Lovely,

I’m guessing the ruling for campaign finance reform will be a 5 to 4 ruling against it, probably be argued that lobbying and spending millions and millions and just so happens theses companies get what they want at the cost of the U.S. citizens is considered freedom of speech.

Simply since a corporation is a legal entity and it speech needs to be protected.

Love to hear about Hillary the movie.

We should all welcome ASPAC, American Syrian Political Action Committee as a “Domestic” lobby organization.
Any objections?

It has the word “American” in the name. There are Syrians in America.
We should not care if ASPAC charter is against the insterests of America and if benefits Syria only.

If ASPAC asks you to invade a few countries in the Middle East, we should say: “Yes Sir!” and obey.

Justic Stephens hired only one law clerk this summer, there is speculation the 88? year old moderate/liberal justice is retiring. On Point should get Miss Biskupic’s take on this.

As to the topic for the hour, either way this case goes. ( Justice Kennedy is not on the fence, he sides conservatively in far more cases ) it will not change anything. McCain Feingold changed nothing.

Goldman Sachs own’s Washington, Obama playing golf with UBS ceo, unlimited donations allowed to democratic and republican conventions, bundling donations, private banquets for thousands of dollars a plate, $500,000 speaking engagements for exPresidents, etc., etc., etc. Nothing to see here folks. Just doing the people’s business.

The media is complicit. The Washington Post charged for access to big time players in D.C.

How does this system of corruption compares to Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Australia?

It is just about time to curtail the wings of lobbyists. They have been hiding behind “free speech” label and working against public good.

Try screaming “fire” in a public place. There has to be limits to peddling minority interest against the publics.

Any suggestion as to how the limitation can happen?

I think there should be some categorization based on the lobby group’s base. ie. Coal Mining Industry should not have the same weight against Sierra Club.

Here is the Congress is exploited by a tiny foreign interest group at the expense of American Public.

Bet you anything you did not that this was happening…
http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/how-the-israel-lobby-took-control-of-us-foreign-policy
…
The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel’s agenda are provided a list of donors likely to “max out” their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a “bundler.”

Bundlers raise funds from the Diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting ten like-minded supporters. Here’s the math:

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out ($10 x $9,200) and call ten others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most Congressional districts. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than ten percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on Congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing candidates who question those goals.

I read the link, I thought I would stop halfway through thinking it was fringe and far out, but it wasn’t.

But when will you realize it’s a waste of your time and energy, because nothing is going to change. That’s just the way it is.

Unless lobbying is outlawed there is no hope for our government or our country. Witness what has happened this past year with the banks, wall street and health care.

When will the producers of On Point stop people from using every forum to rant about Israel and Jews. There is one thing to be critical and to make educated comments based on this. It is another to use racial slurs such as pointing out that Jack Ruby happened to be Jewish, to make constant thinly veiled attacks on people who happen to be Jews.

Dear Putney Guy,

We are Americans and we will defend America over any other country. What part of it is difficult to understand.

If a foreign Lobby group is threatening our elected officials so that their own agenda will be favored against ours, it is only patriotic to bring this to everybody’s attention.

You are on the wrong side, and you know it.

It is amazing. This is a whole lot of bull. Yes there is a lobby, yes the TRY to influence the foreign policy as it relates to Israel, but they do not control our country.

Think about what your saying here in the context to the history is this kind of rhetoric. When you start to say there is world wide conspiracy of Jews controlling the things such as foreign policy and banking you are moving into very dangerous territory.

I went to that site in the link. The facts are twisted to get the results that Jeff Gates wants. Calling Harry Truman a Zionist is bit much. The very premise of the site, calling Israel a criminal state is highly volatile and closes down any rational avenues for debate or dialog.

As a regular listener to this show and a regular reader of these comments and a Jew, I want to thank Putney Swope for consistently pointing out the veiled and not so veiled anti-semitism coming from some commenters here.

The types of commenters that Putney is singling out would be considered trolls on most other web sites. I understand that the producers of OnPoint need to be careful in filtering comments but when some commenters use almost any topic to descend into anti-semitic rants it not only gets old, it gets offensive.

There are other reasons why I’ve been avoiding these comment threads but this is certainly one of them.

