A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling recently stripped away restraints on corporate political spending opening the door for a barrage of corporate-sponsored campaign advertising in upcoming elections. By a 5 - 4 vote, the Court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the decades-old law prohibiting companies from funding their own candidate ads. The Court held that the ads constitute free speech and, as such, are protected by the First Amendment.
After reading the article linked below, please answer one or more of the following questions:
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to direct unlimited funds to ads that target specific candidates for election?
In a broader sense do you believe that a corporation should have first amendment rights? A corporation is defined as an institution made up of individuals. Would our founding fathers agree with the Supreme Court's position? (Check out the Washington Post report).
Do you think we should go to a system of public financing of presidential election campaigns to make elections more fair?
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/82443577.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Call me stupid, but I don't really see what the problem is with the way elections are funded. Some people say that we're wasting money that could be given to the poor, or what have you. However, by applying the principals of economics, we can see that the money spent funding a campaign is
1. Money that is turning into someone else's income, be it the cameraman for the TV station or the migrant worker printing campaign signs.
2. Thanks to this new bill, money is leaving the pockets of large corporations and being shot into the economy. Just what we need during a recession. The large sums of money spent will increase the nation's GDP, and along with it, jobs.
So, even if this seems wrong, it's a huge boost to the economy and helps everyone, especially lower and middle class people. As for whether it is fair, this nation has always been a meritocracy, and rich people are generally very intelligent. I'm not opposed to the CEO of Targhetto having more say in the election than me. He's a very smart, sensible man that perhaps should have a greater say. I realize that this goes against the constitution, but it's exactly what the founding fathers set up; a meritocracy in which only people that have proven themselves have a say in government. Think about it.
I believe that the way we fund campaigns is acceptable. with the milions of dollars that are spent, I can see many more people that could use that money and need it for their wellbeing, and it would still go into the economy. But people should be able to chose how they spend their money. I believe its a freedom of ours that we deserve. if a big corperation sees fit to give a million dollars to a campaign, they have the right to decide that. they earned the money, they get to decide how it is spent. While i may not agree, and think it would be more useful to donate the money, thats not my money to spend. in the end, i think that people should chose how to spend their money, and if thats giving all their life earnings to a political campaign, thats their choice.
I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling, but I can also see how one could disagree. While the big corporations may now be able fund their own campaign ads, I feel that the American people should be smart enough to able to weed out the unimportant and non factual information. I feel that corporations do in fact have first amendment rights because a corporation is made up on individuals. Going along with what Karly said, the corporations have earned the money and therefore have the right to spend it however they want and if we were to take that away from them we would be violating the freedom of speech. I understand that this money could be used in much better ways such as donating it to charity, but the reality of it is that these corporations are most likely not going to do that and instead keep the money for the executives or just find other ways to make under the table deals to support their candidates or political parties. I think that we should still allow for public funding of elections to go on, but I don't think that it should be mandatory that candidates use it.
I think Remington makes a good point that economically there is nothing wrong with the way campaigns are funded, or the fact that corporations now are allowed to fund campaign ads because it would turn into spending that could help the economy. I also find it hard to argue against allowing free speech for corporations. In terms of equality however, allowing corporations to pour money into ads does raise the competition of what is already a very long and expensive presidential campaign. I don't care as much about where the corporations spend their money and whether its on campaign ads, but whether those ads will skew public opinion enough to change the outcome of an election. So looking solely at election campaigns on the basis of equality i think a public financing system might be a good option.
Well after reading the article i was definitely taking the position that this court decision was a mistake. But, after reading some of the comments, especially Remmy's, I'm torn on this issue. I think that in a perfect world we wouldn't have to deal with this and our system for elections would be much more like England's, short and sweet. You can't just tell a country to change that drastically though so i think that strategy is out of the question as a short term solution. While I agree that having big corporations spending money is a good thing for the economy and what we need right now, i worry that its the corporations money that is being spent not the CEO of the corporations money that is being spent. Yes its a good thing if money is being pumped into the economy and if the CEO of targhetto wants to spend his money on campaigns more power to him but i don't think he should be allowed to take away company money that could be used to fund health care or wages to promote a candidate who the people that are losing the money don't support. After all he's not going to take that money from his own pocket, plus whats a 2 cent pay decrease for the little guy going to do to him?
