Interesting Op-Ed about the Citizens United boogeyman

[twokgrad]

By the way, here is another link to the article. The Tribune has only recently gone to a subscription model. http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/2...ont-believe-th

Love me some Reason!

[johnhoie]

You do understand that Citizens United was enacted during the Obama administration, right? What "goodies for the rich" have been passed and signed into law during the Obama administration. How, specifically, would our laws be different if Citizens United had not been passed. Please feel free to back up your statement with data about corporate contributions to or on behalf of the politicians who passed these unspecified "goodies for the rich."

If you read through the thread, you'll see I posted another link to the article. It quantifies that the myth of corporate giving for political advocacy is vastly overstated.

OK, I read it in the other link, but first, what do you mean by "enacted in the Obama administration"? Citizen United isn't some law passed by Congress; it's a Supreme Court decision overturning decades of legal precedent and making corporations persons for political purposes.
Secondly, while it may be true that corporations haven't kicked in big bucks, do you think maybe Adelson and the Koch brothers are contributing their millions to benefit their corporations? And if unlimited donations have been legal since 1976, why are these multi-million dollar donations only occurring since Citizens United?
I'd be interested in an even-handed description of the ruling's effect, not this partisan propaganda.
I like reading the Huffington Post, but I recognize most of it has a liberal slant. Can you do the same with conservatives pieces?

[Nishioka]

OK, I read it in the other link, but first, what do you mean by "enacted in the Obama administration"? Citizen United isn't some law passed by Congress; it's a Supreme Court decision overturning decades of legal precedent and making corporations persons for political purposes.
Secondly, while it may be true that corporations haven't kicked in big bucks, do you think maybe Adelson and the Koch brothers are contributing their millions to benefit their corporations? And if unlimited donations have been legal since 1976, why are these multi-million dollar donations only occurring since Citizens United?
I'd be interested in an even-handed description of the ruling's effect, not this partisan propaganda.
I like reading the Huffington Post, but I recognize most of it has a liberal slant. Can you do the same with conservatives pieces?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...itizens-united

[cactusboy]

The Supreme Court specifically noted that the First Amendment permits Congress to mandate disclosures of donor identities and disclaimer language within the ad.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Congress has failed to impose disclosure requirements with respect to 501(c)(4)'s but that is not the Supreme Court's fault. All that the Court did in Citizens United held is that Congress may regulate corporate speech but it cannot ban it outright.

Well congress tried to pass a bill for this but it didn't pass the senate by 1 vote. All the members of one party voted no...guess which party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act

[cactusboy]

As far as there being little to no corps giving money...well let's let Trevor Potter explain this one...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Super PAC - Trevor Potter & Stephen's Shell Corporation
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Colbert Super PAC - Trevor Potter & Stephen's Shell Corporation

Trevor Potter helps Stephen create his own shell corporation so that he can obtain secret donations for his Super PAC.

[cactusboy]

and in case you think these shell corps are a myth...

In 2011, the Mitt Romney-linked Restore our Future super PAC reported a $1 million contribution from “W Spann LLC.” Never heard of it? Neither had several enterprising reporters, who learned that its address in New York was the same as that of Bain Capital — Romney’s former firm. After the press demanded to know what Romney was hiding, a former Bain executive came forward to say that the donation was his. He had given it through a shell corporation that his lawyer had created for that purpose.

How often does this happen? What if W Spann had been funded by another corporation or a foreign national — one whose lawyers had been a little less obvious when picking an address? Disclosure isn’t the same as transparency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...EFT_story.html

From the same link -

Of course, individuals have always been able to spend unlimited money to help elect or defeat candidates through political advertising. The difference now is that corporations and unions can act as individuals, spending their shareholders’ and members’ money without their consent or knowledge.

[cactusboy]

Here is what the link in my last post is about. It's a good read. Go to the link for the explantions.

