Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
Any thoughts on yesterday's decision (pdf) by the Supreme Court to roll back limits on corporate/union spending in election campaigns?
This is a really transformative decision by the court, overturning at least 20 (some say 100) years of judicial precedent regarding campaign finance regulation.
Is CJ Roberts presiding over an activist court?
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
Here's a trailer for Hillary: the Movie, a 90-minute movie that is either a hard-hitting documentary or a really long campaign commercial, depending on your pov. Produced by Citizens United.
| Get the Flash Videos |
alexs
Limestone bluffs of the Scioto
Login to Send PM
There will be 8 billion campaign signs on the roadsides.
And - they used to be paper on wooden sticks, now they're plastic on wire frames. Abandoned paper and wood can rot or the mowers can chop them up, but what's going to happen when the mowers hit all those abandoned wire frames?
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
I actually think that the impact of the ruling won't be as significant as either its detractors or its gung-ho cheerleaders expect.
The Volokh Conspiracy has been preparing and waiting with bated breath for this ruling for months, so they were all over it from every angle within hours of its release:
The real issue: The Dramatic Scope of the Ban Struck Down
Also critical: The Deterrent Effect of Complex Speech Restrictions
Impact on the Mainstream Media
The First Amendment and Media Corporations
Corporate Speech as Personal Speech Through Corporate Form
Fun to note: The First Appeareance of "Blog" in a SCOTUS Opinion
Sidenote on the Second Class First Amendment Rights of Broadcast TV and Radio (This has been a definite pet peeve of mine. We've long since left behind the world in which there were only three broadcast channels.)
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
This case is the result of Alito taking O'Connor's place on the high court. She voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act provisions that were struck down by this decision.
The McCain-Feingold act was supposed to reduce the amount of money going into campaigns; instead we saw the rise of the 527 groups and independent campaign expenditures. The FEC has responded by promulgating over a thousand pages of regulations.
The new law did not work; it just made compliance more expensive and enforcement more difficult. The FEC's job is harder now. It has to spend greater effort going after a small number of cases. This is sort of like the TSA looking for and confiscating nail clippers; is that work going to distract them from finding bombs or other threats?
We need to rethink the way in which we regulate campaign finance. The current system is easy to avoid, gives a big advantage to incumbents, and gave the mainstream media a more powerful voice (news media corporations were specifically excluded from McCain-Feingold).
I don't think this decision is going make a noticeable difference, though a lot of politicians are going to pretend that it does and howl with outrage.
kit444
Elsewhere
Login to Send PM
I wonder what if any impact there will be on shareholder rights. If a corporation that I own shares in makes political contributions I disagree with, what are my rights? Will political expenditures be included in SEC filings and if so how specifically? Presumably a corporation would spend money politically to further its economic interest and that would redound to my benefit as a shareholder, but what if the corporate officer in charge of such things has an ax to grind against a particular candidate for ancillary reasons (abortion of some other issue unrelated to the corporate business-how would I even know the reason if the pro-business candidate is also pro-life?). What is my recourse as a shareholder? If a corporation has the same right of free speech because it is a group of people, then what are the rights of the people that make up that corporation?
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
kit444 wrote >>
What is my recourse as a shareholder?Same as its always been, sell.
That is an advantage that corporate shareholders have over union members; you can't quit your union no matter how much you object to the union's political positions. And the number one priority for union leadership campaign expenditures is to support politicians who will enact laws that will be favorable for the union leadership (generally at the expense of the rank and file members).
kit444
Elsewhere
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
kit444 wrote >>
What is my recourse as a shareholder?Same as its always been, sell.
That's the easy answer, sure, but shareholders do have certain rights against the corporate board and officers. From what I recall (and it's been a long time since I've had to study corporate law), shareholder actions are very limited.
groundrules
Login to Send PM
alexs wrote >> what's going to happen when the mowers hit all those abandoned wire frames?
