I think I was responding to the picture in your link of the girl holding a sign that said, "I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one."
Well, I think _she_ was responding to the Court's ruling in _Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission_ which is predicated on 1) a belief that money equals speech and, 2) that corporations and labor unions are entitled to use the wealth they've amassed over the length of their existence to influence election outcomes, the same as mortal human beings who are lucky to have enough money for a decent burial by the time they die. Apparently, Justice Scalia sees no difference between them.
I wish they had more influence, but, if the only way to enforce even the modest aims of the McCain-Feingold Act is to attach the same restrictions on both labor unions and corporations, then so be it.
Guess who agreed with Justice Scalia in the Citizens United case. Yes, the AFL-CIO, which filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Citizens United in its case against the Federal Elections Commission.
Not surprisingly, Wesleyan has a lot of heavy-hitters in the labor field, among them, former "Car Czar", Ron Bloom and Steven Greenhouse, the Labor correspondent for the New York Times. Steve had an interesting take on Citizens United, just a couple of weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us...2&ref=politics
I would agree that the Citizens United decision is beneficial to labor unions, although I do think the unions were disingenuous regarding their opposition to Citizens United. Take a look at their amicus curiae brief to see were they stood on the issue:
^^^^
Don't want to upset some of the readers, but I always liked the Churchill quote: "If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're old and not conservative, you have no mind."
I would agree that the Citizens United decision is beneficial to labor unions, although I do think the unions were disingenuous regarding their opposition to Citizens United. Take a look at their amicus curiae brief to see were they stood on the issue:
It's clear that the AFL-CIO was counting on a decision along narrow lines, i.e., whether an idependently funded broadcast of a pseudo-documentary called, "Hillary" passed "the functional equivalency" test that had been handed down in an earlier decision. That decision (I believe it was the one they refer to as _McConnell_) said, that if the ad or the communication had the same effect as advocating for or against a particular candidate, it could be covered by McCain-Feingold.
But, in (partially) overruling _McConnell_, election reform advocates argue that the Court went too far and overturned about a century's worth of precedent that had outlawed direct corporate contributions to individual election campaigns, thus setting up this exchange between the President of the United States and a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court at the State of the Union two years ago: Justice Alito: State of the Union "Close-Up" - YouTube
Last edited by johnwesley; 10-11-2011 at 06:49 PM.
JW, your interpretation of their brief is way too narrow. No, they requested an elimination of the ban on corporate and union funding of electioneering communications. They were particularly incensed with the prohibition in McCain Feingold of paid advertisements for political candidates within 60 days of the election. Unions understand that money equals free speech, because if they are prohibited from spending their money to communicate their message to the people, they have been effectively denied the right to political speech under the first amendment. Today, if you are not allowed to use the paid media to disseminate your political views, your free speech rights to converse with the American people have been curtailed. Legally, unions are corporations.
Of course, they would love to have the ban only apply to non-union corporations, but the Supreme Court was not going to selectively apply these "rights".
Well, I'm going to yield to my friend, Steve Greenhouse, on this one and interpret the union reaction to _Citizens United_ as an example of necessity giving birth to invention:
Quote:
“It’s important for us to keep our eyes on who’s standing in the way of working people,” she added. “It’s not President Obama. It’s the corporations and the wealthy and the politicians they back who aren’t willing to pay their fair share and are applauding efforts to dismantle government.”
Like many union leaders, she said Citizens United was far more advantageous to corporations than unions because corporations have trillions of dollars in assets at their disposal.
So, who are we to believe then, President Obama who says, _Citizens United_ will lead to more corporate money pouring into the election process, or, Justice Alito whose voluble "That's not true!" was witnessed all over the world?
Well, one thing we can believe is that President Obama is an expert at raising money for his campaigns. He raised over $75 million in last quarter and intends to take in $1 billion for this election cycle. In the last quarter, he relied heavily on very rich bundlers to raise most of the money. 350 individuals have raised at least $55.5 million. 41 couples or individuals are listed as collecting at least $500,000 each. It is most ironic that a fair number of these people are from Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds. I wonder if the Wall Street protestors are even aware of this.
Another little known fact is that 80% of the bundlers from the first campaign received positions inside the administration.
