pilsner wrote >>
The government IS We the People.
Preamble of U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States---
1. in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice,
3. insure domestic Tranquility,
4. provide for the common defence,
5. promote the general Welfare, and
6. secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity---
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That's nice.
The government nevertheless still has legal personality despite not being a natural person. It, like all corporate entities, cannot vote. It also does not enjoy the same constitutional rights as natural persons, or as other artificial persons, for that matter, because there are *specific* constitutional provisions dealing with the powers of government (since that was sort of the whole point of the constitution).
gram, you still haven't directly responded to how the Citizens' United ruling allows overwhelming corporate money to get funneled into political campaigns. How does this aspect clear the general Welfare clause?
First, I have repeatedly responded to your "overwhelming corporate money" rhetoric.
Second, you don't understand how the Constitution works. All governmental powers in the main body of the document are subordinate to the affirmative restraints in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Therefore, even if there were a "General Welfare Clause" standing alone, that clause would not allow Congress to pass laws in defiance of the First Amendment. In addition, there is no standalone "General Welfare Clause." That language appears in the Taxing and Spending Clause: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." It is a part of the tax power, not an independent federal power, which would be far too broad for what the Founders had in mind. The power to enact any laws determined to be for the "general welfare" would render all other provisions of the Constitution superfluous: What need of independent grants of power to raise an army and navy, to build post roads, etc., when it could all come under "general welfare?"
Campaign finance restrictions are not even remotely an exercise of the tax power. They are a direct prohibition of activity.
Consider that Exxon's profits were $46 BILLION last year. If they set aside just one-tenth of their profits to buy and blackmail politicians with campaign contributions or the threat of contributions to opponents it would amount to $4.6 billion.
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion already. First, there is no realistic chance that Exxon would set that much aside for direct issue advocacy. Second, the laws respecting direct campaign contributions remain intact for the moment, so Exxon could not do what you fear even with Citizens United (though I hope that the rest of McCain-Feingold and the rest of the enabling legislation for the FEC will fall soon, too, so I will respond to your post as if it were the law of the land even though it is not, because I hope to see it become the law of the land and will work for it). Third, the voters are not the sheep you believe them to be, so even the ability to spend $4.6 billion to convince the public that oil spills are really harmless is unlikely to have substantial effect. Fourth, as an enterprise of that size, Exxon has a tremendous stake in the outcome of federal elections and should have every right to raise its voice if it feels threatened by any given candidate, party, or issue, just as any other actor in American politics (save perhaps the government itself) should. Corporations should not be required to wait in the wings like pinatas during elections, powerless to speak up against populist demagoguery. Your rule would give essentially unlimited free rein to anti-corporate demagogues like yourself and silence opposition. That is undemocratic, un-American, and immoral.
Now, will you please stop saying that I have not responded to your points? You have ignored far more of my own points than I have ignored of yours.
And, keep in mind that foriegn-owned companies are not prevented from contributing limitlessly to candidates too.
I've called you on this lie once, and I incorporate my previous statements on this as if fully rewritten herein.
The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling causes politicians to be very careful not to piss off major corporations such as BP, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, etc.
For all of their wealth, those corporations cannot vote in their own right. Do you think than an extra $4.6 billion in issue campaigning by financial institutions supportive of the bank bailout would have made it actually popular? If so, you have a truly strange concept about how easily bought the American mind is.
Overall, though, I do not see the problem with politicians generally not wanting to tick off major employers. Is it unreasonable to expect people of either party desiring to represent central Ohio to at least have some inkling of the interests of the Limited, AEP, Worthington Industries, Cardinal Health, Nationwide, Grange, Huntington, etc.? And why should someone like you be allowed to get up on a soapbox and trumpet how corporations are ruining the country and simultaneously demand that they be silent in the face of your accusations?
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
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.