I'm amazed that SCOTUS recessed without addressing this.
Personally, I think the racket made by wire on mower blades will be positively dulcet compared to bulk of the noise the next election cycle will surely subject us too.
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
kit444 wrote >>
What is my recourse as a shareholder?Same as its always been, sell.
That is an advantage that corporate shareholders have over union members; you can't quit your union no matter how much you object to the union's political positions. And the number one priority for union leadership campaign expenditures is to support politicians who will enact laws that will be favorable for the union leadership (generally at the expense of the rank and file members).
Wow. That's right out of the unsubstantiated propaganda handbook. I generally expect better of you Hugh. Are we reverting to trite generalizations over intelligent discourse now?
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
kit444 wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
kit444 wrote >>
What is my recourse as a shareholder?Same as its always been, sell.
That's the easy answer, sure, but shareholders do have certain rights against the corporate board and officers. From what I recall (and it's been a long time since I've had to study corporate law), shareholder actions are very limited.
In theory, voting common shares are just that, they hold a vote in many of the larger decisions a corporation makes. At the end of the day though, between treasury stock and insider holdings, your average joe on the street shareholder, even if he got with every other joe on the street, wouldn't have enough votes to do anything.
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
DavidF wrote >>
hugh59 wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
kit444 wrote >>
What is my recourse as a shareholder?Same as its always been, sell.
That is an advantage that corporate shareholders have over union members; you can't quit your union no matter how much you object to the union's political positions. And the number one priority for union leadership campaign expenditures is to support politicians who will enact laws that will be favorable for the union leadership (generally at the expense of the rank and file members).
Wow. That's right out of the unsubstantiated propaganda handbook. I generally expect better of you Hugh. Are we reverting to trite generalizations over intelligent discourse now?
I actually take your comment as a compliment and as a call to moderate my comments and back up my arguments (rather than just mouth off). I have better contributions in one of the other threads; I may post a few of them here.
Keep in mind, I am rather t'eed off at the OSCEA; that union has had a bad effect on State of Ohio employees. The union is certainly not alone in deserving blame.
I was sloppy when I wrote, "And the number one priority for union leadership campaign expenditures is to support politicians who will enact laws that will be favorable for the union leadership (generally at the expense of the rank and file members)." Let me rephrase: "A top priority for union leadership when it makes campaign expenditures..."
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote >>
DavidF wrote >>
hugh59 wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
kit444 wrote >>
What is my recourse as a shareholder?Same as its always been, sell.
That is an advantage that corporate shareholders have over union members; you can't quit your union no matter how much you object to the union's political positions. And the number one priority for union leadership campaign expenditures is to support politicians who will enact laws that will be favorable for the union leadership (generally at the expense of the rank and file members).
Wow. That's right out of the unsubstantiated propaganda handbook. I generally expect better of you Hugh. Are we reverting to trite generalizations over intelligent discourse now?
I actually take your comment as a compliment and as a call to moderate my comments and back up my arguments (rather than just mouth off). I have better contributions in one of the other threads; I may post a few of them here.
Keep in mind, I am rather t'eed off at the OSCEA; that union has had a bad effect on State of Ohio employees. The union is certainly not alone in deserving blame.
I was sloppy when I wrote, "And the number one priority for union leadership campaign expenditures is to support politicians who will enact laws that will be favorable for the union leadership (generally at the expense of the rank and file members)." Let me rephrase: "A top priority for union leadership when it makes campaign expenditures..."
Well, I did an externship with OSCEA in law school and I have to say, despite my positive views of unions in general, I was less than impressed with the way they were run. I've been a union member, a union negotiator, and even president of a small union and I can tell you my personal experiences have been of good people, working hard at jobs that come with few rewards or accolades. I believe abuse happens, but I would say unions are no worse or better than any other center of influence (corporations, governments, etc.). People after all, are still people no matter what their affiliations. Some are noble, some are venal, most are both in varying degrees.
