Relax, Campaign Finance Laws are Only to Protect Incumbents

(Update below)

Don’t worry about decisions such as Citizens United.  Politifact of the St. Petersburg Times says that Obama exaggerates when he claims that foreign companies will influence American elections.

As the Times points out, we already have laws preventing foreign corporations from doing so. So a Supreme Court decision that now has incorrectly equated corporations with individuals, and given them the ability to spend unfettered on behalf of a particular political candidate — thus essentially also equating speech with money — won’t open this up at all.

But unlike in the case of individuals, corporations are often not wholly denizens of one country alone.  Many of our corporations are in some very relevant ways, multinational. Thus after this decision, there is, on a practical level, no way to prevent it.

Moreover, corporations — though their interests by definition must be narrowly, and self interestedly tailored — now have the same “free speech” rights as individuals, via the expenditure of money as their sole basis for voice, no less. Even in so far as to trump the individuals’ rights to speak out on election matters, without being drowned out by a sea of self interested corporate expenditures where the right to speak becomes defined by the corporate ability to acquire dollars. Inherent rights now somewhat equal $$.

That’s the Bill of Rights according to our somewhat radically right wing Supreme Court, and the equally corporate loyalist CATO Institute — which seems to confuse unfettered corporate power that can be in conflict with individuals, with “individual liberty.”

But relax. As Roger Pilon of the CATO Institute so convincingly suggests, “there’s no more corruption in states with minimal campaign finance laws.”  So Pilon sees the issue as one of corruption?  Not of undue, by definition self interested, and purchased with money influence upon our elections, not by individuals, but by amalgamations of individuals united for a singular purpose (normally the making of profit, but not always) who therefore are not longer acting as individuals, and can not act as individuals.  Not that issue?

Dear Mr. Pilon: If the issue of corruption were the main problem with this decision, it wouldn’t be as problematic to begin with, since corruption, so long as our other processes are working properly, can at least sometimes be discovered. It also does not normally arise from opinionated or advocacy “speech” whether voluntarily offered, or voluntarily purchased with money.

But perhaps by corruption, Pilon meant corrupting influences, or compromises to election information integrity.  And if so, since such “influences” are now protected by our Supreme Court’s radical decision as “speech,” now by definition they are not  ”corrupting” or compromising influences.”  If they were, it wouldn’t be “free speech.”  By protecting such speech, we can’t know if there is “corruption” under this very loose definition, because any corrupting influences is in the speech itself.  In other words, the issue with this decision is not corruption, as traditionally defined, but undue monied influences over actual speech.

But Pilon’s reasoning really spirals out of control when he suggests that such laws prohibiting corporations from spending, unrestrained, are really just to protect incumbents; not the actual free speech of the citizens comprising our Democracy from  being drowned out, manipulated by, or undermined by excessive monied interests and influences.

And that’s because the real reason we have this campaign finance law is not, and never has been, to prevent corruption.  The dirty little secret — the real impetus for this law — in incumbency protection.

In other words,  corporations are zealously anti incumbent, since incumbents are never looking out for corporate influences.

All that money spent on lobbying by corporate interests as it is? Not enough to overcome the intense anti corporate prejudice of our elected officials, apparently.  And those laws designed to prevent corporations from now unduly influencing election results directly themselves, via the known, and direct, correlation between influence and money? Nothing to do with protecting true free speech, but everything to do with protecting incumbents from the “truth” that corporations, by the happenstance of “money equal right” political speech, will no doubt now be able to bring to the populace directly on behalf of their favored candidates (and incumbent candidates) themselves.

And if one looks carefully at the Bill of Rights, one will see, right in between Amendments I and II, that little old Amendment IA.  ”Corporations are people too.”  Just ask John Oliver.

Pilon is not the only CATO Institute Fellow in support of Citizens.  Here’s the normally very thoughtful  Julian Sanchez, being too cerebral by half, and seemingly missing the conceptual differences between money and speech; money purchased speech and non-purchased speech; corporations and individuals; corporate and individual purpose; corporate, purchased, speech and individual purchased speech; along with the free speech interests in maintaining some form of protection from what is by definition non individual motivations and everything that money can buy speech influence, as opposed to equating everything that money can buy — including what is by definition non individual motivations — with full unbridled individual free speech itself.

Here’s Pilon also:

The First Amendment is not a “loophole.”  It’s the very foundation of our democracy, and we are the stronger today for this decision.

See?  The First Amendment doesn’t always guarantee the right to free speech, it guarantees the right to corporate profits, and then to spend those profits in the self interested corporate pre election advocacy on behalf of candidates who will further the goal of achieving those profits. Or of ideological interests.  So whoever has the most money, wins.   Thats certainly “free speech.”  Not to mention,”one person, one vote.”  Except here,just substitute “dollar” for person; and with this decision, we move closer to that brilliant “foundation of our democracy” First Amendment principle.

Update: From the New York Times, January 31, a commenter, recommended by eighty readers and counting, writes here, in a Times highlighted comment:

Actually, Obama completely and inexplicably misrepresented the SCOTUS ruling by saying that it allowed foreign companies to pay for ads when the ruling did not in fact allow them to do so. Alito shook his head softly and silently mouthed “that’s not true.” He did not “say” anything, let alone “you lie,” and again Obama was in fact not speaking the truth. But yes, I know. He should have sat motionless as the most powerful man in the world told a bald-faced lie about his work while standing 10 feet in front of him.

Maybe this commenter, and the eighty readers who recommended this, can show us how a Congress that can not even pass a simple health care bill that makes sense (or any bill) is going to effectively disentangle the now inextricably multinational dimensions of most of the world’s most powerful companies.  Or how even an effective Congress could possibly do so.

As noted above, this comment was also highlighted by the NY Times comment editors.  Highlighting, according to the Times, means “a selection of the most interesting and thoughtful comments, which represent a range of views.”  Perhaps the Times can answer the question put just above.  Along with how falsely claiming that Obama “completely and inextricably misrepresented” and “told a bald-faced lie” — over something that was as a practical matter essentially not only true, but an extremely important point — is “interesting and thoughtful.”