3 ms·

I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.

by alecco 16y ago

nitrogen 16y ago
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/court_ruling_on_citizens_unite.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/court_rulin...
- alecco 16y ago
  My condolences.
lotusleaf1987 16y ago
because the SCOTUS believes money = free speech.
sp332 16y ago
(I know this is naive, but) Corporations are made of people. All that money belongs to someone. So if those people decide to give that money to politicians, why does that make problems?
- kbutler 16y ago
  Corporations are not "made of people". Legally, corporations have individual free speech rights like people (in the U.S.). People individually deciding to give money to politicians is different from the corporation giving money to politicians, but both acts are considered free speech in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood kb
- alecco 16y ago
  In general, publicly traded corporations are run by people aiming to get bonuses by maximizing shareholder value. Those shareholders could be very indirect, in particular for pension funds. With this level of abstraction, the final shareholders usually are not (or don't want to be) aware of things done in their name. The situation makes it very easy to look the other way. IMHO, Adam Smith would be disgusted about this.
- fleitz 16y ago
  It makes problems because political hay can be made over how campaigns are financed. Most people want the gov't to have a large degree of control over how others conduct their affairs. Politicians believe that making reforms to campaign finance is a platform on which they can be elected. The issue is not whether campaign finance reform actually works, or improves the situation, the issue is whether you can be elected for promoting it. People don't like the gov't but believe that it's a matter of who is in charge rather than the structure of the system.
- artmageddon 16y ago
  While you're logically correct based on that assumption, what happens when a corporation breaks a law? It's one thing if an individual within the corporation, but what a violation occurs due to a collective action taken by the company? Who goes to jail? Who exactly pays the fines owed?
mseebach 16y ago
I couldn't deduce from the article that money changed hands, much less in a campaign-situation? I don't know exactly how the EPA is structured, but it seems unlikely that elected officials would have much clout at such a low level.
- alecco 16y ago
  Context. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Political_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...
narrator 16y ago
Don't worry. We'll lock down campaign contributions so much that only the six major corporations that control the mainstream media in the U.S can cover their campaigns. >Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-med...
- damoncali 16y ago
  That's not actually true. It's more fragmented than that.
  - damoncali 16y ago
    Really, it's not even close to that concentrated. Don't believe everything you read - I can think of several large media companies not on that list.

I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.

by alecco 16y ago

I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/court_ruling_on_citizens_unite.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/court_rulin...

alecco 16y ago
My condolences.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

because the SCOTUS believes money = free speech.

sp332 16y ago

(I know this is naive, but) Corporations are made of people. All that money belongs to someone. So if those people decide to give that money to politicians, why does that make problems?

kbutler 16y ago
Corporations are not "made of people". Legally, corporations have individual free speech rights like people (in the U.S.). People individually deciding to give money to politicians is different from the corporation giving money to politicians, but both acts are considered free speech in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood kb
alecco 16y ago
In general, publicly traded corporations are run by people aiming to get bonuses by maximizing shareholder value. Those shareholders could be very indirect, in particular for pension funds. With this level of abstraction, the final shareholders usually are not (or don't want to be) aware of things done in their name. The situation makes it very easy to look the other way. IMHO, Adam Smith would be disgusted about this.
fleitz 16y ago
It makes problems because political hay can be made over how campaigns are financed. Most people want the gov't to have a large degree of control over how others conduct their affairs. Politicians believe that making reforms to campaign finance is a platform on which they can be elected. The issue is not whether campaign finance reform actually works, or improves the situation, the issue is whether you can be elected for promoting it. People don't like the gov't but believe that it's a matter of who is in charge rather than the structure of the system.
artmageddon 16y ago
While you're logically correct based on that assumption, what happens when a corporation breaks a law? It's one thing if an individual within the corporation, but what a violation occurs due to a collective action taken by the company? Who goes to jail? Who exactly pays the fines owed?

mseebach 16y ago

I couldn't deduce from the article that money changed hands, much less in a campaign-situation? I don't know exactly how the EPA is structured, but it seems unlikely that elected officials would have much clout at such a low level.

alecco 16y ago
Context. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Political_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...

narrator 16y ago

Don't worry. We'll lock down campaign contributions so much that only the six major corporations that control the mainstream media in the U.S can cover their campaigns. >Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-med...

damoncali 16y ago
That's not actually true. It's more fragmented than that.
- damoncali 16y ago
  Really, it's not even close to that concentrated. Don't believe everything you read - I can think of several large media companies not on that list.