supreme court reinforces money = political power

[dZeus]

The US supreme court has just struck down existing limits on direct campaign contributions.

I'm curious about what US citizen on MURC think about this decision (going in the opposite direction of what for example the Occupy Wallstreet movement was partly about) ...

[Jammrock]

I think it should be illegal for any company to donate any money to any political entity. Period. Donations should come only from legal US citizens and be capped at $1000 per politician per election. The rest of the money should come the federal, or local, funds granted by taxpayers.

The idea that a company is a person and can therefore donate money is ludicrous.

[KRSESQ]

It's been well known for years (decades? Centuries?) that everything in America is for sale, including its elected leaders. This basically just codifies it into law with "whatever the market will bear" pricing.

[Dr Mordrid]

First Amendment to the US Constitution,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see companies mentioned above, but this ruling mostly has to do with individual donations.

Previously one could only donate up to a fixed total amount, which meant you could not donate the maximum allowed to a large list of individual candidates. This fixed the contradiction.

On corporate personhood, the precident goes back to the 1819 case Dartmouth College v. Woodward. The holding came down to corporations and similar groups being a group of persons (stockholders, the board, etc.) which could be sued, prosecuted etc. as a group.

Subsequent rulings held that corporation inherited the individual rights of its members to mount a collective defense and other individual rights like speech (even political, its all inclusive) and freedom of association.

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Chief Justice stated before oral arguements,

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

In this the Court connected the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the latter guaranteeing equal protection under the law. As such, corporate "persons" (an assembly of individuals) get First Amendment rights.

When the recent campaign finance laws were passed (McCain - Feingold etc.) Congress tried to usurp the Supreme Courts guidance over nearly 200 years. During the bills debate opponents warned this would happen and that campaign finance limits of this kind would require a constitutional amendment (rare.)

This is one more step in the Supreme Court reasserting its supremacy over constitutional interpretation.

[KRSESQ]

The Supreme Court's job is Constitutional interpretation. Sometimes their interpretation is more "activist" than at other times. The only time it gets much attention or outrage is when they're righting a great wrong or wronging a great right.

If the high court gets too "activist" the amendment process is the obvious recourse. It was deliberately made a difficult process, but occasionally it moves quite rapidly.

(One internet wag quipped "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.")

[Brian Ellis]

(One internet wag quipped "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.")

Enron?

[Dr Mordrid]

Enron?

The "old" GM, Ma Bell etc. Not to mention the $1.2B criminal case and fine of Toyota. "New" GM executives and the company may also face charges over the ignition switch issue, which has caused numerous deaths dating back >10 years..

[KRSESQ]

I suppose being dissolved by a bankruptcy court could be considered a form of "execution." But if the company is "reformed" (both literally and figuratively) under the same name and business model (okay, a slightly different business model) and product line (a somewhat modified product line) under new ownership but operated by many of the same people, it doesn't really qualify as having been "executed."

I think we're getting a little off-topic. (I had to bring it up, didn't I? )

[Marshmallowman]

demcracy = equal rights of people to determine who is elected?
cashocracy = equal right of dollars to determine who is elected?

I think the plot was lost a long time ago.. is this interpetation or twisitng the intent

[Brian Ellis]

demcracy = equal rights of people to determine who is elected?
cashocracy = equal right of dollars to determine who is elected?

I think the plot was lost a long time ago.. is this interpetation or twisitng the intent

The election of representatives, at any level from presidents down to parish councils, is not a form of democracy. It is an elected oligarchy. The original δεμοκράτια, as in 4-5th c BCE Greek city-states has been criticised in that women and slaves were ineligible nor could they vote. Possibly not unique, but the only really democratic system I know is the Landsgemeinde, where all qualified voters meet in the open air and vote by a show of hands. Even so, they vote an oligarchy for the day-to-day running of the state as an executive and a legislature whose decisions have to be ratified by the Landsgemeinde before they enter into law.

Your 'cashocracy' is more officially plutocracy or, to quote Joseph Stiglitz, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%". It is totally evil and obscene. It cost the US people $5.8 billion to elect a President in 2012 but it is a world-wide plague otherwise known by another word, corruption.