Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com.
As the New York Times has reported:
Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences.
Too true. President Obama called it
a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
That just about sums it up.
The decision is of course wholly illogical. If it were true then corporations would also be due a vote, and they're not.
If it were also true, of course, the tax incidence argument that corporations are mere agents, would also be wrong.
It's amazing how corporations want it both ways to suit their own purposes. At cost to the rest of us and democracy.
The threat to our well being that big business poses seems to grow by the day. Fear is their weapon of delivery, with advertising its medium for supply.
Which will no doubt be evident in future US elections.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
That just about sums it up.
Not quite. What about the involvement of big labour in this case as well?
Georges
@Georges
Labour unions are there to protect members who join for just that reason. They are free associations of people
Corporations are anonymous entities of unknown ownership there to exploit in the pursuit of profit
If you can’t spot the difference and why one is entitled to participation and the other not you’re a lousy libertarian
Georges, would you care to elaborate about ‘the involvement of big labour in this case’. Didn’t realise there was this enormous power base on the labour side in the US.
Richard,
Quite happy for labour unions to exist (although the “there to protect members” routine is a real over-egging).
The post is just another example of omission which shows TR-UK to be a propoganda blog vs. one which lays it all out on the table for the reader to decide.
How are those individuals participating in corporate affairs not also practising “free association”? Where is the compelling force?
Georges
@Georges
As you are well aware corporations can own corporations which can eb owned by trusts
we have no idea where corporation are owned in some cases
Delaware requires almost no information on record
This is unaccountable in the very fullest sense – as some interventions in the UK prove
Unions are a model of accountability in comparison
Hence the difference
“Labour unions are there to protect members who join for just that reason. They are free associations of people”
Try getting a part in a movie without joining Equity. How free is that? I am yet to see a corporation that says you must join it as a shareholder in order to take part in a particular industry in the same way Equity does. Can you name one?
Juliet
Try being an auditor without a licence
Or a medic without a GMC registration
Or a lawyer without being a member of the Law Society
Action in restraint of trade is sometimes in the public benefit
Sorry, how is acting comparable to being an auditor, doctor or lawyer?
Equity isn’t about protecting the public from bad acting! Try complaining to them about a bad performance you have seen – they won’t do anything, or care. They don’t impose entry and ongoing professional standards, CPD etc that the other professions you mention do.
Sorry, Juliet, but the single case of Equity is hardly representative of the whole institution. And I haven’t noticed the acting profession causing widespread economic destruction.
@Juliet
As a former director of a major theatre school I disagree
They did a better job than the professions in achieving high standards, by and large
But I agree – beating the professions is not hard
Carol, the point Richard was making was that unions are ‘free’ associations (and therefore should be entitled to ‘freedom of speech’) and companies are not.
In the case of Equity, you can’t act (beyond a very low level amateur level, and certainly not in a movie) without joining Equity. It is not at all comparable to the GMC as Richard was suggesting – Equity doesnt impose professional standards at all, so the compulsion is not at all to protect the public.
I asked Richard to suggest a company that had a similar level of compulsion on anyone wanting to enter a particular trade or profession or other business activity, and I look forward to him doing so.
The single case of Equity is simply that compulsory unionism has mostly come to an end – I can’t think of any other closed shops, but 30 years ago there were plenty.
I know we are getting off topic here Richard, but pretty hard to suggest Equity does anything for the professional standards of actors across the board (for the purpose of protecting the public rather than the actor). Ever heard of an actor getting struck off? I never have.
Richard
I appreciate that your blog is not centred on educating ignormuses(sp?) such as me but if you could explain or point me in the right direction ref: “the tax incidence argument that corporations are mere agents”