I generally avoid confronting trolls in argument because that’s exactly what they want and the people (mostly person) in question here doesn’t seem capable of self-reflection so there’s little use in confrontation.

Thanks Putney Swope.

The real issue is there are people on this forum who are more interested in putting out propaganda and not interested in anything else. This shuts down the whole idea of a forum like this. If the producers of On Point want to make this forum a soap box for these people, fine with me. I find it amusing how some of you go off into the realms of complete absurdity and conspiracy’s.

Rationality is not part of the agenda.

I wish they would do away with the fallacy that a corporation is a person and that money equals speech.

Campaign finance reform SHOULD be:
1) Only money from voters you DIRECTLY represent. People who LIVE in your district. i.e. if you live in New York, you can not give money to ANY candidate other than NY senators/representatives AND the candidates for President and Vice President.
2) Non voters (i.e. businesses, PACs etc) can donate ONLY at the same ratio as their income from the district in question, city, county, state, federal. If you are a business/non-profit/PAC in NY make 10% of your income/donations from New Jersey, only 10% of ALL your total political donations can go to New Jersey state or federal level candidates.

But as was noted earlier, it is considered ‘free speech’. I disagree however, you can hold up a sign or speak your mind without using cash. People elected to represent a group of people FROM THEIR DISTRICT should not be funded, nor be swayed in their actions, by people they do NOT represent.

AIPAC did have a really big role against on of obama picks for middle east policies who was viewed as having a even hand.

He was demonized, and called every name in the book by them, till he withdrew

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html

“Charles W. Freeman Jr.’s abrupt withdrawal from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council came after he drew fire on a number of fronts – including questions about his financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia.

But the most heated opposition came from supporters of Israel – and Freeman’s departure shows Obama’s reluctance to signal a change to a U.S. policy in the Middle East that centers on standing beside Israel.”

yet if someone ever questions financial ties to israel for reasoning for the person not getting this post.

They be demonize i’m with Carlos on this one.

“”His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration,” said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. “I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing.”

this is the statement that was considered over the top and severely out of step

In particular, Freeman has described “Israeli violence against Palestinians” as a key barrier to Mideast peace, and referred to violence in Tibet last year – widely seen in the United States as a revolt against Chinese occupation – as a “race riot.”

omg he said what

“The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East,” he wrote.

“The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.”"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East,” he wrote.

“The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.”

remember Clinton was attacked for bill speaking over seas and it was said arabs where funneling money to her campaign.

We need to reform lobbying or atleast make it well known who are where the money is coming from.

Richard, you have a good point. It would help if the poster’s name and date/time were at the top of their comments. It would be easier to just skip over comments by those you want to ignore.

Maybe On Point should do a show on these alleged zionist conspiracies and then the rest of us can make off topic posts about every other subject.

Let’s get back to the point.

I am interested in why corporations are given the rights of citizens. It seems to me that corporations exist to make money and limit liability. Why should they have protected political speech? The politics that interest a corporation would always be influenced by their bottom line, which may not be in the best interest of the citizens. As well, if money equals free speech, then some people have a lot of free speech and others have none. Why is that ok? Am I missing something?

Elizabeth: “Am I missing something?”

Only that those elected make laws that affect businesses and they should therefore have some voice in who is elected. They SHOULD be held to the same contribution maximums per candidate as individuals. No person or group should be able to ‘buy’ an elected seat.

I agree with the caller who wants a definition of the litigant. One of the fundamental questions involved here is the role and status of corporations in our society. I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must do something to restrict the amount of power corporations can hold. One question is whether corporations have so thoroughly penetrated all of our institutions that it is too late. I prefer to think not.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t see how this is a free speech issue. If the speakers are being paid, then how is it free speech?

It’s one thing to stand on a soap box on Boston Common and state your piece. It’s another thing entirely to rant and rave and then cash a check. The paycheck makes it “entertainment,” and that falls under quite different rubrics.

Corporations are not simply owned by Americans. They are owned by foreign investors also. (mainly?)

Don’t get me wrong, foreign investors deserve a voice also. But not a leveraged voice that we regular American individuals do not have.

The discussion would be easier if we knew that corporate governance was also fair and democratic. We have learned from the financial crisis that they are not. Not even wealthy (or even institutional) investors have a voice in corporations. Your 401k shrank because of this.

