House of Eratosthenes

The New York Times editorial board is crying in their beer. They don’t explain the foundation of their opinion very much, or very well. When they give it a go for a paragraph or two…

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.
:
This issue should never have been before the court. The justices overreached and seized on a case involving a narrower, technical question involving the broadcast of a movie that attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The court elevated that case to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending and then rushed the process of hearing the case at breakneck speed. It gave lawyers a month to prepare briefs on an issue of enormous complexity, and it scheduled arguments during its vacation.

Those are the two beefiest paragraphs in the entire editorial, with regard to the issue of why corporations should be treated any differently from individuals. The founders were worried about the corporations, but didn’t write down anything to that effect; and the Supreme Court heard the arguments during a vacation.

The editorial betrays an addled mindset that thinks inflammatory rhetoric is a good path to a decent decision, and this somehow justifies throwing lots of red herrings in the space where one would expect to find a coherent, rational argument. This is not the first occasion on which I’ve read a NYT editorial and noticed this. This is rather childish of them; adults know full well that, if it’s possible to make a good decision on a vacation, there is little to be gained from proscription against deciding things on a vacation. Adults also know that corporations are people. Sure, there’s a corrupt corporation here and there; just like there are corrupt people. And hey, NYT editorial board, there are corrupt labor unions too.

The other editorial board has it right. Corporations, mostly due to made-for-teevee and big-screen movies featuring bad guys who wear nice three-piece suits at all hours of the day & night — have soiled reputations, and the public is not terribly sympathetic with them. They have not always conducted themselves admirably. Just like some people.

But the case has not been made, that they should enjoy any fewer rights than an individual. It’s just generational squawking, the same stuff we see with regard to “Net Neutrality,” “Public Option,” “Privatize Social Security.” There are vast multitudes walking around, somehow, laboring under the delusion that you and I are all right until we start working for a corporation and then suddenly we’re terrible creatures, and then everything we want must be anathema to the welfare of “everyone.”

They are overly enamored of various methods and techniques of shut-uppery. They seem to figure, since the public overall isn’t sympathetic toward corporations, that means any protections the Constitution would ordinarily provide to them, should be bulldozed because those protections are getting in the way of something the New York Times calls “democracy.” Said democracy seems to have something to do with benefits extended to whoever the NYT finds to be adorable, cute, sweet, doe-eyed and fluffy.

Well, since when has the Constitution had to provide protection to those who are appealing? Bambi’s Mom already has protection in public sentiment, and the legislators who represent that sentiment; the Constitution is for the hunter.

Okay. I hated McCain-Feingold, it was an extremely flawed piece of legislation and I’m glad it’s been expunged.

But what now? Why not bypass the middleman voter altogether and just put congress up for auction on ebay?

Because having no corporate limit on monetary funding in political races essentially does just that, Morgan. Is there a middle funding ground that protects free speech and reasonably limits corporate influence? Or is it just the name of the game that big business gets to buy our politicians and de facto dictate policy and legislation for the rest of us?

I’m being serious, not snarky.
- Daphne | 01/22/2010 @ 15:24
Advertisers, and their sponsors, brandish no influence whatsoever that they are not freely given by those who consume the advertising.

And I’m being serious, not despicably naive. Yes, I realize the influence they are given, is considerable, because people are sheep. Well, blame the fucking sheep. Where’s it written that you have to think a certain thing, just because some thirty-second spot happens to reach you and wind its tendrils around you, plying you with its sweet innuendo?

I chose my headline very deliberately — creating some kind of plastic bubble, to keep this entity or that one from presenting arguments that may be entirely valid…or, yes, chock full of shit…is not the answer. The answer is more critical thinking (nowhere for it to go but up), and a free and open exchange of ideas.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2010 @ 15:39
I’m really not disagreeing with you, Morgan. There is no doubt that a huge number of the voting populace are dumb sheep, easily swayed by sound bites and erroneous information. The high black approval numbers for Obama tell that story most easily.

I guess I’m going more in the direction of how much influence should be allowed by unlimited donations. Is it okay for corporate America to, in essence, buy the politician of their choice? We all know that the runners who are able to buy the most media time get the preponderance of consideration. If they’re in the pocket of their corporate sponsors to win that seat doesn’t that influence their legislation despite the voter mandate once they’re seated?
- Daphne | 01/22/2010 @ 16:00
I’m not trying to be ornery, campaign donations, in my opinion, tend to be deep thickets of conflict. It’s an area where I haven’t come to a definitive conclusion. I’m sure the fact that I lost my good state rep because of massive Soros funding for the lib Strama has something do with my ambivalence on campaign donations.
- Daphne | 01/22/2010 @ 16:10
It’s a pretty fascinating subject all around. I don’t think there’s a perfect solution, and there probably shouldn’t be one. I’m pretty sure if we all take the time to look at ourselves long and hard in the mirror, and self-inspect with sufficient honesty, eventually we’ll admit a “perfect solution” means nobody can say ANYTHING that’ll influence anyone else, except (insert your name here).

