The Sovereign is Found in the Man
Jan 22, 2010
Hadley Arkes
(Note: Hadley Arkes provided us with these comments after arriving late in Washington last night and just hearing of the supreme court decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. We'll continue to take up this issue in the coming week.)
Justice Thomas is magnificently right in making the case that the whole scheme of requiring the public disclosure of contributions is something that deserves to be struck down. One could argue in this way: The right to engage in legitimate associations should entail the right to engage in those associations with confidentiality, for the disclosure could make a person vulnerable to pressures that have, as their purpose, intimidating him from engaging in projects that are quite legitimate.
The best example comes from the old case in which the Court had struck down the move to require teachers in Alabama to disclose their associations. The concern was that membership in the NAACP could threaten one’s job, especially when teachers did not know they were hired for the next year until they received their contract. My own reading of NAACP v. Alabama (1958) was that this decision had to rest with the individual himself, for no one knew as keenly as he did the pressures and threats that were directed against him.
Clarence Thomas invokes here the sharpest examples from our own day: the threats directed at supporters of Proposition 8, threats that caused people to be fired, and small businesses to suffer boycotts. There is real danger in the air there, and yet to take it seriously is to call into question the whole scheme of “disclosure” that is central and necessary to any policy to restrict the funding of political campaigns.
On the main opinion, it is curious that the dissenters do not appreciate this axiomatic point: that a corporation is simply another form of an association of “human persons.” The question was raised in the first case eliciting a set of opinions from the Court (Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793) as to how a State could be obliged to keep its contracts. The power of the State was necessary to the enforcement of contracts, and so if a State were challenged, who would have the authority to pronounce a judgment and enforce it against a State?
But Justice James Wilson took the problem from this angle: On what ground could a state be obliged to honor its promises and contracts? On the same ground that a person can be obliged to honor his promise, for he has made people vulnerable to the prospect that the promise will be kept. But if that holds true for the ordinary human person, why would it not hold true for an organization that is simply an association of human persons? It made the most profound difference that one understood “the State,” in America, as an association of free persons, who have a claim to be ruled only with their consent. In England, as Wilson noted, the “law” began with the notion of a Sovereign issuing commands. But in America, he said, the law would begin with “another principle, very different in its nature and operations . . . laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the consent of those, whose obedience they require.
“The Sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.” It must be found, that is, in the human person, the only being who could weigh the moral grounds of justifying laws and tendering his consent.
Hadley Arkes, a member of the editorial advisory board of First Things, is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College.
Comments:
1.22.2010 | 9:56am
Curious says:
Can you please tell why it is that religious people always seem to side with corporations and others whose primary interest is turning this county into some kind of giant circus where we will all speak in tongues and have to buy our rights?
1.22.2010 | 12:26pm
TimC says:
Curious, rebutting your detailed and thoughtful critique would take a much longer comment than I have the time to write. Suffice it to say for now, though, that us religious people really, really like circuses. Oh, and speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2), so that's all for the good. And, hey, a free market of rights buyers and sellers...that sounds like cap-and-trade!
1.22.2010 | 2:20pm
KH says:
Curious, if I understand Hadley Arkes' argument correctly, he is not siding with corporations so much as he is siding with YOU, as an individual citizen endowed with a right to privacy. Do you really want the government to require the public disclosure of your own your political contributions? Wouldn't that be the same, in principle, as requiring you publicly to disclose your vote? Wouldn't such public disclosure make you vulnerable to intimidation by your political adversaries, your neighbors?
I'm not entirely convinced by Arkes' logic (nor thus by my own defense if it), but I suggest that your response is very wide of the mark. I.e., you seem to miss his point entirely, and instead of rebutting him, you engage in a sweeping ad hominem.
I'm not entirely convinced by Arkes' logic (nor thus by my own defense if it), but I suggest that your response is very wide of the mark. I.e., you seem to miss his point entirely, and instead of rebutting him, you engage in a sweeping ad hominem.
