RoR: Forum

Tibor: Isn't the bigger issue, as I've heard it in the conservative discussions, about foreign corporations having an effect as big-money lobbyists? Understandably corporations are merely groups of individuals, and sometimes it matters that we know just who is behind it, even if we choose not to stop it.

A subliminal message from the George Soros groups could be taken the wrong way if they want it taken that way. So could something from the right, if the right wants it taken that way. Ambiguity and purposeful fallacies work for both sides.

Will this "new" Constitutional right require that we know precisely who is behind the message? And will foreigners be able to help sway elections and issues with large inputs of cash? I think any American whether far far left or far far right has the inalienable right to use his money, his property, anyway he wishes to sway voters.

But what about foreigners, if and only if we are not to know who they are?

Post 1

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 12:21pm

The answer to 'why' is, because the first time someone accessed the guns of state to claim you didn't have that right, the wishes on paper and polite appeals to 'rights' was insufficient to cause the balance of the tribe to respond in your defense, and those whose rights were trampled did not find the infringement sufficient reason to take up arms and shoot the tyrannical fuckers dead who had assaulted them. They would like your right to your life to be open for public political debate, a mere matter of a polite political difference between you and them.

There is a long list of things that these same tyrannical fuckers would like to do and already have, and until someone effectively tells them 'no', they are going to pursue their wishes insufficiently checked by mere constitutional wishes on paper.

These folks got it into their head that America is a place open to forced association/totalitarianism. Or at least, that they can sufficiently get away with it, if they can continue to paint tyranny as a mere matter of polite political differences, why can't we just compromise on their desire to eat only half of us for their really, really good ideas?

We slept under barely benign GOP administrations, believing somebody had freedom's back. We were wrong, but there is hope, and that hope is that the current virulent infestation of totalitarian wannabee tribalists will wake America the fuck up.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 2/01, 12:23pm)

Post 2

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 7:58pm

There is a simple distinction between the property rights of individuals and private organizations, such as sports teams, clubs, partnerships or share-holding trusts versus corporations. Corporations are children of the state, literally and legally. A corporation is an artificial person (corpus) who stands in for the real people, shielding them from liability. In return for this privilege (private law, literally), corporations are required to sign up and agree abide by a plethora of laws, rules, regulations, etc., including a guarantee that the corporation will always act in the public interest, as I recall, in California,* and including various the granting of rights of oversight by various and sundry state or federal bureaus.

Given that the corporation as such is fundamentally an example of fascism, the state granting special favors, including limited liability, but also including exemption from a host of damage claims (on grounds of double jeopardy, as these claims often come under the bureaucratic regulatory apparatus that is supposed to keep the corporations in line), it is absurd to equate this state agency with private property. The corporations are already foisting excess risk off on the general public by use of state force and literally getting away with murder in many cases of toxic wastes, all purely by virtue of legal fiat. Now we're going to let them spend their pork barrel dollars to sell us more of the same?

The interesting thing will be to see if this new ruling applies in such cases as the local OC Anthony Hargis & Co., which was systematically destroyed and millions of dollars of assets seized about five years ago, allegedly on the basis of Hargis having used his company's (a Massachusetts Trust) website to promote his political ideas. How ironic it would be if a purely private contractual company whose very purpose was to promote a set of ideas were forbidden to express them, while state corporations working hand in clove with politicians for pork were granted carte blanc.

*Although, as far as I know, in over one hundred years, not one single California corporation has ever been prosecuted, much less shut down, for not acting in the public interest. What a perfectly splendid example of the utter purity of intent and action of California corporations....

I jest.

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 2/01, 8:00pm)

Post 3

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 8:15pm

Hi Tibor,

Three points.

First, a partnership is just a bunch of individuals; a corporation is not. The legal rights and obligations of individuals and partnerships differ substantially from those of corporations.

Second, for you and others who might not know, the Supreme Court found that campaign spending is a form of speech in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), wherein it explained:

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.

The expenditure limitations contained in the Act represent substantial, rather than merely theoretical, restraints on the quantity and diversity of political speech.

I find that explanation reasonable.