And yes, you can take that as a compliment. I've come to expect a certain rationality to your arguments, even as I completely disagree with them. :)
Rick Carraway
Login to Send PM
This decision is problematic on multiple levels. Legally and practically, it's a woeful decision.
Here's why:
1) Corporations have been equated with people by the Federalist Four + Kennedy. That is, despite Scalia's rambling concurrence, a view unsupportable via an Originalist reading of the Constitution, and equally unsupportable by a liberal reading of the document.
2) Stare decisis has been shrugged off--100 years of it, starting with a 1907 law, and multiple Court rulings and statutory enhancements that have followed.
3) Corporations and their uniquely deep pocketbooks will not only be able to spend haphazardly but selectively, intimidating politicians and parties into falling in line or having to counter a financial juggernaut. Unfortunately, money matters in winning elections, and this decision makes that all the more so. That's not good for democracy.
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
DavidF wrote >>
Well, I did an externship with OSCEA in law school and I have to say, despite my positive views of unions in general, I was less than impressed with the way they were run. I've been a union member, a union negotiator, and even president of a small union and I can tell you my personal experiences have been of good people, working hard at jobs that come with few rewards or accolades. I believe abuse happens, but I would say unions are no worse or better than any other center of influence (corporations, governments, etc.). People after all, are still people no matter what their affiliations. Some are noble, some are venal, most are both in varying degrees.
+1
I think that small unions can do an outstanding job and are likely to be very responsive to the needs of their members. Sadly, I have never been a member of a small union.
Also, I have seen employment situations involving non-union employers treating employees unfairly and where union representation would improve the situation for the employees.
The larger an entity becomes, the more bureaucratic it becomes. There is a point where the interests of the bureaucracy take precedence over the core job that the entity is trying to perform. Science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle refers to it as his "iron law of bureaucracy."
Part of my frustration with OSCEA is that when I asked questions they refused to give me answers and gave me hostile responses. The union personnel need to remember that they work FOR the membership.
I may disagree with you on certain policy matters, but I think you are honest and sincere. We could probably have good talks over a pitcher of beer.
El Stonio
Location Location
Login to Send PM
I guess I'm unfazed by the decision. The election process and the governing process is so saturated by money and special interests that it will just be more of the same.
Someday, someone is going to run a relatively cheap campaign based on issues and that may be the new beginning of governence in this country. I thought it was Obama but he IMO has misstepped badly by not adressing the toxic assets/economy effectively SO FAR. I still have hope, just like the poster.
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote >>
DavidF wrote >>
Well, I did an externship with OSCEA in law school and I have to say, despite my positive views of unions in general, I was less than impressed with the way they were run. I've been a union member, a union negotiator, and even president of a small union and I can tell you my personal experiences have been of good people, working hard at jobs that come with few rewards or accolades. I believe abuse happens, but I would say unions are no worse or better than any other center of influence (corporations, governments, etc.). People after all, are still people no matter what their affiliations. Some are noble, some are venal, most are both in varying degrees.+1
I think that small unions can do an outstanding job and are likely to be very responsive to the needs of their members. Sadly, I have never been a member of a small union.
Also, I have seen employment situations involving non-union employers treating employees unfairly and where union representation would improve the situation for the employees.
The larger an entity becomes, the more bureaucratic it becomes. There is a point where the interests of the bureaucracy take precedence over the core job that the entity is trying to perform. Science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle refers to it as his "iron law of bureaucracy."
Part of my frustration with OSCEA is that when I asked questions they refused to give me answers and gave me hostile responses. The union personnel need to remember that they work FOR the membership.
I may disagree with you on certain policy matters, but I think you are honest and sincere. We could probably have good talks over a pitcher of beer.
I agree. Ironically, I was president of the union's workers union. (Yep, as union employees we had our own union). Smaller organizations can be more responsive, but can also be less effective. Same for corporations, governments, etc.
Beer is always a good idea.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
