The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 10:02AM

"Who would imagine that, in a democracy, legislators who vote to tax or regulate someone might be opposed in an upcoming election?"

The concern is not that a legislator "might be opposed", obviously - the concern is that corporations will have unprecedented, vast powers to wage such opposition - immeasurably more so than American citizens, and that as a result our government will be more beholden to elite corporate interests than it will be to the American people when those interests conflict, and that we will therefore stray further and further down the paths of corporatism and authoritarianism until they meet in fascism.

It is an entirely legitimate concern, and one not to be mocked or simplified.

S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 11:01AM

Also, the claim that "the left hates democracy" is exactly as accurate, as valid, and as serious as the claim that "the right hates poor people".

I expect better than that sort of cartoonish oversimplification from Mr. Bandow.

Ran| 1.22.10 @ 2:10PM

No shortage of cartoonish oversimplifications from our resident anti-intellectual... The inimitable Toddard. Thanks for the larf and have a nice weekend, T'ard.

S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 7:24PM

I understand that you don't have the intellect to participate in any debates here, but can't you even concoct a decent insult? There is no "simplification", cartoonish or otherwise, in my post. That's an *explanation*. At least call me a Loony Lib for not loving corporatism over free market capitalism.

AllenG| 1.22.10 @ 11:53AM

This one isn't ridiculous on its face.

First, Lobbyists and Corporations already had this power. They had to be a little more sneaky about it, but they had the power. What this does is clears the way for citizens groups and small to medium businesses to DO THE SAME THING. It levels the playing field. Its not really the fault of the big companies if they're Goliath compared to our David.

That said, the Tea Parties and independent citizens are quickly becoming a force even more powerful than the big corporations- and I believe will continue to do so. See the fact that the majority of Scott Brown's contributions were in amounts less than $100.00.

Limiting the speach of Corporations and Groups doesn't stop Big Business from buying legislators. It simply stops groups of concerned citizens from being able to respond.

Remember: Big Regulation is the friend of Big Business.

Neo| 1.22.10 @ 10:16AM

Just as Bill Clinton’s rich contributors put an end to the notion that “only Republicans are rich,” I fully expect many folks to be surprised to find out that all corporations aren’t conservative or Republican.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.22.10 @ 10:34AM

Doug,
Thank you for mocking and simplifying it.

We now have adequate "Term Limits" in place.
(elections in bright sunshine)

Neo| 1.22.10 @ 10:38AM

Hey, the SCOTUS ruled exactly the way that the ACLU amicus brief had suggested, but Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former member of its board of directors and one of its general counsels in the 1970s, voted the opposite way.

jrs| 1.22.10 @ 10:48AM

Doug,

It's funny how perverse your sense of politics is. You applaud this as a positive ruling. So it's democratic to concentrate more power in the hands of a few (sounds real democratic to me). And by a few, I really mean a few. I'm all for capitalism, and as a graduate of the University of Chicago's school of business pretty up to speed with economics. That being said, most corporations are anything but a true democratic reflection of ownership (the shareholders) with plenty of cronyism and insider protection. But thankfully (sarcasm), the republican defenders of democracy voted so enthusiastically in committee agains Rep Frank's (democrat) say on pay proposal. While I don't think his measure went far enough (owners afterall should have a binding not just nonbinding vote on pay), the argument pushed forth was that the owners don't really know whats best but instead a small group of elites. So letting these elites spend other peoples money (the other shareholders) to do what this elite group thinks is in the best interest of the company (which history has so effictively proven that board members and executives so consistently care about whats in the interest of the shareholders and not their own entrenched interests) is the epitomy of democracy. Now I get it.

AllenG| 1.22.10 @ 11:56AM

I think you fell in to Toddard's mistake of missing your /sarc tag.

But, in the case you really missed the point: You can't say that just because you don't like what Corporations have to say they don't get to say it. Remember there are still limits on CONTRIBUTIONS, just not on spending on advertising.

Also, if you're a stockholder in a Corporation which is supporting things you don't support- sell your stock. Or, like the folks over at Disney did several years back- stage a revolt and take the company over from within.

KJB| 1.22.10 @ 12:11PM

It's not a simple matter of buying or selling stocks. In the area I live Time Warner has the TV and internet market thru a bid process. They most likely will use part of my money to produce ads against candidates I support. I am all for free speech, but it's not "free" when they're using my money.

Henominal| 1.22.10 @ 11:19AM

We are not helpless in the face of this decision. The answer is for all of us to ignore campaign ads on tv and in newspapers. Let's do what Ghandi did, take back the means to produce. Let corporations create jobs for advertisers and production facilities by flooding the airways with ads. Ignore them. Mute them. Change channels. Then get your information from local sources, go door to door to distribute the facts. Go to your opponents to gather the facts as they see them. In other words, work instead of watch.

PE| 1.22.10 @ 12:05PM

Why does the left hate democracy? That's simple. The typical leftie is an incipient commisar yearning for fulfillment. Put these individuals in a pack and you get an anti-democracy force that is greater than the sum of its parts (synergy). Eternal vigilance grant unto us oh Lord....

Margie| 1.22.10 @ 12:32PM

If I'm not mistaken, the Founders meant free political speech when they talked about free speech.
Ya know~ "put your money where your mouth is!"

To the Left, corporations="BIG BAD BUSINESS." To the Right, corporations= companies made up of the people who make this country great!
Why doesn't the Left fear BIG GOVERNMENT instead? Because they are mentally ill.

B| 1.22.10 @ 12:52PM

Maybe the left hates democracy because the Founding Fathers hated it as well. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American history knows that our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC was established as it was in an effort to save us from the horrors of a "democracy," which by definition is "majority rule." It's no wonder why moderate people like me refuse to align ourselves with any one political party - you all are so blinded by your allegiance to a political party platform that you can't even get your basic history facts right while making your arguments. You partisans always try to sound all mighty and intelligent by making broad claims about the other side such as "They hate democracy" and then you just all come off looking so much more idiotic to the majority of us who look on and believe that all of you followers that just repeat nauseating talking points are just as bad as the corrupt politicians we elect to serve us. First step - Admit that ALL POLITICIANS are a**holes that care about no one but themselves and vow to change the entire system. You really think it would solve our problems if we elected a bunch of corrupt CONSERVATIVES into office instead of a bunch of corrupt liberals? Why? Please tell me what the difference would be? Second step - vote every incumbent out of office - every single one of them regardless of party. Then maybe things will start to change.

Margie| 1.22.10 @ 8:49PM

Are you finished being all hoity-toity fresh n' Fruedy yourself? While you complain and throw stones in case you haven't noticed, we have been helping to elect conservatives in the Republican Party. Let us know when you're ready to climb on board.
Thanks.

Brubaker| 1.22.10 @ 1:24PM

Reading the anguished comments of leftists regarding the Supreme Court's decision, it seems they believe two things:

First, it's perfectly acceptable for the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc., corporations all, to tirelessly stump for candidates and policies that they support.

Second, it's the end of the world as we know it if Wal-Mart and other (not so leftist) corporations do likewise.

Nothing surprising there. Just more leftist hypocrisy and hyperbole. The first amendment is intended to protect free speech in general and political speech in particular. The Supreme Court got it exactly right. Now, for a change, competing views will be heard.

S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 7:36PM

Apparently not all "the left" "hates" democracy:

http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html