Lastly, I'm reprinting my post from the campaign finance thread in full:

I'm reminded of Justice Samuel Miller's opinion in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 101 U.S. 651 (1884):

. . .[The U.S. Government] must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends from violence and corruption.

If it has not this power, it is left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption.
I'm still plowing through the opinions in Citzens United. I'm trying to figure out how the Court reconciles the protections of free speech with the government's "power to protect the elections." The answer is not patent. At some point spending money ceases to be protected "free speech" and starts being "insidious corruption," which the law might properly act against.

Jordan

Post 4

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 9:13pm

Somehow I am missing anything here related to my central point, namely, that when a bunch of people decide to pool their resources and delegate the authority to someone they hire to administer these resources for certain purposes--including to make contributions to various causes, political or otherwise--this is a matter of their exercising their right to private property. It may also involve exercising their right to freedom of speech, just as freedom of religion is exercised while the right to private property is (say, in having built a church). All the comments--other than those about how corporations are not really people coming together, which I reject--suggest something defenders of liberty have often noted, namely, that the right to liberty is indivisible. (As to the nature of corporations, I think Robert Hessen had the last word on that in his book, In Defense of the Corporation.)

Post 5

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 10:07pm

Dr. Machan cut right to the essential point. Where does anyone get the right to point a gun at me and stop me from writing a check to a candidate. That money is lawful private property. What individual right has been violated that justifies government intervention? What individual right is being defended? It makes no difference that I am writing a check on my privately held corporation's account or my personal account or if I'm the treasurer of a publicly held corporation spending the money of stockholders I've never met.

Property rights and the rights to make voluntary arrangements, including organizations like corporations, can't morally be restricted until there is force, fraud or theft involved.

And, where in the constitution does it grant the government the power being called for?

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/01, 10:08pm)

Post 6

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 11:25pm

Spending money to try to get a candidate elected is both expending private property AND a form of free speech. Both are, at least on paper if not in practice, constitutionally protected acts. Claiming we have to choose between these two protected rights is not only a false choice, but a poor legal tactic to defend against those statists looking to steal away our rights.

As any competent lawyer will tell you, when you have several good defenses, you should strive to assert ALL of them, so if one is wrongly discarded, you still have the others to fall back upon.

Post 7

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 11:28pm

And, where in the constitution does it grant the government the power being called for?

Nowhere in Constitution version 1.0000. The statists are working off version 312.1f or so. This is the result of accepting the bizarre notion that the Constitution says whatever 5 or more SCOTUS justices vote on it saying, rather than defying those statist buggers and saying it says what the plain text actually says, and to hell with anything they opine that deviates from their oath of office to defend that document.

Post 8

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 2:52pm

Steve,

And, where in the constitution does it grant the government the power being called for?

Check out Ex Parte Yarbrough, which I linked above. It explains the constitutional basis.

What individual right has been violated that justifies government intervention? What individual right is being defended?

Under Objectivism, how may a government protect its elections against insidious corruption? Or: do people have the (free speech) individual right to, say, bribe their elected officials? I'd be curious to hear Tibor's response to that, too.

*

I'll leave be the corporations-are-just-people claim. It is patently incorrect, but that issue is somewhat incidental to the more fundamental issue of how, if at all, a government may protect its elections against insidious corruption.

Jordan

Post 9

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 5:08pm

Jordan the fact that our government does not have as Rand called it a "clear separation of state and economics" is why there is so much corruption. Corruption would not even be an issue if the law forbids government from interfering in the market. If an elected official forcibly took money from some to give to another, whether motivated by bribes or corrupt philosophical premises, it should be illegal just the same.

I also don't understand why you think corporations are not run by people. Who or what do you think run corporations? Without recognizing a corporation is a group of free individuals who have voluntarily entered into an agreement with each other, you leave yourself with a floating abstraction. What is a corporation?

Post 10

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 9:08pm

Jordan,

John is correct - you haven't addressed the issue of corporations as voluntary, legal associations of people.

Governments don't protect themselves (not their elections or any other part). They adhere to the laws which are instituted to protect individual rights (when they begin acting beyond what the law specifically grants them, they become criminal). Elections are to protect us, not them.

