General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublican National Committee Files Brief Seeking To Allow Corporate Funding Of Campaigns
One of the few remaining limits on corporations power to buy and sell American elections is that corporations are not allowed to give money directly to federal candidates. Citizens United frees them to spend billions of dollars running ads or otherwise trying to change the result of an election to suit their interests, but corporations cutting checks directly to candidates or to political committees such as the Republican National Committee is one of the few things the Supreme Courts conservatives have not yet imposed upon the country.
If the RNC gets its way, however, that will soon change. In a brief filed yesterday in the Fourth Circuit, the RNC argues that the federal ban on corporate donations is unconstitutional in large part because it applies across the board to all corporations:
Most corporations are not large entities waiting to flood the political system with contributions to curry influence. Most corporations are small businesses. As the Court noted in Citizens United, more than 75% of corporations whose income is taxed under federal law have less than $1 million in receipts per year, while 96% of the 3 million businesses that belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have fewer than 100 employees. While the concept of corporate contributions evokes images of organizations like Exxon or Halliburton, with large numbers of shareholders and large corporate treasuries, the reality is that most corporations in the United States are small businesses more akin to a neighborhood store. Yet § 441b does not distinguish between these different types of entities; under § 441b, a corporation is a corporation. As such, it is over-inclusive.
This attempt to make mom and pop stores as opposed to Halliburton the face of the RNCs argument is clever, but it does not change the implications of their argument. If a court accepted the RNCs argument, it would have to strike down the entire federal ban on corporate donations leaving Exxon and Halliburton free to give money to any candidate theyd like. Congress might be able to restore part of this ban by enacting legislation. But, of course, that would require any such bill disadvantaging corporations to survive John Boehners House and Mitch McConnells filibuster.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/11/402358/republican-national-committee-files-brief-seeking-to-allow-corporate-funding-of-campaigns/
If corporations are people then I demand seeing a birth certificate!
muntrv
(14,505 posts)Rick Perry executes one.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)We'll just call it "mergers and acquisitions"
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)I'm into, uh, well, murders and executions mostly.
Do you like it?
Well, it depends. Why?
Well, most guys I know who are in Mergers and Acquisitions really don't like it.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)They seem to be having a real problem fund raising from individuals. They need their sponsors to bail them out. In turn, Republicans will be a reliable Party to further their interests in Congress.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Mitt Romney, brought to you by Bank of America
Rick Perry, brought to you by ExxonMobil
Ron Paul, sponsored by (your corporation here)
Rick Santorum...
Jon Huntsman...
Newt Gingrich...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Rick Santorum, sponsored by K-Y
Jon Huntsman, sponsored by Lunestra
Newt Gingrich, sponsored by Newtco, a wholly owned division of Newt LLC, in a limited partnership with Tiffany's.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)I do believe there's a job opening up for your super duper PAC
MACARD
(105 posts)SixthSense
(829 posts)the reality is that most corporations in the United States are small businesses more akin to a neighborhood store.
That may be true, but the vast majority of actual donations are coming from large enterprises and specifically those large enterprises with an interest in using the government as a means of making money, in lieu of actual production.
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)there are limits to how much people can donate to campaigns and if corporations are people why don't they have the same limits or why weren't all limits removed across the board.
Of course I don't believe corporations are people. I also think campaigns should be publicly financed and limited to a very brief time period.
lpbk2713
(42,753 posts)The GOP has always been the party of and for the fat cats.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)you limit them, all of them, to a one time donation, of lets say one thousand dollars per candidate and the same for an individual making a donation to a candidate.
Fair and equal.
bl968
(360 posts)Limit corporations to being allowed to donate no more than the a human person is allowed to donate to a candidate. While we are at it put the same limits on political parties and pacs. So no more than $2,500 per candidate.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)although unions do not have the same amount of cash corporations do it would allow them to do the same. unions have one big advantage is the amount of people they can use during a political campaign.
mwb970
(11,358 posts)There is a new awareness of income inequality in America and the corrupting influence of big money on our politics. We are about to experience an American Spring. And now, here come the republicans, waving their "We are the 1%" flags and trying to get even MORE money into politics.
Wrong message, wrong time. For once, the propensity of conservatives to be wrong about everything is actually going to work in America's favor as we try to fight the cancer of big-money right-wingery that threatens our democracy.
MACARD
(105 posts)if Repubs couldn't buy votes they wouldn't have any offices, but they do a go for the glimmer of hope in their watchers eyes that their followers may at one point bask in the supposed glory of being in the 1% newsflash the 1% club is invitation only and invitations only go to the children of current members. If you are not currently basking in the glory of in a portion of that 40% of wealth, you never will. Democrats are not the only ones who use hope its just Democrats instill hope while trying to deliver on that hope.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Or a school? Or any other "group of people"?
pbrower2a
(132 posts)How about syndicates of organized crime?