I believe that corporations do have first amendment rights. Taking away these rights from one body is the same as taking them away from society as a whole. If a corporation has the money to donate to a campaign, it is their decision to do so. The amount of money being donated and spent on ridiculous advertising is what is bothering people. I, like everyone else, am super annoyed by all the bombarding tv ads. But it is just a part of the American culture that we have to accept. The issue here is not the amount of money, but what it is being used for.
I do not disagree with the decision, if a corporation wishes to use its money that way instead of maximizing profits why should there be someone to stop them? They are a legal entity and deserve to decide for themselves how to use their money. Though I'm not sure if unlimited is the way to go, but if they were limited there would be problems.
Of Course a corporation should have first amendment rights! Just because it is a group of people and they have more money than an individual would have does not mean we can deny people their first amendment. Also as I said earlier they are their own legal entity almost as if they were a person themselves, though that might be going too far. I'm not sure what the founding fathers would think because back then this idea of a corporation would be so irrational that I do not think they will take them seriously.
I don't think the elections have a major problem so why don't people focus on more pressing issues instead of trying to fix something that is and has been working for quite some time. But if I really had to decide, I think we should stick to our system because if the US won't convert to the metric system used all over the world why should they change the presidential candidate's funding which is different everywhere? That would be almost un-American.
I completely agree with Karly. She took the words out of my mouth. America is a free country and, as such, we should be free to spend our hard earned money on whatever we want. That goes for corporations as well. Some things need to be regulated to preserve the freedoms of the American people, but those things do not include how much money political campaigns can spend. It doesn't really hurt anybody, and it definitely doesn't intrude on peoples' freedoms.
Also, it's one more thing for the Government to regulate. We're already becoming more and more like a welfare state every day. It's about time the Supreme Court takes a stand and tells big government that it is both intruding on our liberties as well as doing and regulating too much. Thank you, most powerful and righteous branch of government.
I agree with Kyle that on paper, the way England runs its elections is a good idea. its fair for the candidates involved and it would focus the publics attention more on the issues than on the persuasive ads. however, for america i think it would be the wrong way to do it. we stand for freedom, and having input in our elections is a freedom that the government should not be able to limit. donating money benefits the candidates, and if corporations want to support a candidate, they should be able to. Its not necesary for the governmnet to take away this freedom so they shouldnt have the power to.
A corporation is simply not a person. I have no problem with them vocally supporting a candidate, but I do have a problem with them giving tons of money to a candidate. Why is a CEO's voice more important than anyone else's? Why should their voice get to be more heard than the average person? A corporation doesn't speak for me and it shouldn't get to speak for anyone else. If that CEO wants to give money more power to him but it should not be under the sketchy shield of his company. In general the amount that is spent on a campaign is absolutely ridiculous. That 705 million spent by Obama, didn't really seem to help the economy that much and could have gone to much more useful and productive things, other than negative ads. Are those with more money more worthy of having their voices heard? I think that campaign finance should be limited and the same for all, however, I understand that in this country that will never happen. But until a corporation has a single head of hair and I can walk up to it and introduce myself to it on the street, it should absolutely not be considered an individual; because it's not.
I definitely second what Kyle said. I'm for sure torn on this issue as well. I really like England's strategy for campaigning, and I wish that we could do that in America. It would be nice for everyone to be equal when it comes to campaigning. I feel like if everyone had the same amount of time on television, the same amount of money given to them, and a shorter campaigning period, everything would be more organized and there wouldn't be as much controversy in the campaign process. And it would allow the public to vote for the best candidate based on their issues, not personality.
But like almost everyone else has said, our country is based on freedom, and everyone should be given the first amendment rights. I believe that corporations should have first amendment rights, because like Sammy said if we took them away from corporations, it's like we're taking them away from everyone.
I really don't know exactly where I stand on this. On one hand, allowing corporations to give their money to the campaigns is good economically and we're just allowing them to have their basic freedoms. However, on the other hand, we're essentially giving a lot of power to big businesses and elites in helping us to decide who will be our next president.