If rich people, or at least moderately rich people, and foreign investors do no have a voice in corporations, what voice does anyone else have?

Our economy is already centralized around the CEOs sitting on each other’s boards. Do we need to centralize political speech also?

“Only that those elected make laws that affect businesses and they should therefore have some voice in who is elected.”

I disagree. People owning corporations have their voices. They can vote, write their Congressmen, and so forth. A corporation has no vote, no voice in politics, no sense of patriotism, its alligiance is only to its shareholders. It will gladly move its funds, operations, jobs, profits abroad if it saves them money. Corporations will harm the environment if it saves them money. They will screw the consumer if it saves them money. Their role in the political process should be reduced to a minimum.

Everyone, I am on vacation (e.g. without a major trip) this week so I have time to make comments on this blog. It seems to me that the On Point producers allow some flexibility regarding the discussion topic. However, I am wondering whether we can we have one at least day without the comments section becoming an anti-Israeli rant?

Regarding the discussion topic, some of the inherent problems with most campaign finance reforms are:

1)Free speech issues being discussed on program;

2)How do we restrict one group of contributors and not another. As an example, what one rational person considers a “special interest”, another rational person might consider to be in the public interest;

3) A key unintended consequence is that these limits on individual/corporate contributions require members of Congress in both parties to spend more time raising money;

4) Another unintended consequence is that I believe the SCOTUS has already ruled that limits on self financed campaign spending are unconstitutional , which gives the deep pocket candidate a huge advantage.

At a minimum, I would like disclosure requirements that every House and Senate member prepare a simple 1-2 financial report for every summarizing fundraising from major groups (e.g. corporate entities, labor unions, Think Tanks, individuals, etc…).

A great example of corporation finance affecting government is in West Virginia. Massey Energy coal mining company lost a $50 million verdict in favor of a small competitor. They in turn spent $3 million electing a friendly judge to West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals who went on to cast the deciding vote in a case that overturned the verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the judge should have stepped aside. Stricter campaign finance laws would have eliminated this conflict of interest.

I am forming two Lobbiest Groups
American Russian Political Action Committee
American Chinese Political Action Committee

They will both aggressively push for the best interests of Russia and China, respectively; against the interests of American Taxpayers. They will both be considered as American “domestic” lobby group and will enjoy constitutional protection.

Or, let’s convert AIPAC to “foreign” status. Please let’s not throw anti-xxx mud, we just want the Law to be applied against AIPAC!!!

AIPAC should not be above the Law

The question of is money “speach” can be settled by asking this. In a divorce case could you divide speach? No but you can divide money. Therfore money is property and not speach. Our founding fathers thought about giving “men of property” more rights, the right to vote, but decided aganst that and said all men are equal!

I second Putney and Richard’s views regarding comments with anti-Semitic tones and talking about some grand Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

I wonder whether the Green Party was mentioned in today’s discussion, or someone from the GP invited to be on the panel, as GP explicitly states that it won’t accept campaign contributions from corporations and special interests.

Similarly, it’d be interesting to see whether people who take a stance of “no special interest money in politics”, actually walk their talk by voting for those candidates or parties that align with their stance; or at the last minute, shake hands with the “lesser evil” , thus helping maintain the same status quo they disagree with and criticize.

With some others here, I agree that giving corporations legal personhood has been a mistake. Reich made the case quite well in “Supercapitalism”. However, is there an organization actively pressing for legislation or other legal means to curtail or repeal the doctrines underpinning corporate personhood?

i am curious if the government could create a independent department/agency that would track the funds, percent of profits, income the interest groups give to Officals, and require conversations with public officals be transparent and open

“something like a transcript” also tracking what that offical has done in office for such groups. Or if promises were made to that interest groups after receiving campaign funds.

Then some type of monthly, quart,yearly reports as one would get for a stock portolio. Along with the leaders, bundlers who are running such groups. Than the public can decided if there offical is bought, corrupt, or working for special interest at the cost of the public.