1.22.2010 | 9:39pm
Bill Dodd says:
Does this mean that as stockholders, foreign persons, foreign corporations, and terrorists should be able to influence campaigns?
1.23.2010 | 7:08am
Jim Hlavac says:
I'm curious, Curious, as to how you could ever come to such a perturbed conclusion. People don't "side" with corporations -- they buy stuff from them. Or they don't buy from them. And I have never seen a corporation selling rights, though I have seen more than a few government types think they own them to be dispensed as favors. Like the right to develop a certain piece of land given to a corporation, say, Pfizer, or any other for that matter. And since there are many a religiously sanctioned boycott against corporations for all manner of reasons, big and small, and in all manner of ways, from protests to mutual funds that won't buy stocks in companies that trade hither and yon for some religious reason. So how those religious folks are siding with the companies they are boycotting is quite beyond me, I guess a feat of mental gymnastics I can't do.
Oh, well, as TimC says, more or less, who's got the time to rebut such mush.
Oh, well, as TimC says, more or less, who's got the time to rebut such mush.
1.23.2010 | 7:50am
Kerry says:
Corporations: The NFL, Sierra Club, Oprah, Whole Foods Market, PETA, Ringling Bros. Circus, New York Times, (dead)Air America, The DNC, the SEIU, the Teamsters, the NEA, MGM, Universal Studios, Toys 'R Us, ELCA, the Anglicans, Act Up, the developers who failed to develop the properties handed to them by the Kelo decision, etc., etc., etc. Only one circus in there, in this,(admittedly) very short list.
Not corporations, the deciders of the Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy v Ferguson, Griswold, Roe, Kelo, etc. decisions. Not corporations, the Mafia, Mexican drug gangs, Wahhabist terrrorists et. al.
Why is it that people who lump people they do not know into categories too broad from which to then draw any meaningful conclusions are so good at this?
Not corporations, the deciders of the Dred Scott, Korematsu, Plessy v Ferguson, Griswold, Roe, Kelo, etc. decisions. Not corporations, the Mafia, Mexican drug gangs, Wahhabist terrrorists et. al.
Why is it that people who lump people they do not know into categories too broad from which to then draw any meaningful conclusions are so good at this?
1.23.2010 | 8:22am
John Keifer says:
I'm afraid the case for concealment is hopeless. Members of an association (corporation) have a right, almost a necessary right, to know what their association is doing (unless it is directly the expressed purpose of the corporation) and informing them can hardly be done without informing the public at large.
1.23.2010 | 9:33am
rogerinflorida says:
Justice Thomas is absolutely wrong. If you exercise your right to speak, then be heard. If you exercise your right to speak through associations, then be known as a member. If you exercise your right to speak through contributions then be known as a contributor.
It is this knowledge that allows the listeners to determine if your point is valid or honest.
There is no guarantee that the exercise of your right to speak freely should be without consequences, it is however the desire to evade consequences that drives the request for anonymity.
It is this knowledge that allows the listeners to determine if your point is valid or honest.
There is no guarantee that the exercise of your right to speak freely should be without consequences, it is however the desire to evade consequences that drives the request for anonymity.
1.23.2010 | 2:00pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
Let me take a moment from enjoying the debate to congratulate TimC on his post. Thank you, sir, for the laugh, and for the pleasure of reading such an appropriate response to the nonsensical charges lobbed in Curious' comment.
1.23.2010 | 8:07pm
Ken says:
OK, so Thomas here argues that a corporation, which makes profits from people who buy its products with no thought in mind of its political positions, is entitled to the same right of privacy when it uses profit for political influence as a single solitary individual taking a political stand?
1.24.2010 | 10:45am
Daniel Murray says:
Those of us less philosophically gifted could reason that a manmade economic construct, assuming equal status with its makers in the political world, is something of a Frankenstein.
1.24.2010 | 11:24am
vonMises says:
The problem is that the Corporation now has special rights that other groups of people don't. Namely they are persons, people. I am no longer using those terms to describe human beings, except when modified by another word, since they are now tainted completely by a Legal Fiction.