There is no problem with giving money to politicians. There is a problem with politicians selling their votes. In the long term you don't stop corruption by trying to stop the people from getting in line to buy their product, but by taking away their ability to sell out our rights.

When a person reaches an agreement with a politician that they get something for a 'contribution,' they are conspiring with the politician to deprive others of their rights.

It doesn't matter that it is hard to distinguish between a legitimate contribution, a slimy deal with specific illegal understandings, or a contribution with an unstated, generalized hope of gain. They are different things - some are, and should be, illegal others not.

Free speech is a stupid approach to contributions. We have rights beyond those specifically enumerated. I have a right to send money to you for no reason at all and I don't have to look something in the Bill of Rights to justify my actions. It is the government that must look for specific, constitutional laws to justify their actions.

Post 11

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 9:29pm

When a person reaches an agreement with a politician that they get something for a 'contribution,' they are conspiring with the politician to deprive others of their rights.

Good point Steve. I would also add that it is also often the case that corporations give money to politicians so that they won't deprive them of their rights. Essentially these politicians have turned into a bunch of mafioso demanding the businessman approach them to 'pay their respects'. I think Microsoft is a good example of this, where they were under constant scrutiny by the Justice Department for anti-trust violations, the scrutiny went away as soon as Bill Gates increased the number of lobbyists representing his company in D.C.

Post 12

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 9:55pm

Well put, John.

It is far too complex to weed out all the variations of contributors and their motivations. The only way to look at it is that a politician who sells access to taxpayer money, or will violate someone's rights for money (or play mafioso protectionist) then they are crooks. Lock them up, but above all take away the legal right to pass those laws. Remove the parts of this system that let them do this.

Post 13

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 5:31am

Steve Wolfer wrote (post 5):

It makes no difference that I am writing a check on my privately held corporation's account or my personal account or if I'm the treasurer of a publicly held corporation spending the money of stockholders I've never met.

Huh? There is no difference between your money and money other people have entrusted to you?

I believe using corporate funds for political purposes is not a simple issue. When regs or laws are being considered that have a direct impact on the corporation's business, it seems legitimate to me to pay lobbyists who might influence what regs or laws get passed. I limit that to keeping a level playing field or defense, not to get regs or laws passed that unfairly benefit the corporation at the expense of others. If the issue is making campaign contributions to people running for political office, it becomes even less simple.

Regarding a corporation giving financial support to get candidates elected, I believe the specific corporate interest is important. If the corporate interest cannot be well identified, it seems technically feasible today that a corporation give individual shareholders an option about corporate funds supporting political candidates. If a shareholder rejects such funding, then the corporation could pay the shareholder a "dividend" of a suitable amount rather than giving the money to support a political candidate. In other words, the corporation could propose to give $X per share to support candidates, and let individual shareholders decide to give $X on his/her behalf or to receive a "dividend".

There are also things like PACs that leave individuals to decide whether or not they want to contribute to a political candidates.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/03, 5:45am)

Post 14

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 8:40am

Merlin, give me a break!

I said,

Where does anyone get the right to point a gun at me and stop me from writing a check to a candidate. That money is lawful private property. What individual right has been violated that justifies government intervention? What individual right is being defended? It makes no difference that I am writing a check on my privately held corporation's account or my personal account or if I'm the treasurer of a publicly held corporation spending the money of stockholders I've never met.

In the context of my post it is extremely clear that I'm discussing the government's right to control who can and cannot make contributions. And all of my exsamples are forms of voluntary contributions. I didn't enclude anyone who was embezzeling, or using stolen fund, or violtating corporate bylaws, nor did I address in that paragraph what their motivation was.

For that reason, saying in your reply to me:

Huh? There is no difference between your money and money other people have entrusted to you?

amounts to dropping context nearly to the point of being a cheap shot. Clearly, if your wife writes the check for the utilities and yet if it were from money you earned in that checking account, does that mean that she is spending other peoples money, and it should not be allowed? If it were to a candidate, instead of the electric company, should the government regulate the amount?
------------------------

You said,

I limit [paying lobbyist to get regs passed] to keeping a level playing field or defense, not to get regs or laws passed that unfairly benefit the corporation at the expense of others.

