4 ms·

> If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. > (...) > Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily we

by xyzzyz 4y ago

> If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. > (...) > Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily wealthy corporate financiers. So what is your complaint here, exactly? That wealthy corporate financiers can do everything that Citizens United tried to do, as long as at no point any of the funds pass through any corporation or a non-profit? Seems like you're just trying to make the speech of the wealthy corporate financiers difficult. I don't think people should lose their rights just because they are wealthy.

woodruffw 4y ago
Nobody is talking about anybody losing any rights. To paraphase Anatole France: the law, in its majestic equality, permits the rich as well as the poor to express and petition as private individuals. My "complaint" is about civic integrity and transparency: you are (presumably) a member of the same society as me, so you should have an intuitive (and civically gained) understanding that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Our country is better off when those who engage in our political processes, especially disproportionately, cannot hide behind corporate structures.
- rmilk 4y ago
  Agreed. This is why we insist on campaign finance limits and public lists of donors. See new article just today from the UK where someone wanted to donate $300k to a US election, and did so by funneling it through a lobbying group to obfuscate the foreign source. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-chief-of-staff-in-fbi-inquiry-over-election-bribe-in-puerto-rico-rrlrtzkjk https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-chief-of-staff-in-f...
rmilk 4y ago
The key point being made is that corporations give both an opaque knowledge of their funding and also a multiplier effect of that funding in a way that a wealthy individual cannot. You saw this immediately with astroturfing on candidates and issues all neatly hidden behind the PAC facade, with no way to discern who funded it.
kelnos 4y ago
No, because they can't actually do everything that Citizens United tried to do. Here's a structure that I think would be fairly unobjectionable: Citizens United works collectively to raise funds for political causes. Once funds are raised, the money -- in its entirety, minus administrative and other overhead costs -- is distributed to all the employees of Citizens United itself. That money is taxed, as it should be. Then the employees are free to voluntarily choose to contribute that money -- up to individual contribution limits -- to whatever candidates they so choose. The same should be the case if an ordinary corporation (one that doesn't exist for political purposes) wants to donate to political causes: they should be forced to distribute the sum total of that desired contribution as salary to employees, who could then choose to make (or not make) those contributions. Obviously there are flaws to this plan, and it needs more scrutiny and fleshing out, but I think it is much more democracy-preserving and -- critically -- transparent than just allowing corporations to act as "people" and fund political campaigns directly, or via shadowy means.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  Is CU allowed to pay people a nominal fee to be on-paper employees, whose only responsibility is to, a few times a year, sign a release form that allows CU to make a bundle of political donations on their behalf, with the fee paid out to the individual. Or on the personal level, I can't actually tell if it's illegal for me to pay you $3000 to sign a contract saying you will donate $2600 to a particular candidate. And if it's legal for me and you do to that, why shouldn't it be legal for a corporate entity to do that at scale? And it's certainly legal for you to hire me to handle the minutia of donating money to a political candidate.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

Nobody is talking about anybody losing any rights. To paraphase Anatole France: the law, in its majestic equality, permits the rich as well as the poor to express and petition as private individuals. My "complaint" is about civic integrity and transparency: you are (presumably) a member of the same society as me, so you should have an intuitive (and civically gained) understanding that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Our country is better off when those who engage in our political processes, especially disproportionately, cannot hide behind corporate structures.

rmilk 4y ago
Agreed. This is why we insist on campaign finance limits and public lists of donors. See new article just today from the UK where someone wanted to donate $300k to a US election, and did so by funneling it through a lobbying group to obfuscate the foreign source. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-chief-of-staff-in-fbi-inquiry-over-election-bribe-in-puerto-rico-rrlrtzkjk https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-10-chief-of-staff-in-f...

rmilk 4y ago

The key point being made is that corporations give both an opaque knowledge of their funding and also a multiplier effect of that funding in a way that a wealthy individual cannot. You saw this immediately with astroturfing on candidates and issues all neatly hidden behind the PAC facade, with no way to discern who funded it.

kelnos 4y ago

No, because they can't actually do everything that Citizens United tried to do. Here's a structure that I think would be fairly unobjectionable: Citizens United works collectively to raise funds for political causes. Once funds are raised, the money -- in its entirety, minus administrative and other overhead costs -- is distributed to all the employees of Citizens United itself. That money is taxed, as it should be. Then the employees are free to voluntarily choose to contribute that money -- up to individual contribution limits -- to whatever candidates they so choose. The same should be the case if an ordinary corporation (one that doesn't exist for political purposes) wants to donate to political causes: they should be forced to distribute the sum total of that desired contribution as salary to employees, who could then choose to make (or not make) those contributions. Obviously there are flaws to this plan, and it needs more scrutiny and fleshing out, but I think it is much more democracy-preserving and -- critically -- transparent than just allowing corporations to act as "people" and fund political campaigns directly, or via shadowy means.

joshuamorton 4y ago
Is CU allowed to pay people a nominal fee to be on-paper employees, whose only responsibility is to, a few times a year, sign a release form that allows CU to make a bundle of political donations on their behalf, with the fee paid out to the individual. Or on the personal level, I can't actually tell if it's illegal for me to pay you $3000 to sign a contract saying you will donate $2600 to a particular candidate. And if it's legal for me and you do to that, why shouldn't it be legal for a corporate entity to do that at scale? And it's certainly legal for you to hire me to handle the minutia of donating money to a political candidate.