A Christian site with a deep commitment to the human person should know the difference between reality and fiction. It took 500 years for a mobs of humans to morph into a corporate person unbound by the humans who happen to do its bidding inside or outside its body.
I suppose the Church should now change its understanding of its self, to make fiscal conservatives comfortable, and now include corporations in the Body of Christ? I think if we are changing the meaning of the Constitution by adding corporations everywhere people/ persons are written, maybe we should do that with the Bible?Let's starting with the writings of Paul, about the Body?
"For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the company Nike should say, 'Because I am not GE, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were Walmart, where would be its sense of style?" 1 corith. 12:14 of Corporate World Bible (CWB).
Notice that this only works if the body Paul talks about becomes the World not Christ. Since corporations cannot be raised to heaven or human as Christ was human but also divine. The body must then become just material and a false body, the World.
If you don't know the meaning of words it will lead you to very bad places. If you don't know how a people live then you will not understand their writings. That is why our Constitution unbound by its history can be made into anything for anything. It is why many Protestants are running astray with the Good Book still in there hands. They don't understand context. Although a Protestant and Conservative I am wishing for some Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish thought on these economic travesties of late.
The Corporation while a good instrument of men, unbound it becomes a devilry that even the Church may not be able to contend, save Christ's return. The beginnings of the Corporate fiction was with the Church and Kings of Europe. Our Great Monastic Orders are in fact versions of Corporations that allowed them new ways of working together in brotherhood. We see how powerful that was in the Cause of the Church! The Kings of Europe used them to collect resources to enrich themselves. A few of these Corps are still alive, including Stora Enso of Finland. The Stora name goes back to Sweden in the 14th century granted by their king to mine copper. Visited the Mine myself. The mine closed in the 1990's, which means they mined copper for 600 some years!!!
The Church and Orders did not however think for once that they were creating some hive mind in humanity because it was inhuman. Why would they need that? They have the one true Body of Christ that they are a part of in life and death. In this way you can actually look at the Corporation as a kind of AntiChrist that preys upon our Christian Economic sense to lead us astray from the BODY to be just bodies.... or bodies on the floor....
If anything, this should be the time to look to the left and see that they are thinking similar thoughts. They just don't know the deep reasons for their discontent. They have good modern secular reasons for being aghast at these persons*. Why can't the Church have the b***s to step back from economics and understand that Humans are more important? In fact, they are what make economics work. Thus by joining with the left on this issue, on our own terms and understandings of bodies and being. We will shine a light of understanding about humanity so bright that all humans might wonder. Maybe they do know what it is to be human?
If this has gone to long or off topic I apologize. The Church just needs to shake free from conservative economics, long enough that it can save the people who make that economics such a powerful instrument. What if we lose the people and save Walmart?
A Christian site with a deep commitment to the human person should know the difference between reality and fiction. It took 500 years for a mobs of humans to morph into a corporate person unbound by the humans who happen to do its bidding inside or outside its body.
I suppose the Church should now change its understanding of its self, to make fiscal conservatives comfortable, and now include corporations in the Body of Christ? I think if we are changing the meaning of the Constitution by adding corporations everywhere people/ persons are written, maybe we should do that with the Bible?Let's starting with the writings of Paul, about the Body?
"For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the company Nike should say, 'Because I am not GE, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were Walmart, where would be its sense of style?" 1 corith. 12:14 of Corporate World Bible (CWB).
Notice that this only works if the body Paul talks about becomes the World not Christ. Since corporations cannot be raised to heaven or human as Christ was human but also divine. The body must then become just material and a false body, the World.
If you don't know the meaning of words it will lead you to very bad places. If you don't know how a people live then you will not understand their writings. That is why our Constitution unbound by its history can be made into anything for anything. It is why many Protestants are running astray with the Good Book still in there hands. They don't understand context. Although a Protestant and Conservative I am wishing for some Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish thought on these economic travesties of late.