I still stand by the fact that corporations should have first amendment rights and be able to spend their money how they please. However, after reading many of these comments my ideas have changed a little bit. These companies shouldn't be told how they can spend their money and should be able to donate to campaigns, but there do need to be limits put on these types of things. I do take back my stance on the Supreme Court's decision, because corporations shouldn't be able to spend an infinite amount of money on campaign ads for candidates that aren't looking to better life for the average American, but rather the big corporations unbeknownst to the public.
I agree with Ellen that a corporation is not by any means a person and which would make it entitled to freedom of speech. After thinking this over though, i have realized that i think its wrong for a corporation to be able to endorse a candidate. I also think its wrong to drink or to criticize someone for their religion or for a rapist to have a fair trial but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed these rights.If it were up to me, on a personal level, corporations wouldn't be allowed to spend their money endorsing candidates but from my interpretation of what the constitution was meant to be, if a corporation chooses to spend its money that way its their choice. I may not like the idea but i think its their right even though they are not a person. I agree with Remmy that if left unchecked the government will soon control and regulate more than they should and the essence of freedom which this country is founded on will be lost.
I definitely agree with Ellen, corporations should not be able to spend unchecked amounts of money to endorse candidates and fund issue ads. It's ridiculous. I think that if anything they themselves are impeding the first amendment by restricting their employees' freedom of speech--I am pretty sure that not everyone working at Target has the same political viewpoints. If a corporation endorses a candidate, this could influence the way employees talk about politics (especially at work) and possibly even the way they vote. I don't think that the Board of Directors or the CEO of a corporation should be able to or would be able to speak for all of its employees. If a rich person wants to endorse a candidate, great. But hiding behind a corporation is kind of wrong in my eyes. I also think that it falls back to the elitist theory, that only the people with power and money control politics, which is not how it's supposed to be. LIke someone already mentioned, America is supposed to be a meritocracy. But I disagree with Remington when he says that just because someone is rich, they are intelligent and have worked hard. Being born into money does not have any connection to intelligence whatsoever. Also, being born into money has no connection with working hard. Yes, some people work hard for their money, but it's important to remember that a lot of the CEOs, etc. inherited their jobs through nepotism. And that was really off topic...anyway, I think that if corporations are given free speech in terms of political ads it gives candidates even less control over their campaign messages, thus distorting and confusing the political process. Who's running for office, the corporation or the candidate??
I don't agree with the US Supreme Court's ruling in taking away restraints on corporate political spending. First of all, all the money being poured into aspects like advertising for candidates could surely be used for a greater deed. Also in the article Los Angeles Times says "We trust voters to sift through political messages, consider the source and vote their best judgment." - The thing is though a ton of American's get their information about our government, politics, candidates, etc. through the media. How are you supposed to trust all voters to be able to sift through political messages when most don't know the issues in the first place? I do think think that corporations have the right to free speech by the first amendment, but I don't think that pouring more money into campaigning funds is a good use of it.
I think that there is no problem in corporations having the right to donate to the candidate of their choice. The first amendment right should include corporations because it is just a group of individuals and they should have the right to donate money to the candidate that they support. Also it is their choice to decide how much money they can donate and I don't think the government should restrict it. It isn't the government's choice to be deciding on how corporations are spending their money that they have earned. Corporations should have the freedom to decide where their money goes.
I disagree with Ellen that corporations are not people. They are entities legally and I trust the legal system. Also I agree that the whole court case should not exist but otherwise, i agree with Remmy and Jess.
I agree with Paige--the article talks a lot about how Americans should be able to determine what is valid information and what is biased, when in reality many Americans are unqualified and/or unable to make this distinction. Most Americans take what they see or hear on the news for granted without taking the time to research it further.
I, like many who have commented above, feel very torn on this issue. On one hand, I believe that corporations should be given first amendment rights because if they want to use their free speech to promote their support for a candidate, that's their prerogative; that is, if the corporation wants to risk losing business. People who do not support the candidate a corporation chooses to support may choose not to contribute their own money to the corporation, for fear that their money will be used to fund support for this candidate. That is the risk these corporations are facing.
