Campaign fund/spending limits have been lifted, Is this good or bad? Options

[*batman*]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bitterly divided Supreme Court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.

The ruling reversed a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations, organized labor and their massive war chests. It also recast the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way.

More at NY Times

In one perspective, I fear that without a fund limit, business will over power better judgement, sort of purchasing our future leaders with lucrative campaigns, possibly rendering other candidates incapable of running. In another perspective, this may be something that can benefit the economy (in terms of money into 'government', hopefully returning money out to the public.)

A good point

The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.

A probable reality

Strongly dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, 'The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.'

For now, my stance is against it. I just have a feeling that this ruling was a horrible mistake.

How do you feel about this?

[mipadi]

The Republicans are running out of money to fund successful campaigns. They're essentialy at the mercy of the people. Where as the democrats are recieving pleanty of funding from unions and other none profit organizations that they cater to. In a nut shell, giving corporations the ability to donate money will keep democrats from buying seats in the House and Senate. I susspect this is one of the major reasons democrats are so aggrevated by the supreme court ruling.

First of all, I'll ignore for a moment the obvious point that elections being unfair for both major parties do not make elections fair, nor do they eliminate the corrupting influence of corporate bribery from politics.

Instead, for the time being, I'll point out that you have the situation backwards. The Democrats (or any politician from any party) aren't the ones "buying seats"; corporations are buying politicians. I know what you're trying to say, that because the Democrats have been more successful at raising money, they've "bought" seats, but the situation is the reverse: because the Democrats have been successful at winning elections and are thus the majority party, corporations are funneling more money to the Democrats since they actually have power. Look at this graph I made, based on donations since since 2000, and Congressional seats since 1999:

As you can see, while the Republicans were in power, they were more successful at raising money; once 2006 rolled around and Democrats began gaining seats in Congress, they started raising more money. What does this say? It says -- clearly -- that corporations (and unions, etc.) simply donate money to whoever has power. Democrats didn't "buy" the election, they simply got more corporate donations once they gained power.

Secondly, you imply that donations from unions didn't follow the same rules as corporations under the old law, but that's simply not true. Unions were subject to same controls as well. This most recent decision applies equally to unions and corporations.

Even so, I think we can separate donations from unions, non-profits, etc., from corporate donations. When an individual gives money to a union or a non-profit, he does so in the hope that the union or non-profit will act in his own self-interest. In a way, the individual is speaking with his wallet. But corporate investments are different: people invest in corporations with the goal that the corporation will return more money to them, and not with the hopes that the corporation will exercise political pressure. This is especially true of people who have 401(k) plans and the like, since they rarely even manage the exact corporations that they donate to, and they're only trying to make money for retirement, not further a political goal. So while a union that uses money in a political way is doing so on behalf of an individual, a corporation is taking money meant for another purpose and using it to further its own political goals.

That said, I'm not against prohibiting unions, etc., from engaging in electioneering communications; I just think it's important to note the difference between the two groups.

Finally, I'll go back to my earlier point: an electoral system that allows both Democrats and Republicans to be bought equally easily is still not a fair electoral system. Equal corruption in both parties is still corruption. Such an electoral system is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

Obama said, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." He was heavily stressing the fact that they'd allowed foreign corporations to make contributions to political parties which was simply not true.

The supreme court did not reverse 2 U.S.C. Section 441e which prohibits foreign corporations from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party and making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." That law still holds. Obama made a fool of himself. Worse yet, the dems thrive off special intrest groups.

There are several points that apply here:

1. I think you're placing too much emphasis on one part of his phrase. You claim he "heavily stressed" the issue of foreign corporations, but I think he merely mentioned it.
2. I don't think the full ramifications of the decision can be anticipated just yet. Yeah, maybe Obama was being a bit hyperbolic, I don't know. Or maybe he's right, and this decision will ripple out to other laws related to campaign financing. (For what it's worth, I think he was being a bit hyperbolic, but that doesn't make what he said a complete lie.)
3. I believe U.S.C. Section 441e applies to individuals, not corporations. I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but the law makes references specifically to individuals. Maybe it thinks of a corporation as an individual, I don't know (as I said, I'm not a lawyer). But...
4. When you're dealing with multinational corporations, it's hard to define a "foreign corporation". What constitutes a "foreign corporation" when a corporation operates across international boundaries?
5. U.S.C. Section 441e deals with direct contributions to political parties and committees; it says nothing about funding the "electioneering communications" with which the recent Supreme Court decision deals.

Anyway, those are points to ponder, but I think they're mostly off-topic because, unlike you, I don't think that Obama was placing emphasis on the issue of foreign corporations being involved in politics.

I think he lied, and I think he was acting like a child for calling out the supreme court for doing their job.

If "legislating from the bench" is the Supreme Court jobs, then you're right, they performed their jobs masterfully. But the job of the Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of laws, not investigate and alter law on its own. As noted here: "Justice Stevens also noted that in making this ruling, the court was both overstepping its bounds in ruling on constitutional issues it did not need to directly address in order to rule on this specific case, and overriding a century of legal precedent regarding government's ability to regulate corporations, including two previous Supreme Court cases" (emphasis mine).

The fact that even you didn't know it was falsified information is scarey to me because I consider you to be an fairly intellegent person. Imagine how many others simpley take his word for it.

You haven't established that what he said was an outright falsehood.