The Corporation while a good instrument of men, unbound it becomes a devilry that even the Church may not be able to contend, save Christ's return. The beginnings of the Corporate fiction was with the Church and Kings of Europe. Our Great Monastic Orders are in fact versions of Corporations that allowed them new ways of working together in brotherhood. We see how powerful that was in the Cause of the Church! The Kings of Europe used them to collect resources to enrich themselves. A few of these Corps are still alive, including Stora Enso of Finland. The Stora name goes back to Sweden in the 14th century granted by their king to mine copper. Visited the Mine myself. The mine closed in the 1990's, which means they mined copper for 600 some years!!!
The Church and Orders did not however think for once that they were creating some hive mind in humanity because it was inhuman. Why would they need that? They have the one true Body of Christ that they are a part of in life and death. In this way you can actually look at the Corporation as a kind of AntiChrist that preys upon our Christian Economic sense to lead us astray from the BODY to be just bodies.... or bodies on the floor....
If anything, this should be the time to look to the left and see that they are thinking similar thoughts. They just don't know the deep reasons for their discontent. They have good modern secular reasons for being aghast at these persons*. Why can't the Church have the b***s to step back from economics and understand that Humans are more important? In fact, they are what make economics work. Thus by joining with the left on this issue, on our own terms and understandings of bodies and being. We will shine a light of understanding about humanity so bright that all humans might wonder. Maybe they do know what it is to be human?
If this has gone to long or off topic I apologize. The Church just needs to shake free from conservative economics, long enough that it can save the people who make that economics such a powerful instrument. What if we lose the people and save Walmart?
1.24.2010 | 11:43am
Steve D says:
I am a firm believer in standing behind what you say. Justice Thomas has it wrong. Democracy thrives when those who express opinions, take credit for those opinions.
The Apostle Peter denied Christ three times. Are we now supposed to hold him up as a hero?
The Apostle Peter denied Christ three times. Are we now supposed to hold him up as a hero?
1.24.2010 | 3:27pm
State Legislator says:
"Justice Thomas is absolutely wrong. If you exercise your right to speak, then be heard. If you exercise your right to speak through associations, then be known as a member. If you exercise your right to speak through contributions then be known as a contributor." - rogerinflorida
Actually, Justice Thomas is absolutely correct to suggest that Americans have the constitutional right to speak anonymously. See, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
Actually, Justice Thomas is absolutely correct to suggest that Americans have the constitutional right to speak anonymously. See, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
1.24.2010 | 5:06pm
Steve D says:
State Legislator
In essence, Justice Thomas makes a case that anonymous speech should be allowed since some people during the Prop 8 debate were threaten and fired. The analogy breaks down at this point. The case was primarily about corporate speech. Is anyone going to argue that a large corporation will be put out of business because they took a position on an issue? With the unpopularity of banks and some of the assertions by the CO of Goldman Sachs, you'd think that they would be passing out pink slips instead of record bonuses.
In essence, Justice Thomas makes a case that anonymous speech should be allowed since some people during the Prop 8 debate were threaten and fired. The analogy breaks down at this point. The case was primarily about corporate speech. Is anyone going to argue that a large corporation will be put out of business because they took a position on an issue? With the unpopularity of banks and some of the assertions by the CO of Goldman Sachs, you'd think that they would be passing out pink slips instead of record bonuses.
1.24.2010 | 5:10pm
rogerinflorida says:
State Legislator:
I don't doubt you are right. What this comes down to is legal arguments. I am not a lawyer so perhaps I should not comment. I am making a philosophical argument, as Adam Smith said; get two businessman into a room and before long they will start to conspire how to defraud the public. I want to know who corporations (and unions, and individuals) support politically because the supporters will determine the agenda. We need to ignore what politicians say, they are mostly whores who take us for fools while they push the agendas of their paymasters.
I don't doubt you are right. What this comes down to is legal arguments. I am not a lawyer so perhaps I should not comment. I am making a philosophical argument, as Adam Smith said; get two businessman into a room and before long they will start to conspire how to defraud the public. I want to know who corporations (and unions, and individuals) support politically because the supporters will determine the agenda. We need to ignore what politicians say, they are mostly whores who take us for fools while they push the agendas of their paymasters.