On the other hand, I also find unfair for a corporation to have the right to plug their monetary support right into a candidate's campaign. It's one thing to simply voice support for a candidate, like Ellen said, but it's an entirely different thing to give a candidate money so they can boost their campaign. I also believe that that money could be used for something more productive. And in regards to the economic benefits of the Supreme Court decision, the money that will be used for candidates' campaigns could be used for creating new jobs within the corporation. GDP rises when spending increases. If a corporation spends more money (the money they would be spending on campaigns) on hiring more workers, or on simply increasing the wages of their current workers, than that will increase the GDP as well. Spending on boosting campaigns is not the only way to increase GDP.
If I had to decide if I agree with the Supreme Court or not, at this time I would have to say I disagree. I believe that a corporation should be able to vocalize their support for a candidate, but I do not believe they should be allowed to plug money straight into a campaign fund. I realize that placing a restriction on what the money can be used for would mean that corporations do not have first amendment rights, which is why I have found that I would have to disagree with the Supreme Court decision.
The only way that I could see this working would be if a cooperation allowed its employees to have a say in who gets what money. I'm with Ellen on this one, a cooperation isn't a person. While it may be a group of individuals, by giving a cooperation the power to give a butt load of money to a candidate you're giving one CEO the right to hand over a lot of money that doesn't belong to him or her as an individual. It belongs to all of the people in that cooperation, and maybe they don't want to support that candidate, or any candidate for that matter. The CEO isn't looking out for me, or you, or any of the little people. AND since individuals have a limit to give money to a candidate like we talked about the other day in class, a cooperation should too if this is the way the cookie crumbles. If I was in love with Obama and I wanted to give him everything I had to try to make sure that he became president, I couldn't. I could only give him $2300. So, while a cooperation is a group of individuals, maybe it should be treated as one individual, since really only one or two people from the cooperation are making the decision. Let them give $2300 and call it a day.
Well clearly I should have posted earlier because remi and karly are saying EXACTLY what i was going to say. America is a free country. Corporations can spend as much money as they want on whatever they want because it is THEIR money. If they are willing to give large sums to a campaign, why shouldn't they? They are taking an active role in politics, which is a good thing! Any one besides the corporation has no right to tell them where to spend their money. And karly, you are completely right in saying that we have the freedom to support a certain candidate and have input in elections. Thats the whole point of a democracy. By taking away that right, the government would be completely contradicting itself.
When we say that a corporation deserves first amendment rights, who exactly are we talking about? The handful of rich old white guys running the corporation, or the people actually working for it? Lizzi and Ellen took the words out of my mouth: corporations aren't people, they're a GROUP of people. However, I understand that those people deserve their first amendment rights, and although I don't think it's right, Kyle put it well by saying that sometimes you just have to put up with what's Constitutional. The KKK have the right to share their beliefs, as wrong as they may be, so why shouldn't corporations have their first amendment rights?
I understand that opinion and respect it. However, I return to my first thought by saying that a corporation is a GROUP of people, controled by a small handful of usually like-minded people. If you argue that a corporation deserves first amendment rights and therefore should support whoever they want, what you're really saying is that the rich folks controlling the corporation should be able to use corporate money to fund the candidates they like. But a corporation is, as my peers on both sides have said, a GROUP, so shouldn't EVERYONE in the corporation have the right to decide where the money goes? That money could potentially go somewhere else, like in the workers' paychecks.
I would also like to address the concept that by allowing corporations to fund candidates, it would put money into circulation in a time of recession. As Ellen said, look how much was spent on Obama's campaign. That didn't do much for us, did it? So why would the money from corporations be any different? Also, it has been said that corporations have the right to take risks in supporting a candidate, and that if they are out of line, they'll simply lose business. But think about that for a moment: if the people running the corporation make a bad political decision and lose money, they will have to shift expenses to deal with the losses. Which usually means laying off people. So, in essence, people working for corporations will potentially lose jobs if a corporation makes a bad political decision. Is THAT fair?
I do believe in the first amendment, and I think that outside of a corporation, people have the right to donate money to who ever they want. If the guys running GE want to donate money to a candidate, be my guest. But it shouldn't come out of the corporation's pocket. Would it be okay for the Church to endorse a candidate? Absolutely not. But is it okay for church-goers to endorse a candidate on their own? Of course.
