Corporations, Unions, Political Advertising, Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Advertising, Special Interest Groups
Have
you Zinged someone lately? Please forward a link to a friend, family
member or neighbor. You can sign up to receive ZingerKing by entering
your email address in the box on the right (Subscribe). You will
receive the Morning Briefing and a link to the full article whenever a
new article is published. Your email information will be kept private. ____________________________________________________________________________
Friday January 22, 2010
The Weekend Edition
Today's Zinger:
Sometimes The Right Answer Leads To The Wrong Outcome
The Morning Briefing:
Is it the role of the Supreme Court to consider the consequences of their decision or is it their job to strictly interpret the law?
I have received a lot of letters concerning my January 10, 2010 posting on the implications of the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations, unions and special interest groups to advertise in political races. Some writers felt that I was in support of the ruling because the Republican Party would most likely benefit. Here is a link to my original article: Supreme Court and Corporate Political Advertising
My original article was meant as an observation of what might happen as a result of the Supreme Court siding with corporations and unions. Certainly, there are many editorials and news stories published today decrying the verdict. Most fear that unleashing corporations, unions and special interest money on elections will place too much power in the hands of the special interests. Some go so far as to say it will result in the death of democracy. Others say the Justices were irresponsible in the decision.
Every court decision is comprised of two perspectives. The first is whether the court followed the letter of the law, in this case the United States Constitution, and created a verdict that is consistent with the laws of our land. You might ask, “is it true” to our Constitution? The second is the implications of the law. Zinger looks at the Truth and Consequences of the Supreme Court decision.
Who Said It?
The Ultimate Measure Of A Man Is Not Where He Stands In Moments of Comfort and Convenience, But Where He Stands In Times Of Challenge and Controversy.
My Opinion:
The Supreme Court decision confirmed the rights of corporations, unions and special interest groups to sponsor advertisements in support of, or against, political candidates. The Supreme Court’s decision is not one of right or wrong for America but whether it is Constitutionally correct. Congress must decide if it is good for America, and if it is not, it is Congress that makes the laws to correct the situation.
Last week Zinger published an article outlining what might happen if and when a ruling was rendered that supported the right of corporations, unions and special interest group to advertise in political elections. My analysis was based on facts and not my personal opinion as to whether it is good for our country. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. While I read the Constitution often, Zinger doesn’t know enough to make an informed call as to whether the Supreme Court made the “right” decision, but I would like to respond to the implications.
The facts indicate that the politicians will be in a mad scramble to engage businesses and unions. I doubt we hear politicians talking about corporations in the same manner as in the past. We will probably see a lot more stimulus money directed towards business. We might finally see the corporate tax rate (second highest in the world) lowered because the corporation has gained new power and the politicians will want to win favor. In some sense, the Supreme Court gave corporations, unions and special interest groups the right to a quasi vote and the politicians will court this vote.
The implications of this ruling on the Democrat and the Republican parties could be significant. The Republicans are known to embrace business and support a more free market approach to business. Republicans have favored lower taxes for business. Many Democrats, but certainly not all, have favored more control of business. Some Democrats have used anti-business slogans to drum up support of potential voters during the election process. On the other hand, Democrats have historically been supportive of labor unions while Republicans have traditionally fought against unionization of the American laborer. Now, corporations can take sides, unions can take sides.
With this change come some very troubling implications for Americans. The government of the people, by the people and for the people may need to be rewritten to the government of the corporations, by the special interest groups and for the unions. The individual is about to further lose his or her voice in the political process while corporations and unions go on an advertising frenzy come election time. The 2010 midterm election has just taken on a whole new set of players.
America is already inundated with too much negative advertising during the election process. Corporations hide behind Political Action Committees. Unions hide behind non-profit entities established to influence elections. America needs to eliminate special interests groups to allow the individual the power in the political process.
Should the Supreme Court have limited special interests? Justice Stevens, in writing the dissenting opinion, called the decision "a radical change in the law ... that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions - and the narrow interests they represent - in determining who will hold public office. ... Corporations are not human beings. Corporations can't vote. They can't run for office," he said.
He predicted the ruling "will cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process." The ruling, though long forecast, displayed a schism of opinion on the court about the meaning of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. The majority said the Constitution broadly protected discussion and debate on politics, regardless of whom was paying for the speech. Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections, he said.
The Supreme Court may have followed the truth of the Constitution but it has the potential to have dire consequences for the American people. Democrats tend to favor justices that will interpret the Constitution with the implications in mind (as Justice Stevens did in his dissent opinion). Republicans prefer Justices that adhere to the letter of the law and claim Justices that interpret with consequences in mind are activist judges.