In other words, I consider any restriction whatsoever to be oppositional to the whole concept of America. If that means Soros can still spend some billions and get all the bang for his buck he can get, well then so be it. Because if that man’s muzzled, we have to appoint someone to do the muzzling. Now, who’s that gonna be? Someone who agrees with me all the time? If so, that’s a pretty sweet deal, for me.

But I see the situation as a bit more…ah…”nuanced” than that. Because I think on these things a little bit more studiously than the editorial board of the New York Times. And so do you.
- mkfreeberg | 01/22/2010 @ 17:22
Quiz:

The NYT is

a. a secret fraternity.

b. a Hibernian social club.

c. a sole proprietorship.

d. a corporation.
- roylofquist | 01/22/2010 @ 17:23
That’s what makes it interesting to discuss, darlin’.
- Daphne | 01/22/2010 @ 17:24
In other words, I consider any restriction whatsoever to be oppositional to the whole concept of America. If that means Soros can still spend some billions and get all the bang for his buck he can get, well then so be it. Because if that man’s muzzled, we have to appoint someone to do the muzzling. Now, who’s that gonna be? Someone who agrees with me all the time? If so, that’s a pretty sweet deal, for me.

For me, this passage cuts to the heart of the matter. If that’s the kind of world we’re going to live in, then it really isn’t that much further to the classic censorship currently seen in many nations around the world. Simply, that you – meaning an individual or corporation – are no longer free to be openly critical of the government. There was a saying a few years back, “Oh, sure, McCain-Feingold is Constitutional. Haven’t you heard? The First Amendment only applies to pornographers, rappers, and flag burners now.” It amazed me that a law restricting the very sort of speech that the Founders were most concerned about protecting – political advertising and its associated discourse – was now being muzzled.

I guess I’m going more in the direction of how much influence should be allowed by unlimited donations. Is it okay for corporate America to, in essence, buy the politician of their choice?

To even ask the question of what will be “allowed” is to violate the very spirit of the First Amendment. In my mind, it’s not up to anyone to give a thumbs-up or down to any kind of speech, advertising, or contribution in the first place. That kind of power is so dangerous that there is no man alive who can be trusted to use it responsibly. It’s a bit like the One Ring from LOTR…it needs to be cast into the fire of Mt Doom. No one is trustworthy to wield it.

I would go about this in an entirely different way. Government shall make no attempt to restrict political speech, advertising, or campaign contributions whatsoever, provided the giver is legally identified as American. The companion, however, is that all such contributions are required to be available as part of the public record – no secrecy.

Further, Congress is to be reigned-in and deprived of its ability to hand out favors in the first place once its members are seated. I realize that’s a big, messy, complicated (maybe impossible) task, but that’s the ultimate “campaign finance reform” and it’s what we voters need to be demanding. If we “sheep” were requiring our leaders to stick to the Constitution, this business of influence peddling would never have arisen.
- cylarz | 01/22/2010 @ 19:24
I seriously doubt the founders could have foreseen the influence and wealth that corporate America would wield on the future body politic.

Denying the scope of the problem by falling back on soft props blaming an ignorant populace doesn’t negate or address the real issue that big money most certainly buys politicians and their legislative votes. It’s easy to say “free speech” with no dollar limits, it’s much more difficult to hear your voice clear the ramparts when it’s being drown out by the millions poured in by wall street pay offs.

With no constraints on corporate giving, the people will never elect any one who holds their interests. The constitution will never see a champion.
- Daphne | 01/22/2010 @ 20:01
No, I still think the answer lies in transparency and in restraining the power of Congress itself. Term limits would help a lot as far as the latter goes; while they aren’t a panacea, they’d at least forcibly break-up some of the quid-pro-quo relationships and cut down on the corruption. It would also have a chilling effect on some of the pork-barrel spending, which really is just another head of the same beast.

You said you hated McCain Feingold, but you seem to be arguing for precisely that. The legislation not only controls political advertising but also imposes limits on campaign contributions (some of which were in place already) in the name of controlling corporate and special-interest influence on Congressmen. Needless to say, it didn’t even achieve its intended purpose, much less honor the spirit of the First Amendment.
- cylarz | 01/22/2010 @ 22:23

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Supreme Court Ends Shut-UpperyFriday, January 22nd, 2010

Supreme Court Ends Shut-Uppery
Friday, January 22nd, 2010