Maybe something like the top ten or greater donors,think tanks, corp, PAC’s should have this tracking applied along with Bundlers as well. Along with any interest group having private meetings with officals should be transparent as well since it seems to corrupt debate when done.

contray to what people may say may far-right think tanks have taken over at least foreign policy debate and US interest. Along with setting the agenda as well, say outsourcing U.S. military jobs to 3 parties and needs to be addressed as wel. from what the left has for foreign policy thinking has been infiltrated as well to the choice for american foreign policy is ethier far right or center right.

Hillary: The Movie, I didn’t need to see the movie, I just had the terrible misfortune of living through 8 years of those lying, thieving Clintons. Been there, been screwed.

The S. Court should look at what happen in cali when correctional officer formed a speacial interest and donated highly to a canidate in the 1990s that lead to a bloated pay salaries, over populations in our prison systems for far less serious offenses, (weed), Three strikes law, and yet still less public saftey and good because of this, and far more tax payer money going to this than before.

I’m tired of corporations claiming first amendment rights. Corporations are NOT people or citizens. They have no freedom of speech rights as they are not people.
The Constitution was written for the rights of man, not the rights of any company or corporation.

In addition, a corporation with its large funding has no right to intrude into politics.

What is interesting about the comments is how there has not been a mention on how the Supreme rulings on this have been split. If you look at how they ruled it’s usually a 5 to 4 split with the more liberal judges saying that corporations are not free speech. Roberts is the worse, his record so far has him siding with corporations 100%.

So this issue is not a done deal. Corporations are not people. Money and how it is spent is not free speech.
My interpretation of this is that lobbying should be regulated or made illegal as it is in other countries, such as Germany.

Putney Swope, you are correct that corporations are legal entities and not people, but a corporation is created to conduct business more efficiently on behalf of sharehholders, who ARE people. The employees, management, and owners of corporations are all people with a stake in our society. On another note, if corporations are not representative of the American people and accordingly not permitted to have a voice in our political process, I am curious whether you would also be in favor of repaling the corporate income tax?

I only ask that the legal process we establish to regulate campaign finance be applied evenly to both corporations and labor unions, which are also legal entities created to negotiate (e.g. conduct business) on behalf of workers. I would oppose any campaign finance reform that singles out and targets a specific group, whether it is corporations, organized labor, etc… However, I do support simpler, easier to read, and more timely financial summaries for all House and Senate that specifices exactly from whom a candidate receives financial support. It would not be hard for Congress to create a uniform system of summarizing financial donations (and release this information in a far more timely manner).

Please forgive my spelling and grammar errors on this and other posts as I am typing and posting quickly without proof reading.

I forgot to add one other point. As a consulting firm employee/ executive, I can personally attest to the fact that corporate executives are not always satisified with the “conservative” (or more accurately, strict constructionist) Supreme Court justices. In fact, many executives consider Breyer (and to be fair Roberts)to be a far more business friendly justices than Scalia. I think the clearest example is how Justice Scalia generally rules against corporations in tort and other civil liability cases involving legislatively imposed limitats on damages.

I see Putney is in full support of free speech, as long as it agrees with his views. What are you so afraid of?
Hardly any individuals lobby Congress. The vast majority are organizations, corporations, unions, societies, countries, etc. All represent the views of their constituencies to Congress. That’s how democracy works. It ain’t perfect, but curtailing free speech seems extreme beyond reason.

Anybody listen to Morning Edition today. They reported on how Obama’s kind of “change” is manifesting itself in the naming of ambassadors. Obama’s passing out crucial ambassador posts to bundlers; that is, mega fundraisers for his campaign. It’s pay-to-play politics Chicago-style. The new ambassador to Japan has never been there before. Guess that doesn’t give him any preconceived notions, but he won’t be helping the career diplomatic staff much. Should be good for his business though!!

That’s the kind of change your $1 donation for Obama produced. Nice!

“Obama’s passing out crucial ambassador posts to bundlers; that is, mega fundraisers for his campaign.”

As long as he does not appoint them to run FEMA or, god forbid, name them to the Supreme Court. It is what millard-fillmore called above a “lesser evil.”

Alex, Thanks, it’s good to know how low a standard has been set for Obama. He seems to be barely meeting it. Must make is supporters proud!

Seems that 4 judges of the Supreme court agree with me.

