Comments on: A Few More Thoughts on Citizen’s United

By: Harquebus

Harquebus — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:48:09 +0000

A few points I came up with, ponding this over the last few days:

1 – All media outlets are corporations. Some are owned by other corporations.

2 – Media outlets were never restricted by these laws, and I believe were explicitely excluded from the McCain Feingold legislation.

3 – It’s largely the editorial boards of the media that are protesting this most loudly, which makes this look like a corp vs corp debate, with some corps trying to drown out others.

4 – an overwhelmingly large number of people in the mass media are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and actively agitate for the CFR’s agenda.

5 – lastly and most importantly, it doesn’t matter who donates to a candidate’s campaign, if that Congressman actually keeps his oath to uphold the Constitution. And that’s the key – getting legislators to stick to the Constitution instead of trampling it to favor their donors.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:26:38 +0000

And if Congress would just follow the rest of the Constitution and only do what they are allowed to do, there would not be such a need to influence Congress. The only reason this is an issue at all is because so much money is at stake. The whole system would work nicely if we would just follow it.

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:58:36 +0000

Charlie B and Jeff, about your arguments that little will change:

Congress passed McCain-Feingold because they wanted to change the election process. Incumbents would no longer be faced with an organized religious right or NRA or Sierra Club determined to hold them accountable for their voting record. That’s why McCain-Feingold is often referred to as the Incumbent Protection Act.

Jeff is correct that consumer product companies will not risk alienating their customers. But the NRA and other interest groups have few such worries. Citizens United restores the balance between corporate lobbyists who bribe office-holders and the issue-oriented organizations who target voters. Free from the censorship of the powerful government, the citizen will once again have access to the full information he needs to hold accountable his elected officials.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:41:53 +0000

In practice, it won’t change much. We are effectively a 50/50 county. Red/blue, D/R, Coke/Pepsi, use whatever analogy you want, and no business will risk alienating half their potential consumers by putting their name directly on controversial, political advertising.

They’ll continue to use PACs and quiet lobbying to influence the system because it entails less risk.

By: Charlie B

Charlie B — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:12:05 +0000

Citizens United changes little.

#1 The big guys are no longer required to use PACs so they get to spend a few more advertising dollars. The little guys still don’t have the bucks to spend on political advertising.

#2 80% or more of the House is already gerrymandered into safe seats. When a Republican state legislature creates safe Republican seats, it also creates safe Democrat seats and vice versa.

The real action remains in lobbying not elections.

By: NormD

NormD — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:03:50 +0000

Your friend has it exactly backwards. Your large competitor already has a cozy relationship with government. You need to advertise to expose that relationship. As the WSJ has said again and again, campaign finance reform benefits incumbents.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:46:32 +0000

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

Call me crazy, but it seems pretty cut and dry there.

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:24:44 +0000

Its not just “big business” relationship, but also the other special interest groups who has managed to cloak itself in legitimacy. It is this back scratching that largely goes unnoticed and unreported to the average person. Allowing groups of people, whether in a business or other association, to speak out at what they feel should be heard must be welcomed.

By: Terry Noel

Terry Noel — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:07:32 +0000

A good answer. Until the mutual back-scratching relationship between government and big business is severed, most solutions will be cosmetic. Nonetheless, we can count this ruling as a victory for the reason you state. At least it brings part of the process of influence out in the open.

By: Quincy

Quincy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:34:10 +0000

As I point out here, your friend's question is already academic. The real effect of Citizens United v. FEC will be to open up the door for the underdogs, and those out of favor in Washington, to make their voices heard. The breaking of the monopoly on influence is undoubtedly a good thing for small and medium business and interest groups.