Jump to content

Citizens United Y'all


kicker
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It's because they agree with the corporate agenda being pushed. The moment they don't agree with the agenda, they will kick and scream saying companies shouldn't be allowed to influence politics.

Companies can choose which state they want to do business in. When they are pushing a popular agenda, they will publicize it. When they push an unpopular agenda, it will be quiet and everyone will wonder how we got ourselves here.

Corporations should not be permitted to influence politics. That is how we end up having laws in favor of established corporations over the people. Our government is supposed to be for the people, by the people. The founding fathers would be pissed if they witnessed what so many have died for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kicker said:

So why are people, liberals in particular, ok with companies making political statements and trying to influence the political process the way PayPal has in North Carolina?    

Businesses and people can leave states if they view their laws as unsuitable to them/have the ability to leave. That can range from tax policies to laws targeting demographics.

Citizens United and other recent decisions expand on the concept that corporations/businesses are people in a legal sense (ie. you can sue the business itself instead of everyone who runs it) to extend rights to them and equivocate money with speech.

It's a bit of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Buy-cotting" and other forms of business activism involves corporations making decisions about their companies (or citizens making purchasing decisions based on their values).  Regarding LGBT issues, a lot of companies have a hard time recruiting quality people to work in areas with restrictive LGBT laws.  Some of it is also the values of the company, but it also has a business component as well.  Imagine the problems that NC's law would cause for the NCAA employees who are transgendered.  A lot of them might not want to work at those events and the NCAA would have to make accommodations for them.  Or suppose one of the merchants at the event refused to serve LGBT clients or work with anyone who was LGBT at the event.  It creates employment problems that the company doesn't want to deal with.  

Citizens United, on the other hand, allows corporations to influence elections directly by advocating particular candidates.  It also creates a system of dark money where transparency is virtually impossible.  We can never know which corporations are giving how much to which candidates.  There's a perverse and insidious effect on the election system and creates the appearance (and possibly the reality) that elections are bought and paid for by large money donors.  That undermines the most foundational aspect of democracy...free and fair elections.  And it does so in a way that prohibits accountability because of the dark money channels that are available.

So, in other words, I don't have a problem if Hobby Lobby moves its businesses out of states with permissive LGBT laws or if the NCAA moves its major events out of states with restrictive ones.  I do have a problem if Hobby Lobby secretly funnels millions of dollars to a presidential or senate candidate or if the NCAA essentially buys state legislative seats with donations that are secret and impossible to track.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical of the influence of money in politics, not just corporate money, but union money, Hollywood money, media money (because let's face it -- the media is hardly neutral in any journalistic ethics sense).

But I do wonder, if the problem with Citizens United is that it recognizes the legal fiction of corporate personhood (which is a real issue), why is that different from boycotts, etc.?  Why can a business refuse to do business in a state, and this is a legal and moral good, but a business running an advertisement or making a movie is somehow beyond the pale?

Of course, the real answer to kicker's question is the PayPal boycott is not an electioneering communication without the purview of the BCRA, and thus wouldn't be banned even if Citizens United had never become law.  But the principle he articulates is not answered, I don't think, by some nebulous objection that Citizens United gave some expansive view of corporate personhood.  The reality is, corporate personhood was nothing more than a nail upon which the dissent could hang its collective hats.  As Kennedy rightly noted, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." A corporation is no more than an association of citizens.  Its speech is no more than the collective speech of the citizens who comprise it.  Stevens, by contrast, argued that corporate speech is not protected, but only individual speech.  But in this manner, all sorts of well settled laws could be struck down -- speech by unions, speech by the press (after all, "the press" as applied simply to individuals would not include corporate entities such as the New York Times or the Washington Post or ABC or NBC, right?).

The corporate personhood argument is a sideshow.  The real question is whether there is sufficient governmental interest to nonetheless allow limitation on corporate electioneering.  One can rightly disagree with the majority's conclusion that there is not without going to the extreme of suggesting people have the right to free speech, but never if there is more than one person speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Businesses and people can leave states if they view their laws as unsuitable to them/have the ability to leave. That can range from tax policies to laws targeting demographics.

Citizens United and other recent decisions expand on the concept that corporations/businesses are people in a legal sense (ie. you can sue the business itself instead of everyone who runs it) to extend rights to them and equivocate money with speech.

It's a bit of a difference.

PayPal did a bit more than just choose what state they want to do business in based on legislation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

"Buy-cotting" and other forms of business activism involves corporations making decisions about their companies (or citizens making purchasing decisions based on their values).  Regarding LGBT issues, a lot of companies have a hard time recruiting quality people to work in areas with restrictive LGBT laws.  Some of it is also the values of the company, but it also has a business component as well.  Imagine the problems that NC's law would cause for the NCAA employees who are transgendered.  A lot of them might not want to work at those events and the NCAA would have to make accommodations for them.  Or suppose one of the merchants at the event refused to serve LGBT clients or work with anyone who was LGBT at the event.  It creates employment problems that the company doesn't want to deal with.  