Judges that decide with consequences in mind have allowed lawmakers to avoid legislating on issues that will have winners and losers. Lawmakers don't like to create a losing class that could vote against them in the future.
But this court decision requires a response. Democrats in Congress will try to act quickly to enact laws to limit the affects of this ruling. The mid term elections are drawing near and many will feel threatened by the new power of the corporations. Congress must act to limit corporations and unions in the political process. Congress should also act to remove all special interests from the process. We need to return the political process to the people.
Who Said It?
The Ultimate Measure Of A Man Is Not Where He Stands In Moments of Comfort and Convenience, But Where He Stands In Times Of Challenge and Controversy.
Martin Luther King
Supreme Court Rules On Corporate Political Advertising
A Republican In A Democrat's Seat. Brown In Kennedy's Seat.
How Parenting Style Shows Up In International Politics. Non-Verbal Communications.
The Role Of Government: Provider or Enabler?
The Corruption Of Health Care Legislation
Inflation Is Coming, Inflation is Coming. Inflation And The Deficit
The Administrations Decision Process For Afghanistan
President Obama's Job Fair and Search for Jobs
President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy and Speech
The Environmental Impact of Hybrid and Battery Powered Automobiles
Geithner, Stimulus, Health Care for Troops and more
Torture, Rendition and Iran's Nuclear Ambition
Shameless Request For Support:
ZingerKing operates without advertising or government funding (obviously). The purpose is to inform and educate its readers about economic and political issues that affect our lives.
Help ZingerKing grow. Have you Zinged someone lately? Please forward a link to ZingerKing to a friend, family member or neighbor. If you enjoy reading the Zinger please subscribe (see the subscribe box at the top of the article in the purple side band). Subscribers receive the"Morning Briefing" when published with a link to the full article.Periodic alerts are sent to subscribers only with important updates and insights into critical issues. Your email address will not sold to others and will not be shared.
Write To Us:
You can comment on any article by clicking on the comment button at the bottom of each article or you can write to us at ZK@ZingerKing.com
Friday January 22, 2010
The Weekend Edition
Today's Zinger:
Sometimes The Right Answer Leads To The Wrong Outcome
The Morning Briefing:
Is it the role of the Supreme Court to consider the consequences of their decision or is it their job to strictly interpret the law?
I have received a lot of letters concerning my January 10, 2010 posting on the implications of the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations, unions and special interest groups to advertise in political races. Some writers felt that I was in support of the ruling because the Republican Party would most likely benefit. Here is a link to my original article: Supreme Court and Corporate Political Advertising
My original article was meant as an observation of what might happen as a result of the Supreme Court siding with corporations and unions. Certainly, there are many editorials and news stories published today decrying the verdict. Most fear that unleashing corporations, unions and special interest money on elections will place too much power in the hands of the special interests. Some go so far as to say it will result in the death of democracy. Others say the Justices were irresponsible in the decision.
Every court decision is comprised of two perspectives. The first is whether the court followed the letter of the law, in this case the United States Constitution, and created a verdict that is consistent with the laws of our land. You might ask, “is it true” to our Constitution? The second is the implications of the law. Zinger looks at the Truth and Consequences of the Supreme Court decision.
Who Said It?
The Ultimate Measure Of A Man Is Not Where He Stands In Moments of Comfort and Convenience, But Where He Stands In Times Of Challenge and Controversy.
My Opinion:
The Supreme Court decision confirmed the rights of corporations, unions and special interest groups to sponsor advertisements in support of, or against, political candidates. The Supreme Court’s decision is not one of right or wrong for America but whether it is Constitutionally correct. Congress must decide if it is good for America, and if it is not, it is Congress that makes the laws to correct the situation.
Last week Zinger published an article outlining what might happen if and when a ruling was rendered that supported the right of corporations, unions and special interest group to advertise in political elections. My analysis was based on facts and not my personal opinion as to whether it is good for our country. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. While I read the Constitution often, Zinger doesn’t know enough to make an informed call as to whether the Supreme Court made the “right” decision, but I would like to respond to the implications.
The facts indicate that the politicians will be in a mad scramble to engage businesses and unions. I doubt we hear politicians talking about corporations in the same manner as in the past. We will probably see a lot more stimulus money directed towards business. We might finally see the corporate tax rate (second highest in the world) lowered because the corporation has gained new power and the politicians will want to win favor. In some sense, the Supreme Court gave corporations, unions and special interest groups the right to a quasi vote and the politicians will court this vote.
