The Ban on Corporate Contributions . . .

by Little Miss Attila on May 27, 2011

UPDATE: Volokh discusses it here and here. The second link, in particular, has a good explanation of the restrictions.

I’m squeamish about treating corporations as “persons” to too great a degree, since in some ways they have powers that transcend those of the individual; I’m not sure I want them to also enjoy every legal right of an individual as well.

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

John May 28, 2011 at 8:02 am

It has been part of the SCotUS reasoning on the First Amendment that restrictions on speech, when allowed, must be content-neutral. A ban on a specific party, because they are that party, implies that the content of their speech is unwanted.

It is generally assumed that corporations will use their influence to support pro-business legislation and oppose anti-business legislation. Therefore the law in question was anti-business, a position that the government itself is not supposed to take; the government is supposed to be neutral to all inherently lawful interests.

Darleen Click May 28, 2011 at 9:39 am

while corporations may not be individuals in the full sense of the concept (ditto unions — isn’t it instructive to view how the howling lefties against Citizens United deliberately ignore that the ruling also included unions?) they constitute groups of individuals that are directly affected by government and its policies.

Political speech is/was the speech the Founders wanted to protect.

When speech is banned, don’t be surprised if influence comes from other means (violence, bribery, fraud).

Darleen Click May 28, 2011 at 9:40 am

clarification:

Political speech is/was the speech the Founders most wanted to protect.

Little Miss Attila May 28, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Yes, but I’m not certain that a campaign contribution is only speech, in the way making a film or running a “message” ad is speech.

Darleen Click May 29, 2011 at 10:45 am: I believe the messiness is/was the insistence that doing any activity in support of a candidate, or in opposition to another candidate, somehow translated into money contributions. Recall that Progressives were all about having the government rounding up even bloggers into Campaign contribution regulations for merely posting their own recommendations on their own blogs.

Weird logic being if an individual is doing something a campaign might have had to pay for (e.g. internet ads) then, by gosh and by golly, IT’S FILTHY LUCRE!!1!!! (and of course, similiar grassroots by saintly Leftists are pure and don’t fall under the same law)

The road runs both ways. If non-monetary political activity = contributions, then contributions = non-monetary political activity. If I’m allowed to speak my political opinion, why can I use my own property to enhance that speech?

Reply

ponce May 28, 2011 at 12:19 pm