Citizens United, on the other hand, allows corporations to influence elections directly by advocating particular candidates.  It also creates a system of dark money where transparency is virtually impossible.  We can never know which corporations are giving how much to which candidates.  There's a perverse and insidious effect on the election system and creates the appearance (and possibly the reality) that elections are bought and paid for by large money donors.  That undermines the most foundational aspect of democracy...free and fair elections.  And it does so in a way that prohibits accountability because of the dark money channels that are available.

So, in other words, I don't have a problem if Hobby Lobby moves its businesses out of states with permissive LGBT laws or if the NCAA moves its major events out of states with restrictive ones.  I do have a problem if Hobby Lobby secretly funnels millions of dollars to a presidential or senate candidate or if the NCAA essentially buys state legislative seats with donations that are secret and impossible to track.  

So to summarize, advocating political issues is ok.  Advocating for candidates is not.  That's a slippery slope of I've ever heard one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kicker said:

So to summarize, advocating political issues is ok.  Advocating for candidates is not.  That's a slippery slope of I've ever heard one.  

Advocating for an issue relevant to the company and giving money directly to politicians running for office are different things.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kicker said:

Not necessarily.  It's why SuperPAC's exist.  

You don't see the difference between a company making decisions based on the policies of a state and a company giving millions in donations to a politician running for office?

Okay, suppose a state decided to double it's corporate tax rate and the company decides to relocate to a more tax friendly state.  Now suppose that the company gives millions of dollars to candidates from both parties with the understanding that they will lower tax rates when in office.  

See the difference?  The first is demonstrating the consequence of bad policies.  The second is buying elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

You don't see the difference between a company making decisions based on the policies of a state and a company giving millions in donations to a politician running for office?

Okay, suppose a state decided to double it's corporate tax rate and the company decides to relocate to a more tax friendly state.  Now suppose that the company gives millions of dollars to candidates from both parties with the understanding that they will lower tax rates when in office.  

See the difference?  The first is demonstrating the consequence of bad policies.  The second is buying elections.

On the surface, they are very different things.  But they can accomplish the same goal, and it's total hypocrisy to be outraged about one and turn a blind eye on the other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kicker said:

On the surface, they are very different things.  But they can accomplish the same goal, and it's total hypocrisy to be outraged about one and turn a blind eye on the other.  

Whhaattttt? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kicker said:

On the surface, they are very different things.  But they can accomplish the same goal, and it's total hypocrisy to be outraged about one and turn a blind eye on the other.  

That's like saying that it's hypocritical to be against bribing public officials but okay with corporations running TV ads against particular policy proposals.  The manner in which businesses influence policy very much matters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does this mean paypal will be closing their offices in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Dubai that have laws that allow for incarceration, public beatings or worse of individuals who are homosexual or commit homosexual acts?

I am not taking a position in the North Carolina law since I have not read it.  I just don't believe paypal needs to be acting offended by it since they seem to be ok with much worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wuskillzz said:

So does this mean paypal will be closing their offices in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Dubai that have laws that allow for incarceration, public beatings or worse of individuals who are homosexual or commit homosexual acts?

I am not taking a position in the North Carolina law since I have not read it.  I just don't believe paypal needs to be acting offended by it since they seem to be ok with much worse.

 

That's a very fair question, I think.  Same for all of the companies who make decisions like this and yet still do business in some brutal authoritarian regimes around the globe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

That's like saying that it's hypocritical to be against bribing public officials but okay with corporations running TV ads against particular policy proposals.  The manner in which businesses influence policy very much matters.  

Only both are perfectly legal.  So if bribery were legal, your analogy would work. As it stands, it doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wuskillzz said:

So does this mean paypal will be closing their offices in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Dubai that have laws that allow for incarceration, public beatings or worse of individuals who are homosexual or commit homosexual acts?

I am not taking a position in the North Carolina law since I have not read it.  I just don't believe paypal needs to be acting offended by it since they seem to be ok with much worse.

 

That's my whole point.  This was a political statement.  This had nothing to do with caring about employees.  This was PayPal taking a political stance on something they seem perfectly ok with as long as the price is right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kicker said:

That's my whole point.  This was a political statement.  This had nothing to do with caring about employees.  This was PayPal taking a political stance on something they seem perfectly ok with as long as the price is right.  

For myself, I go back to the point I made earlier in the thread.  I wouldn't have a problem with Hobby Lobby closing shops in LGBT friendly states and moving them to states with restrictive LGBT laws.  That's the not same thing as essentially buying elections through secret donations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LGBT movement has gone from victim to bully. And the circle continues. You give us our way or we will pound you into submission by attacking you and your customers publicly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Worzone said:

The LGBT movement has gone from victim to bully. And the circle continues. You give us our way or we will pound you into submission by attacking you and your customers publicly. 

I'm sure you would prefer that they go back to being quiet victims where they are beaten to death, ostracized by society, and/or thrown in jail for just being what they were born to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I'm sure you would prefer that they go back to being quiet victims where they are beaten to death, ostracized by society, and/or thrown in jail for just being what they were born to be.

Not at all. I don't believe bullying solves problems, regardless of who's doing. We need more civility in society not less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...