In addition, what will happen to the voice of the people? Will people who use corporate money still be able to give money as an individual to endorse a candidate? If so, then they will be getting more of a say than everyone else. While I agree with Remy in the idea that educated people should be running out government, I think this decision breaches the boundry between who's more educated versus who's more rich. Candidates will now shift their focus on the people who can give them more money, the corporations, and the voice of the everyday people will be drowned out. This is not okay. Corporations (or, the people who run them rather) represent a tiny percentage of our country's population, so by giving them the power to endorse a candidate, you are warping our democracy/republic into an oligarchy. Their influence is not proportional to the amount of people controlling them.
Again, I understand where a lot of my peers are coming from by saying that corporations still should have first amendment rights. But the only way I would be okay with that is if they treated a corporation like a region of a state: having a winner-takes-all vote to get the political opinions of EVERYONE in the corporation before putting money towards a candidate. I also think that if corporations are going to be treated like individuals with first amendment rights, then they should have the same cap that everyone else has to how much they can endorse. Or else everything should be changed so that everyone can give as much money to a candidate as possible and have the right to do as much endorsing as corporations. But that would be chaos, so I think it's safer (and, in my opinion, more fair and Constitutional) to just leave it the way it is. Otherwise, as mentioned in the article, we risk falling back into the robber-barron era of corruption and misplaced money.
I have come to the decision that campaigns should be funded by the government and should be allotted the same amount of money each. I believe this because it is the only way in which each candidate can truly have a fair shot at succeeding. By doing this, you also don't have to worry about the constitutionality of it and whether or not you are denying someone or some corporation's right to free speech. While we're certainly a capitalist nation and it seems counter intuitive to block someone or some company's right to fund a candidate, we are more importantly, as a nation, founded upon democratic principles. Because of this foundation, it is seems wholly undemocratic to allow for the little man not to be able to have his voice heard. Because the democratic party is considered to be the party for the American working class and the republican party is supported by the wealthy, it seems there would be an unavoidable disadvantage for the democrats. This isn't really a question of whether or not people should have free speech it is a question of whether or not politics should be ruled by money? I personally don't think it should be. That simply leads to corruption, and that's a hard fact to debate.
I have to disagree with Remington again and I think I'm starting to see a trend here. In his follow up to Karly's comment he said that a corporation's ability to spend freely on campaigns wouldn't hurt anyone. I have to fully disagree. Because the republican party would have the most corporate funding and thus would have a monetary advantage over the democratic party, this would result in a longterm period in which only the republican party would be in power. If this were to happen, the rich would simply be exempted from taxation and the American middle class would be stuck broke and without health insurance or anything. I'm not really sure how that scenario doesn't involve some people getting hurt? I also don't think that campaign flyers would help out migrant workers printing them out too much either...
After hearing both sides of the argument, I still feel torn between sides because there are legitimate arguments for and against the free speech of corporations. Ellen's argument that corporations aren't individuals makes complete sense to me, but going by the article's definition of a corporation of being " made up of individuals", I can also see how they should be granted the right to free speech. However, the issue that makes me most nervous is the impact the corporations might have on the election. I agree with Ellen on this topic because I don't see why just because a corporation has a lot of money, why it should have a larger say that a single individual.
I feel that corporations should be able to spend their money on campaigns. While no, I don't think corporations are necessarily individuals, I still believe they should be able to support a candidate that would help their business. I also don't think it would give Republicans an unfair advantage. Obama was able to raise insane amounts of money for his campaign, and McCain was forced to deal with it. When it comes to these elections, I think whatever funds you are able to accumulate-legally of course- should be allowed.
i agree with the comments made by kelly, teddy, and lisa about the unfairness of placing a cap on the money an individual can give to a campaign, and doing nothing of the sort for corporations. While I believe in the cap because I think it lessens the chance for corruption in politics, it is not fair to place it on one group and not the other. I think there should be a cap on BOTH individuals and corporations. Corporations obviously have more money than the vast majority of individuals and if they start plugging their crazy amounts of money into campaigns then our country will be on a path to corruption. I believe the cap is truly necessary.
I agree with Emily's comment that caps should be placed on both. I feel that when corporations begin to give money it leads to the political machines and political bosses that were seen most commonly the in early 20th century. Companies begin to run elections and decide candidates instead of the people. I think that allowing corporations to give money to a candidate makes a candidate cater too much to that coporation rather than constituents who can't give as much, as Teddy said.