1.24.2010 | 5:29pm
Dennis says:
Can we assume that if the disclosure requirement for individuals were eliminated, contribution limits on those individuals would also have to go? I believe the decision in Citizens United goes in the right direction, but without abolishing contribution limits on individuals, the effect will be a massive candidate shift to corporate entities while individuals -- still restricted --will contribute even less. The whole apparatus stinks of state control of speech and should all be abolished. Thomas should call for this as well.
1.24.2010 | 5:52pm
John says:
Personally I find the themes discussed in the essay titled The Idea of a Local Economy by Wendell Berry to be sufficient to argue against this specious argument by Arkes. Plus the work of Berry altogether.
Also two books by Thom Hartman: We The People, and Unequal Protection the thesis of which is distilled via a posting titled The Trojan First Amendment at the blog The Next Hurrah
Also two books by Thom Hartman: We The People, and Unequal Protection the thesis of which is distilled via a posting titled The Trojan First Amendment at the blog The Next Hurrah
1.24.2010 | 9:59pm
von Mises says:
I corrected a few things that might have been unnecessary. :) Thanks for the moderation it makes us better writers.
The problem is that the Corporation now has special rights that other groups of people don't. Namely they are persons, people. I am no longer using those terms to describe human beings, except when modified by another word, since they are now tainted completely by a Legal Fiction.
As Christians with a deep commitment to the human person we should know the difference between reality and fiction. It took 500 years for a mobs of humans to morph into a corporate person unbound by the humans who happen to do its bidding inside or outside its body.
I suppose the Church should now change its understanding of its self, to make fiscal conservatives comfortable, and now include corporations in the Body of Christ? I think if we are changing the meaning of the Constitution by adding corporations everywhere people/ persons are written, maybe we should do that with the Bible? Let's starting with the writings of Paul, about the Body?
"For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the company Nike should say, 'Because I am not GE, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were Walmart, where would be its sense of style?" 1 corith. 12:14 of Corporate World Bible (CWB).
Notice that this only works if the body Paul talks about becomes the World not Christ. Since corporations cannot be raised to heaven or human as Christ was human but also divine. The body must then become just material and a false body, the World.
If we don't know the meaning of words we will end up in very bad places. If we don't know how a people live then we can not understand their writings. That is why our Constitution unbound by its history can be made into anything for anything. It is why many Protestants are running astray with the Good Book still in there hands. They don't understand context. Although a Protestant and Conservative I am wishing for some Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish thought on these economic travesties of late.
The Corporation while a good instrument of men, unbound it becomes a devilry that even the Church may not be able to contend, save Christ's return. The beginnings of the Corporation are found in the Church and Kings of Europe. Our Great Monastic Orders are in fact versions of Corporations that allowed them new ways of working together in brotherhood. We see how powerful that was in the Cause of the Church! The Kings of Europe used them to collect resources to enrich themselves. A few of these Corps are still alive, including Stora Enso of Finland. The Stora name goes back to Sweden in the 14th century granted by their king to mine copper. Visited the mine myself. The mine closed in the 1990's, which means they mined copper for 600 some years!!!
The Church and Orders did not however think for once that they were creating some hive mind in humanity because it was inhuman. Why would they need that? They have the one true Body of Christ that they are a part of in life and death. In this way you can actually look at the Corporation as a kind of antichrist that preys upon our Christian Economic sense to lead us astray from the BODY to be just bodies.... or bodies on the floor....
If anything, this should be the time to look to the left and see that they are thinking similar thoughts. They just don't know the deep reasons for their discontent. They have good modern secular reasons for being aghast at these persons*. Why can't the Church have the strength to step back from economics and understand that Humans are more important? In fact, they are what make economics work. Thus by joining with the left on this issue, on our own terms and understandings of bodies and being. We will shine a light of understanding about humanity so bright that all humans might wonder. Maybe they do know what it is to be human?
If this has gone to long or off topic I apologize. The Church and social conservatives need to emphasize the conservative economics a bit, so it can save the people who make that economics such a powerful instrument. What if we lose the people and save Walmart?