Five myths about super PACs

1. Super PACs are transparent because they are required to report the names of donors.
2. Super PACs don’t corrupt politics because they operate independently of the campaigns they support.
3. Corporations were banned from political activity until the Citizens United decision.
4. Billionaires gave the same amount of money before Citizens United.
5. Super PAC spending will make the difference in the presidential election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...EFT_story.html

These last few posts of mine seem to show that while the facts in the opening post may be legit, they don't tell the whole story and all the relevant facts weren't present.

[ChitownHusker]

OK, I read it in the other link, but first, what do you mean by "enacted in the Obama administration"? Citizen United isn't some law passed by Congress; it's a Supreme Court decision overturning decades of legal precedent and making corporations persons for political purposes.
Secondly, while it may be true that corporations haven't kicked in big bucks, do you think maybe Adelson and the Koch brothers are contributing their millions to benefit their corporations? And if unlimited donations have been legal since 1976, why are these multi-million dollar donations only occurring since Citizens United?
I'd be interested in an even-handed description of the ruling's effect, not this partisan propaganda.
I like reading the Huffington Post, but I recognize most of it has a liberal slant. Can you do the same with conservatives pieces?

To your first point, you said "if you look at our tax code, you can see what money has bought thus far. I am asking you to describe what laws have been enacted in the wake of Citizens United by virtue of the corporate advocacy that it enabled.

To your second point, Citizens United did not change anything. Individual giving to issue advocacy has been rising for decades. Obama's decision not to accept federal funding for his presidential campaign was certainly a game changer, and resulted is much more money flowing into the political process on both sides.

Finally, I fully recognize the partisan slant of the article, but what I was most interested in was the raw data pertaining to corporate giving, which I have no reason to believe is not accurate. Steve Chapman is not exactly an ideologue, he is on the board of editors for the Chicago Tribune and disagrees with Republicans fairly regularly.

[ChitownHusker]

Well congress tried to pass a bill for this but it didn't pass the senate by 1 vote. All the members of one party voted no...guess which party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act

I don't know the specifics of that bill, but if all it does is require disclosure for Super PACS, then absolutely it should have passed.

[ChitownHusker]

Here is what the link in my last post is about. It's a good read. Go to the link for the explantions.

Five myths about super PACs

1. Super PACs are transparent because they are required to report the names of donors.
2. Super PACs don’t corrupt politics because they operate independently of the campaigns they support.
3. Corporations were banned from political activity until the Citizens United decision.
4. Billionaires gave the same amount of money before Citizens United.
5. Super PAC spending will make the difference in the presidential election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...EFT_story.html

These last few posts of mine seem to show that while the facts in the opening post may be legit, they don't tell the whole story and all the relevant facts weren't present.

I think the fundamental error here is that people are assuming correlation equals causation. Your five facts may very well be true, but none of them has anything to do with what the Court held in Citizens United. People want to blame Citizens United because it makes for a convenient fundraising boogeyman, but the problems with Super PACs would be exactly the same today if the Court had gone the other way in that case.

[cactusboy]

I don't know the specifics of that bill, but if all it does is require disclosure for Super PACS, then absolutely it should have passed.

Well I'm sure it wasn't a perfect bill, but what is? I'm also not aware of any disclosure acts that came from the pubs.

[Husker Mort]

As far as there being little to no corps giving money...well let's let Trevor Potter explain this one...

Trevor Potter helps Stephen create his own shell corporation so that he can obtain secret donations for his Super PAC.

Bingo. Good video, CB. I don't think that Chi is arguing that this isn't happening, but that it is constitutional.

We need to elect politicians with a spine that are willing to legislate these tools of political "influence".

[cactusboy]

Bingo. Good video, CB. I don't think that Chi is arguing that this isn't happening, but that it is constitutional.

We need to elect politicians with a spine that are willing to legislate these tools of political "influence".

Actually the opening posts is all about how big/publicly traded corps aren't giving big money now. It seems like that's not true...they are just laundering their money in order to give it.