The implications of this ruling on the Democrat and the Republican parties could be significant. The Republicans are known to embrace business and support a more free market approach to business. Republicans have favored lower taxes for business. Many Democrats, but certainly not all, have favored more control of business. Some Democrats have used anti-business slogans to drum up support of potential voters during the election process. On the other hand, Democrats have historically been supportive of labor unions while Republicans have traditionally fought against unionization of the American laborer. Now, corporations can take sides, unions can take sides.
With this change come some very troubling implications for Americans. The government of the people, by the people and for the people may need to be rewritten to the government of the corporations, by the special interest groups and for the unions. The individual is about to further lose his or her voice in the political process while corporations and unions go on an advertising frenzy come election time. The 2010 midterm election has just taken on a whole new set of players.
America is already inundated with too much negative advertising during the election process. Corporations hide behind Political Action Committees. Unions hide behind non-profit entities established to influence elections. America needs to eliminate special interests groups to allow the individual the power in the political process.
Should the Supreme Court have limited special interests? Justice Stevens, in writing the dissenting opinion, called the decision "a radical change in the law ... that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions - and the narrow interests they represent - in determining who will hold public office. ... Corporations are not human beings. Corporations can't vote. They can't run for office," he said.
He predicted the ruling "will cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process." The ruling, though long forecast, displayed a schism of opinion on the court about the meaning of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. The majority said the Constitution broadly protected discussion and debate on politics, regardless of whom was paying for the speech. Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections, he said.
The Supreme Court may have followed the truth of the Constitution but it has the potential to have dire consequences for the American people. Democrats tend to favor justices that will interpret the Constitution with the implications in mind (as Justice Stevens did in his dissent opinion). Republicans prefer Justices that adhere to the letter of the law and claim Justices that interpret with consequences in mind are activist judges.
Judges that decide with consequences in mind have allowed lawmakers to avoid legislating on issues that will have winners and losers. Lawmakers don't like to create a losing class that could vote against them in the future.
But this court decision requires a response. Democrats in Congress will try to act quickly to enact laws to limit the affects of this ruling. The mid term elections are drawing near and many will feel threatened by the new power of the corporations. Congress must act to limit corporations and unions in the political process. Congress should also act to remove all special interests from the process. We need to return the political process to the people.
Who Said It?
The Ultimate Measure Of A Man Is Not Where He Stands In Moments of Comfort and Convenience, But Where He Stands In Times Of Challenge and Controversy.
Martin Luther King
Today's ZingerToon:
Recent ZingerKing Articles:
Articles can
be found under “Recent Articles” in the purple sidebar. Older articles
can be found in the archives that are stored by month. These are found
at the bottom of the purple sidebar as well. Here is a list of the most recent
articles.
Supreme Court Rules On Corporate Political Advertising
A Republican In A Democrat's Seat. Brown In Kennedy's Seat.
How Parenting Style Shows Up In International Politics. Non-Verbal Communications.
The Role Of Government: Provider or Enabler?
The Corruption Of Health Care Legislation
Inflation Is Coming, Inflation is Coming. Inflation And The Deficit
The Administrations Decision Process For Afghanistan
President Obama's Job Fair and Search for Jobs
President Obama's Afghanistan Strategy and Speech
The Environmental Impact of Hybrid and Battery Powered Automobiles
Geithner, Stimulus, Health Care for Troops and more
Torture, Rendition and Iran's Nuclear Ambition
Shameless Request For Support:
ZingerKing operates without advertising or government funding (obviously). The purpose is to inform and educate its readers about economic and political issues that affect our lives.
Help ZingerKing grow. Have you Zinged someone lately? Please forward a link to ZingerKing to a friend, family member or neighbor. If you enjoy reading the Zinger please subscribe (see the subscribe box at the top of the article in the purple side band). Subscribers receive the"Morning Briefing" when published with a link to the full article.Periodic alerts are sent to subscribers only with important updates and insights into critical issues. Your email address will not sold to others and will not be shared.
Write To Us:
You can comment on any article by clicking on the comment button at the bottom of each article or you can write to us at ZK@ZingerKing.com
Posted by ZK at 1/22/2010 7:24 AM 
Categories: Special Interest Groups, Supreme Court, Politics, Special Intest Groups
Tags: Special Interest Groups Supreme Court Politics Special Intest Groups
Categories: Special Interest Groups, Supreme Court, Politics, Special Intest Groups
Tags: Special Interest Groups Supreme Court Politics Special Intest Groups
Comments