The problem is that the Corporation now has special rights that other groups of people don't. Namely they are persons, people. I am no longer using those terms to describe human beings, except when modified by another word, since they are now tainted completely by a Legal Fiction.
As Christians with a deep commitment to the human person we should know the difference between reality and fiction. It took 500 years for a mobs of humans to morph into a corporate person unbound by the humans who happen to do its bidding inside or outside its body.
I suppose the Church should now change its understanding of its self, to make fiscal conservatives comfortable, and now include corporations in the Body of Christ? I think if we are changing the meaning of the Constitution by adding corporations everywhere people/ persons are written, maybe we should do that with the Bible? Let's starting with the writings of Paul, about the Body?
"For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the company Nike should say, 'Because I am not GE, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were Walmart, where would be its sense of style?" 1 corith. 12:14 of Corporate World Bible (CWB).
Notice that this only works if the body Paul talks about becomes the World not Christ. Since corporations cannot be raised to heaven or human as Christ was human but also divine. The body must then become just material and a false body, the World.
If we don't know the meaning of words we will end up in very bad places. If we don't know how a people live then we can not understand their writings. That is why our Constitution unbound by its history can be made into anything for anything. It is why many Protestants are running astray with the Good Book still in there hands. They don't understand context. Although a Protestant and Conservative I am wishing for some Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish thought on these economic travesties of late.
The Corporation while a good instrument of men, unbound it becomes a devilry that even the Church may not be able to contend, save Christ's return. The beginnings of the Corporation are found in the Church and Kings of Europe. Our Great Monastic Orders are in fact versions of Corporations that allowed them new ways of working together in brotherhood. We see how powerful that was in the Cause of the Church! The Kings of Europe used them to collect resources to enrich themselves. A few of these Corps are still alive, including Stora Enso of Finland. The Stora name goes back to Sweden in the 14th century granted by their king to mine copper. Visited the mine myself. The mine closed in the 1990's, which means they mined copper for 600 some years!!!
The Church and Orders did not however think for once that they were creating some hive mind in humanity because it was inhuman. Why would they need that? They have the one true Body of Christ that they are a part of in life and death. In this way you can actually look at the Corporation as a kind of antichrist that preys upon our Christian Economic sense to lead us astray from the BODY to be just bodies.... or bodies on the floor....
If anything, this should be the time to look to the left and see that they are thinking similar thoughts. They just don't know the deep reasons for their discontent. They have good modern secular reasons for being aghast at these persons*. Why can't the Church have the strength to step back from economics and understand that Humans are more important? In fact, they are what make economics work. Thus by joining with the left on this issue, on our own terms and understandings of bodies and being. We will shine a light of understanding about humanity so bright that all humans might wonder. Maybe they do know what it is to be human?
If this has gone to long or off topic I apologize. The Church and social conservatives need to emphasize the conservative economics a bit, so it can save the people who make that economics such a powerful instrument. What if we lose the people and save Walmart?
1.25.2010 | 6:49am
State Legislator says:
Steve D.:
The right to advocate anonymously was accepted long before Justice Thomas rendered his dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. It has a rich tradition in the United States. The campaign to ratify the Constitution itself was largely waged pseudonymously by Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
In this particular forum, we are presently engaged in anonymous advocacy. I should not be required to report my identity and participation to the FEC or any other government agency.
Likewise, if my small corporation wanted to spend money to set up a blog (or purchase other media resources) for the purpose of independently advocating the election of Steve D. to the United States Senate, I and my fellow shareholders should be allowed to do so without fear of disclosure which may alienate a portion of our market base.
So long as the anonymous corporate expenditure or advocacy is truly independent, there can be no undue influence upon or quid pro quo with the candidate. In fact, the candidate would not even know the identity of the corporate advocate.
The right to advocate anonymously was accepted long before Justice Thomas rendered his dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. It has a rich tradition in the United States. The campaign to ratify the Constitution itself was largely waged pseudonymously by Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
In this particular forum, we are presently engaged in anonymous advocacy. I should not be required to report my identity and participation to the FEC or any other government agency.