[ChitownHusker]

Actually the opening posts is all about how big/publicly traded corps aren't giving big money now. It seems like that's not true...they are just laundering their money in order to give it.

That, quite frankly, doesn't make sense. Yes, billionaires are giving their own money in huge sums to Super Pacs. There is not a shred of evidence that they are misappropriating corporate assets in order to do so. Nor would there be any incentive for them to do so in the wake of Citizens United, which allowed corporations to donate in unlimited sums. Given that they can currently do so anonymously, there is no conceivable reason why money would be laundered out of corporations and given by individuals. If anything, that is something that would have happened prior to Citizens United.

[cactusboy]

That, quite frankly, doesn't make sense. Yes, billionaires are giving their own money in huge sums to Super Pacs. There is not a shred of evidence that they are misappropriating corporate assets in order to do so. Nor would there be any incentive for them to do so in the wake of Citizens United, which allowed corporations to donate in unlimited sums. Given that they can currently do so anonymously, there is no conceivable reason why money would be laundered out of corporations and given by individuals. If anything, that is something that would have happened prior to Citizens United.

Did you read the article about the Bain guy trying to hide his identity? Did you watch the Colbert video? Do you think it may hurt Wal-Mart if it's CEO gave 5 million of his own money to one of the candidates? I would say so and now he can launder it through a shell corp to hide his identity.

[twokgrad]

Actually the opening posts is all about how big/publicly traded corps aren't giving big money now. It seems like that's not true...they are just laundering their money in order to give it.

To be the devil's advocate, just because a Stephen Colbert clip shows what is possible, does not equate to confirming your hypothesis. You may very well be right - that public companies are giving big money, but that clip offers no proof that they actually are, just that they can - rather the Opensecrets website is much more direct in answering the question, though maybe not to the depth that one would like.

What would be good alternatives to the current situation? I think part of the beauty of computers and the internet, is that it could make it possible for a lower wealth individual to run for President, but outside of that I don't really know what would work.

[ChitownHusker]

Did you read the article about the Bain guy trying to hide his identity? Did you watch the Colbert video? Do you think it may hurt Wal-Mart if it's CEO gave 5 million of his own money to one of the candidates? I would say so and now he can launder it through a shell corp to hide his identity.

Yes, I watched the Colbert Report episode when it aired, and I read the article. The point that I am making is that Citizens United did not create the negative conditions that are discussed in either one.

[twokgrad]

Did you read the article about the Bain guy trying to hide his identity? Did you watch the Colbert video? Do you think it may hurt Wal-Mart if it's CEO gave 5 million of his own money to one of the candidates? I would say so and now he can launder it through a shell corp to hide his identity.

Those words stick out to me as individuals, operating as individuals, not corporations making a decision to "invest" with certain candidates.

[cactusboy]

Also...the main thing that made me know something was rotten in Denmark was the seeing the people that were adamantly against it. McCain, Franken, the whole Colbert series on it, etc. Obviously I didn't rely solely on that, but it gave me enough reason to research it a bit and it looks like there is def fire where there was smoke. I sure don't by the excuse of all the high spending on BO not taking public funds....

[cactusboy]

To be the devil's advocate, just because a Stephen Colbert clip shows what is possible, does not equate to confirming your hypothesis. You may very well be right - that public companies are giving big money, but that clip offers no proof that they actually are, just that they can - rather the Opensecrets website is much more direct in answering the question, though maybe not to the depth that one would like.

What would be good alternatives to the current situation? I think part of the beauty of computers and the internet, is that it could make it possible for a lower wealth individual to run for President, but outside of that I don't really know what would work.

Yes Colbert showed what is possible, which is the Bain guy hiding 1 million by using a shell corp. The reason he got caught is because he was dumb enough to have his shell corp share the same address as Bain. Furthermore, I've read that there are many strange/unknown corps giving big money now.