a group, does not mean they have to give up their other rights. The Corporation only has the powers of the individuals that own it.
You are 100% correct.
However just because people form a group, doesn't mean the group acquires personhood. For example Microsoft employees retain their rights, but the actual microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights. If the owner of MS wants to speak let him speak as *himself* while the building remains silent. If the owner wants to hire lobbyists, let him hire them using his OWN money, while MS money is forbidden from hiring lobbyists.
Just because you join a group, does not mean you lose your rights - you can still speak, et cetera.
But neither does it mean the corporation suddenly becomes Human.
Non-humans (rocks, trees, buildings) don't have rights.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
if the people of the assembled group wanted to base their vote on a collective decision, then there isn't anything that should stop such a thing.
If people wanted to vote through the group, there is something that will stop it, however. I'm not an American, so I might be wrong regarding your laws, but you can't give your vote to the corporation and send it to vote for everyone. This right is not transferable. It would make sense that other rights, such as free speech, are also not transferable. If this was the case, you could do whatever you want, publish books and movies and so on, but corporations will not. I see no problem with this.
Political speech by people.
A corporation is not a person. In fact, a corporation is a government-created entity, which was created to explicitly avoid having responsibility. In the wake of CU, they've extended this shirking of responsibility to include secret funding of political campaigns.
Only one Justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase of Maryland, and for similarly political reasons. He was acquitted, almost certainly because of the very political nature of the "charges" against him. I'm no Federalist, nor lover of Chase, but the impeachment power--for both Presidents and judges--was meant to be reserved for those instances where criminal actions were committed. There is good reason for that, or else every time a new party took power its first goal would be the impeachment of its predecessors, elected and appointed.
Furthermore, without even addressing the veracity of your claims, which I think are overblown to say the least, you have failed to demonstrate actual harm resulting from the "unleashing [of] foreign corporate power on US election campaigns." You are thus charging Alito (et al.) not with any substantive crime, but with the nebulous crime of sedition. While accusing one's political enemies of having foreign bedfellows is hardly a new tactic in American politics, it has always been the resort of the politically desperate.
Going beyond "naive" in this instance was not (I think) by Justice Kennedy.
Going beyond "naive" in this instance for some Justices/Lawyers may have been a crime against Democracy (not the law), IMO, probably in spirit and with intent "The US Constitution" was circumvented with great plutocratic hubris and gross intent to harm US with political/legal treason (but that is not against the law).
The Corporate States of America (CSA) is a plutocracy not a democracy. The CSA economy is corporate-welfare institutionalism not capitalism. The CSA justice system protects the few from the public many. The CSA religion praises wealth as proof of the gods will and favor.
Democracy is governance for the People, Tyranny is governance of the people.
As corporate states, are EU and US any better than CN or RU? I think maybe not, but EU and US still have great expectations (or delusions) to be far better for The People.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
No, corporations are well-defined legal entities. Their purpose is to make money, and nothing else.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Sierra Club is a corporation. The township that I live in is a corporation. Neither of them have "making money" as a goal. Money is a means to an end for both organizations but it is not the final objective.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Oh, I'm for the corporate death penalty too. Seize all assets, auction them off, use the funds to pay liabilities and put the rest in a victim compensation fund.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Anecdotal, but my mom was unable to get her dues back from the Washington State Teacher's Union, when she opposed their political spending.
Comment of the year
But the NYT does speak far louder than other entities. It might as well be donating to the candidate when it provides them free services.
On the playground we called it cheating.
I cannot imagine how a playground analogy can be applied here. There is no playground parallel to mass media that I can think of./quote
The government can't save you.