Likewise, if my small corporation wanted to spend money to set up a blog (or purchase other media resources) for the purpose of independently advocating the election of Steve D. to the United States Senate, I and my fellow shareholders should be allowed to do so without fear of disclosure which may alienate a portion of our market base.
So long as the anonymous corporate expenditure or advocacy is truly independent, there can be no undue influence upon or quid pro quo with the candidate. In fact, the candidate would not even know the identity of the corporate advocate.
1.25.2010 | 5:53pm
rogerinflorida says:
State Legislator:
I would like to apologise to you and the other posters for my comment about politicians being mostly whores; clearly that is a ridiculous statement. Most politicians are honest servants of their constituents who do their best. However it is clearly true that campaigns for higher polical offices at the State or Federal level do require a lot of funding, and that obviously large contributors are going to get a proportinately large share of the officeholders attention. There is a huge potential here for corruption. Do you agree with this? Note that I am talking about direct contributors, I agree with you that independent advocates may be less corrupting but it seems naive to me that a candidate would not know who their supporters are, independent or not, and that campaign support would not involve influence. Also please note I am not objecting to influence, but I do believe that disclosure is in the public interest.
I would like to apologise to you and the other posters for my comment about politicians being mostly whores; clearly that is a ridiculous statement. Most politicians are honest servants of their constituents who do their best. However it is clearly true that campaigns for higher polical offices at the State or Federal level do require a lot of funding, and that obviously large contributors are going to get a proportinately large share of the officeholders attention. There is a huge potential here for corruption. Do you agree with this? Note that I am talking about direct contributors, I agree with you that independent advocates may be less corrupting but it seems naive to me that a candidate would not know who their supporters are, independent or not, and that campaign support would not involve influence. Also please note I am not objecting to influence, but I do believe that disclosure is in the public interest.
1.26.2010 | 8:51am
State Legislator says:
rogerinflorida:
Yes, I do agree that disclosure requirements for direct contributions to candidates are necessary to enlighten the electorate regarding potential corruption and undue influence. However, I don't share the same concern regarding independent expenditures. The candidate may eventually discover the identity of his independent supporters but that discovery does not render the independent expenditure a corrupting influence on the candidate. There is simply no quid pro quo so long as the original expenditure or advocacy is independent of the campaign.
Yes, I do agree that disclosure requirements for direct contributions to candidates are necessary to enlighten the electorate regarding potential corruption and undue influence. However, I don't share the same concern regarding independent expenditures. The candidate may eventually discover the identity of his independent supporters but that discovery does not render the independent expenditure a corrupting influence on the candidate. There is simply no quid pro quo so long as the original expenditure or advocacy is independent of the campaign.
1.29.2010 | 7:45am
KH says:
rogerinflorida's distinction between a legal-constitutional argument and a philosophical one is essential here. State Legislator wins the legal argument (as does the Supreme Court). The distinction between direct contribution to a candidate and indirect expenditures in support of a political cause is also (if indeed I am understanding the arguments) essential here--one that I did not acknowledge in my earlier comment and one that our president apparently does not understand either, given his public rebuke of the court.
Given those two clarifying distinctions, I'll stand by my earlier comment.
I wish us to curb the corruptions of our giant corporations, but it seems to me that the our quest to defeat the "Evil Corporations" may become our obsessive pursuit of the great white whale. Denying the right of anonymity, in the case in question, may be asking for far greater problems than it would solve.
Given those two clarifying distinctions, I'll stand by my earlier comment.
I wish us to curb the corruptions of our giant corporations, but it seems to me that the our quest to defeat the "Evil Corporations" may become our obsessive pursuit of the great white whale. Denying the right of anonymity, in the case in question, may be asking for far greater problems than it would solve.
1.29.2010 | 10:08am
Ken Zaretzke says:
But corporations are not "the people" in the way that the state (government) is. The analogy to persons fails: corporations are self-interested actors, but not persons in any valid sense.