It isn't practical since you would need some "fairness czar" or the horrors of an unfettered democratic process to select each and every 'fair' versus 'unfair' transaction.

But here is the only thing worth consideration: Passing a law that tells anyone, corporate or private, what rightfully owned property that they can or cannot give away is a violation of property rights -individual property rights. It is not a power delegated to congress by the constitution. And it does not address the real problem which is the corrupt politician and the existing, unconstitutional laws that permit them to use the federal government, the treasury, and their ability to extort, borrow and print as their hoard of goodies to sell, and their big guns to use in threatening. That, and only that, is the proper focus of real reform of corruption.

Post 15

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 10:24am

Steve, give me a break! :-)

We probably much agree about government controls on campaign contributions. If you had stopped with spending your own money or that of your privately held corporation's account, I would not have commented. However, my comment was about something you did write, which seemed to indicate a cavalier attitude toward other people's money. Maybe you wrote it quickly. Maybe you think it is insignificant, but I don't.

Clearly, if your wife writes the check for the utilities and yet if it were from money you earned in that checking account, does that mean that she is spending other peoples money, and it should not be allowed?

That is a weak analogy. A husband puts money in a checking account for the express purpose of paying the family's bills, such as for utilities. Stockholders do not buy stock for the express purpose of the corporate management to make contributions to political candidates.

Post 16

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 11:58am

John & Steve:

I'll ask again:�Do people have the (free speech)�individual right to, say, bribe their elected officials?

Corporations are of course run by people, but are not merely a collection of people. They are much more like a ship than a set of individuals. I ask honestly and truly meaning no insult: Do you know the difference between a partnership and a corporation? Regardless,�I still find this issue incidental.�You may wish to revive one thread, or another,�or another�to discuss the nature/merits of corporations.

Steve, are you saying that under Objectivism a government should not seek to protect elections from violence and corruption? If there were a way to do protect elections�"correctly," certainly that achievement would inure to the benefit of the citizenry, especially given your construction of elections-as-protecting-us. And then of course we can discuss what counts as "correct" protection.

Another point:�Participating in an elections process, and how, seems markedly different�from�other actions to which there are correlative rights.�There does not seem to be a naturally manifest, morally derived right (as Objectivists rights are so�construed)�entailing how elections process are to work and how we may participate in them. One vote per individual? All votes equal? 18 year age minimum? Do these parameters, respectively,�violate your individual right to vote however many times you want, or to weight your vote, or to vote prior to your 18th birthday?�

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 2/03, 11:58am)

Post 17

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 12:35pm

Jordan:

I'll ask again: Do people have the (free speech) individual right to, say, bribe their elected officials?

I actually thought I answered this. No they don't. But donating to a campaign does not mean it is a bribe.

Corporations are of course run by people, but are not merely a collection of people. They are much more like a ship than a set of individuals. I ask honestly and truly meaning no insult: Do you know the difference between a partnership and a corporation?

You can't define a corporation by a metaphor. It is not a ship. It is a business. And businesses are run by people. How individuals decide the particulars of a voluntary business arrangement is not relevant. Whether it be by partnership or by corporation, they are still a group of individuals who have voluntarily entered into a business arrangement with each other.

So I'll ask again, who or what runs a corporation if not people?

Post 18

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 2:16pm

John,

Under what circumstances is it okay for an individual to give money to a candidate? When it's a bribe, you say it's not okay. Why? Under what principle? This would need to be reconciled with the�claim that people always have in individual right�(that doesn't violate those of others') to�use their money however they please.�

My ship metaphor is of course an explanation, not a definition. And it is apt: People run ships;�people aren't ships. Similarly, people run corporations;�they aren't corporations. It's as impossible for people to become ships as it is for them to become corporations. If you don't get this, you don't understand the nature of corporations. Corporations are a legal structure separate from the individuals involved with them. They are invented and designed by law. In the absence of such law, it is impossible to have a corporation.�Please visit those other threads I linked if you'd like to pursue this further.

Jordan�

(Edited by Jordan on 2/03, 2:30pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 2:33pm