I think that the public has the right and are able to make judgment calls on ads. Most people can determine which ones are biased and unbiased, and with that they can determine who they want to represent them. Although ads are made to persuade the public one negative ad isn't going to make a voter change their mind, it might be one of numerous things that does.
Ellen your comment on how the 705 million dollars spent on campaign ads is somewhat and that it didn’t help the economy is somewhat naïve. Some corporations or people for that matter maybe feel very passionate about political elections and they donate money to a campaign that they would have saved otherwise. This spending of money instead of saving it helps the economy in the way that Remington had stated earlier in a previous comment.
Honestly, the real reason why people are so mad over this is because corporations usually have a lot more money than individuals. People fear that having a corporation back a candidate will allow them to have too much money. If you think about it though, what about rich individuals like Bill Gates? Bill Gates has more money than so many small businesses in America, if he endorsed a candidate, that candidate would benefit more from Gates than many other small businesses. Another thing is that why can't small businesses be allowed to express their views? They are a group of people who work together, sound like interest groups? So, if interest groups can donate money and support, why can't a corporation? Some interests groups wield more power than many corporations and besides, there are many corporations who wouldn't even get involve with politics because they don't want to alienate potential customers.
I have to respectfully disagree with Rory, sorry. I believe the system in Europe would never function in a society like ours. A huge part of our culture is based upon the power of money. It's been that way forever. The "little man's" voice is obviously still being heard. Every one says the republican party would get an advantage but look at the facts from the last election. If we look at republicans, many of their supporters were big businesses. Yet even with all of their donations, nothing matched the campaign money raised for the Democratic "little man's" party. The Obama campaign was largely supported by lots of small donations. The money will go to whoever has to most support, in this last election, it was Obama, the Democrat. It's not fair for someone who doesn't have money to tell another person with money, that they can't spend theirs. It is in no way their choice. I feel a cap would just make things messy. Let spending be a choice.
I think John makes a brings up a good stance on the argument bringing up the point that some individuals are just as strong as companies but i also wonder that when it comes down to it, how many individuals are really going to shovel in as much of their own money as companies are. I agree with emily and ellen saying that freedom of speech and the ability to finance a candidate don't exactly go hand in hand...
All party ties aside, I think that if you really want corporations to be treated like individuals with the first amendment, then they should have the same limitations that individuals do as well (capping the amount they give).
There should also be a vote, so that the corporation's money goes to a candidate that EVERYONE in the corporation supports. But really, it just doesn't make sense, because how would you deal with capping the amount that individuals who donate through their corporation can use? If a corporation endorses a candidate, AND workers for the corporation are allowed to donate money, they might exceed the $2300 limit, giving them more voice than the rest of US citizens, which isn't okay. Which, in response to John's comment about Bill Gates, is why we have the limit in the first place.
In addition to the whole problem of a candidate ditching the issues of the people and focusing attention on corporations instead, there are other risks. It is fairly likely that corporations will focus their support on candidates who support business, which could lead to major corruption issues and even loopholes in issues such as monopoly regulation. Also, there is the risk that corporations will just support the most popular candidate in order to get more consumers, which then shifts a candidate's strategy even more towards being well-liked versus having a decent stance on issues.
All in all, I think it's just a bad idea. As individuals they should totally be able to endorse a candidate, but by bringing corporations into the mix it'll get just as complicated as if you were to try and bring religion into government.
Corporations have rights like individuals under the constitution. It is important that we allow them to support candidates that they support.
While I support corporate funding of campaigns, I also believe that it is very important to prevent corporations from crossing the line between supporting politicians and controlling them. If politicians receive 99% of their money from corporations they would clearly be extremely bias when voting on legislation concerning corporate and business regulation.
I'm not saying corporations can't help candidates; I'm just saying that unrestricted corporate campaign contributions could turn out to be very dangerous.
Also, I don't think the European system of giving candidates money and restricting campaigns to two months would work in the United States. Their political party system is much more rigid than ours, as they require voters to register with a party and vote along party lines.
