Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Vermont Campaign Finance Law Is Unconstitutional (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're missing the nails head completely. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    monkeybiz, gsbadj, Luetta

    I, too, am for the least restrictive campaign financing rules from both the contribution and the spending sides. But I am against corporations doing having a hand in it at all.

    The campaign reform restrictions I propose would prohibit contributions and expenditures from anyone other than an actual person. And I don't mean the legal absurdity that defined corporations as persons. I would expand the group to include associations of persons if that could be defined narrowly enough to continue the exclusion of corporations or their front groups.

    The key to me is that corporations and actual persons have completely different goals for their electoral participation. Actual persons are concerned with the welfare of themselves, their families and communities, and their broader social environment. Corporations, by their charter, are concerned only with returning value to shareholders. That is not the criteria by which representatives should be elected.

    Democracy is not a system of government that seeks to serve the interests of investors. It was designed to further the public interest and to do that, only members of the public should be eligible to participate.

    •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

      I 'missed' everything.

      I agree with you on this. do we keep a corporation's CEO from donating a zillion dollars to someone he'll influence for his business? What's the difference between that and the corporation itself giving the money away?

      Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

      by chemsmith on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:22:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a big difference. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        First, if it's the CEO's own money, he is not necessarily going to spend it the same way he would if it was coming out of his corporate bank account. CEOs have families and personal lives too. I know that when I was working at a big media company, I spent much longer thinking about spending my own money than I did about spending the company's money. Granted, he may think that a personal contribution of this sort may increase his wealth in the the long run, but that is why I left the door open for some regulation.

        Secondly, there is competition amongst the CEOs and other wealthy individuals. Murdoch might pump money into his pet projects, but so will Soros. The CEO of AT&T may make contributions that might be countered by the CEO of Yahoo (i.e. Net Neutrality).

        In the end, it still makes people take responsilblity in a way that corporations are incapable of doing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Environment (40)
  • Republicans (37)
  • Elections (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Media (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Education (24)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • GOP (22)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Science (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site