The reaction by the left to the Supreme Court decision yesterday overturning speech limitations on corporations seems tremendously hypocritical. No one seems to complain on the left when certain groups/corporations (call them "assembly of individuals") get special access to the government and policy making. Jeffrey Immelt and GE, Goldman Sachs, the SEIU, and the UAW all get special direct access to shape legislation in ways that may give special privileges to their organization -- access I and my company will never have.
Deneen Borelli wrote, in response to Keith Olberman's fevered denunciations of free speech for corporations
"It also seems as if the pot is calling the kettle black. MSNBC is currently owned by General Electric. GE Capital was bailed out by the taxpayers. GE CEO Jeff Immelt is a close advisor to President Obama, and GE would profit from Obama policies such as cap-and-trade. Olbermann has served as a cheerleader for all of this. Are Immelt and Olbermann simply afraid to allow others to possibly gain the attention and influence GE has had all along?"
Here is an example -- has the health care bill considered my company's situation, where we have 400 seasonal workers, almost all of whom are over 70 and on Medicare already? How, in these circumstances, do we offer health care plans? Are we relieved of the penalty for not offering a plan if they are on Medicare or a retirement health plan already? The legislation does not address these issues (see Hayek) and I am sure numerous others, but I will never be able to cut a special deal for my workers or my industry as GE or the UAW have.
Further, corporate paid speech is alive and well in this administration, you and I just can't see it. Lobbyists are all having record, banner, unbelievable revenues, in large part because the government is putting such a large chunk of the economy in play for forced redistribution and everyone who can afford it is paying to influence the process.
But nothing in any of the good government reforms have (rightly) ever put any kind of restrictions on this kind of speech directly to legislators. The only speech they limit is speech to the public at large. In effect, McCain-Feingold said that it is just fine to spend gobs of money speaking directly to us government folks, but try to go over our heads and talk directly to the unwashed masses, well, we have to make that illegal. Far from tilting the balance of power to a few rich elite firms, the recent Supreme Court decision gives new power to the rest of us who don't have privileged access.
Update: Speaking of hypocrisy, the NY Times Corporation is outraged other corporations have been given the same rights it has had all along. In a sense, the Times is lamenting their loss of a monopoly.
Update #2: Ilya Somin: Corporate speech is actually an equalizer for far worse inequalities of political influence and access that already exist.