Also, European nations do not support populations as large or a diverse as ours. Although our drawn out style of campaign may be very tedious at times, it seems more democratic to me, because it allows greater time between caucuses and primaries for people to express their opinions and push certain agendas for party platforms. In a shorter time period, less people are heard by the parties. Also, our primary and caucuses are crazy enough. Imagine trying to squeeze 50 caucuses and primaries into a period of two months. That would be nuts
To return to the general outline of this blog, I have to say that I believe that corporations are totally not allowed to fund campaigns. Even the notion seems ludicrous to me. To restate what others before me have said, a corporation is a GROUP, not an individual. Suppose that I am a Democrat cashier working at Target, I have no say in where the corporation's money goes, so it is more than likely that I will be working to help fuel the campaign of someone who I don't agree with and don't believe should be in office. Political spending should not be a part of a corporation's budget, unless there was to be a vote inside the corporation. If that was the case, then go ahead, but the situation of a board of directors endorsing a particular candidate seems unsettling to me.
I am still not entirely clear about how all of this campaign money supposedly helps the economy. In regards to Justin's comment..I didn't really understand what you were trying to say. According to you and Remington, Obama's $705 million went into the economy--where were the effects of that in 2008, when the recession was in full swing?? I think that people are misunderstanding the concept of campaign funding--that money does not go into the pockets of the cameraman and whoever else Remington mentioned. No one says "hey, we made a lot of money on political ads this season, let's give everyone a raise." That money goes straight to the higher ups. On a different note, I strongly disagree with Sammy's comments about tradition and the way things have "always been." Just because something has been a part of our culture or has been done the same way for a long period of time doesn't necessarily mean it's right. That's kind of a narrow-minded way to look at the world. This might be an extreme example, but look at slavery and civil rights. Slavery was a part of American society almost from the get go, and it lasted for hundreds of years. Does that mean it was right?? Or take women's rights. Women were intentionally left out of the constitution, and weren't allowed to vote or have any say at all in politics for centuries. I don't know about you, but I really appreciate the fact that I can vote and have a say in the political process. How is this possible? Because someone decided to change what was "tradition" and go for something new. Just something to keep in mind...I do, however, think that Jack makes a very valid point about the size and diversity of America versus England and other European countries. I still think that campaigns could be shorter and done with a lot less spending, but I agree that the English campaign system would probably not work in America.
To start off with I definitely disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on many levels. Not because of some supposed conservative bias but because of just how much the Supreme Court over stepped it's bounds on this decision and how much more distorted this will make our election process. The supreme court was hearing a case about whether or not a interest group could air a scathing documentary on Hilary Clinton. They ruled that corporations have first amendment rights and could spend as much money as they want. Exactly what does that have to do with the case they had at hand? That is purely ridiculous and really does indicate that even our courts are becoming political bodies. Also I take issue with corporations being extended first amendment rights. They are a artificial construct created by individuals, not actual individuals who those rights are for. All of this, however, is just an indicator of our real problem. Our campaign system is broken. I definitely agree with campaign reform and would greatly like to see a system similar to Great Britain's implemented here in the U.S. It frankly doesn't make sense for us to have candidates beginning to campaign ALREADY. We are one year into Obama's 4 year term and we have potential candidates visiting states already. How can we expect an elected official to focus on their actual duties when they have to start campaigning so early? We sabotage ourselves and create great conflict by allowing this ridiculous system to flourish.
Jack I'm not quite sure why the Europeans having more rigid parties or less diverse populations, which I'm not very confident of, would effect the success of their campaign system here. The rigid time schedule and funding would not be effected by out country's centrist leanings it would force people to make decisions. And as to a less diverse population again I'm not quite sure if this is true but I'm also not sure how it would effect this campaign system. I guess you could argue that it would create less of a consensus but I'm confident a majority could still be reached and I'm a firm supporter of the European campaign system here in the U.S.
After thinking this issue through, I too have decided that I really don't think corporations should be able to endorse candidates the way that they do. I agree with what Ellen said, that corporations are in no way one person, and why should big bad CEOs get more say than other people? That being said though, even though corporations shouldn't be considered "one person"...they are within their rights to endorse a candidate if they want to--even if the rest of us don't like it.
Nils, you have changed my mind. I originally thought that the European system of election and campaigning was the way to go, but I never considered the force it requires and the rush it spurs in voters. I think that campaign financing definitely needs to be monitored and regulated, as well as this overwhelmingly extended campaign process, but the headlock the hurried European process causes would lead to wildly inaccurate and rash decisions.
Post a Comment