It’s not democracy. How is it a democracy that is controlled by special interest. This is the problem.
I have no problem with lobbying, it’s when they are using huge sums of money to control outcomes and votes in the Congress that are my issue.

You people who are complaining about my point of view forget that what we have now is only a few decades old.
In Nixon’s time the number of lobbyist in Washington was in the hundreds. Now they are in the tens of thousands.
Also a lot of them are former member’s of congress and other areas of government.

Arnold I’m not afraid of anything in this context.
Are you a CEO of a large corporation?
The Framers did not have to deal with large multi-international corporations other than the Dutch East India Trading Company. My issue, again for those who have trouble understanding, it’s the money.

All you’ve established is that you are not in the majority. Who knows how far out on the fringe you are? As you pointed out, but have trouble grasping the implications of, corporations are not people, they don’t vote. If the people feel their views are not being adequately represented then feel free to vote the bums out; or term limits. Pick your poison. Stop whining about corporations and the money they spend when it’s you who have all the power.

Big corporations have big money, AIPAC has big money, unions have big money, lawyers have big money, physician groups have big money, the Nature Conservancy has big money. I work for a very small company, but belong to a professional organization that lobbies the government to represent my views so that my profession can be sufficiently regulated.

It’s great to see from reading these blogs that more and more Americans are not buying the political horse manure that President Obama is selling as “Hope and Change”.

“Alex, Thanks, it’s good to know how low a standard has been set for Obama. He seems to be barely meeting it. Must make is supporters proud!”

Well, proud is not the word I would use here. I take his presidency for what it is – a “lesser evil.” I think Presidents should add “First, do no harm” to their oath of office.

Arnold don’t tell me what to do or how far out I am.
I’m not that far out on the left as it happens.
You like the system as it is. I don’t.
If I’m in a minority than that’s a shame for me.
However I am entitled to my opinion as you are.
Who the hell appointed you as the moderator here?

This coming from the guy who wants to dictate what others can comment about. Do you read your own stuff Mr. Moderator? I just asked how far out you were, rhetorically, I have no interest in the answer.

I believe the system can be improved, I just don’t believe your changes would improve it.

[...] Tara Molloy, associate legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, who participated in NPR’s discussion of the case on their show On Point, free speech as a right does not pertain to for-profit corporations in the [...]

A connection that hasn’t been addressed is that of the media. In my opinion, they constitute a hugely affluent lobby in favor of the two-party system. This guarantees a petrification of political discourse. They are constantly affirming ‘balance’ between only two parties. What a sick joke!

Free speech for corporations raises the question of the validity of treating them as having the rights of individuals. Whether they do or not, I think, clearly depends on whether the fiduciary responsibility of their managers is fulfilled. Fiduciaries have the obligation to assure that the corporation acts in the best interests of the shareholders, and understanding what that means is evolving.

That is in the process of becoming an issue concerning whether businesses act in a way that is sustainable on earth, for example. It would also seem to apply to whether corporate speech accurately reflects the real interests of the community of their shareholders, presumably being truthful and articulate about them. Corporations then seem to need to be held to a higher standard, rather than encouraged to be deceptive and alarmist in educating the general public on the great questions of the public interest such as government decision making.

I am thinking of sueing AIPAC for being an illegal organization that violated US Election Laws.

Anybody care to join me?

“A connection that hasn’t been addressed is that of the media. In my opinion, they constitute a hugely affluent lobby in favor of the two-party system. This guarantees a petrification of political discourse. They are constantly affirming ‘balance’ between only two parties. What a sick joke!”
**

Bingo!!

As an example, if you looked at the NYT country map of election results of Nov 2008, it showed contestants from only two parties, and looking at it, one would get no idea that for the first time in recent history, many of the Congressional seats were contested by more than two parties. Sure, Green Party and Libertarian Party didn’t win any seats, but I didn’t see any coverage in the mainstream media of this unprecedented event where there were a significant number of challengers and contestants not belonging to the two main corrupt parties. Why this was not a story, ask the editors of mainstream media who control what’s news and what’s not. Catch-22 at work re: third parties, though I’m heartened that such progress was made in spite of, and without any help from the mainstream media. There’s still hope.

Arnold that’s good, than why ask the question?
I’m not dictating anything buddy. I have an opinion.
Look the word up.