California Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who is running in the Republican primary this year for U.S. Senate, has come out in opposition to the “top-two open primary” measure that will be on the June 2010 ballot in California. In a letter dated January 25, he says the measure “would stifle competition in elections, as neither of the two major parties would spend much time or money in the bastions of the other party.”
As far as is known, DeVore is the first major party candidate for a California statewide office to have taken a position on the “top-two open primary.”
Well, that’s all well and good, but he’s only a human person, after all. What do persons like Chevron, Hewlett-Packard, Wells Fargo and McKesson think about it? That’s what’s really important in this country, isn’t it…what corporate persons think is good for the country, and giving them the right to speak up about it?
Thank goodness we have a USSC that is willing to stick up for the rights of persons.
Oh…sorry…we were supposed to keep this discussion “well-reasoned and dispassionate,” weren’t we Richard?
Does the Baron favor letting the government tell the corporation known as the New York Times from expressing itself on candidates for federal office?
No.
Does Richard favor “clarifying” the first amendment of the US Constitution to confer all US corporations freedom of the press?
Or are you suggesting that we should take that freedom away from the NYT, but not the Washington Times?
The problem with saying that some corporations have free speech rights and others don’t, is that it is hopelessly arbitrary.
We see the problems of arbitrary rules in the Iraq controversy, where certain candidates with “bad” associations are still threatened with being off the ballot. In the 1940’s, many U.S. state legislatures ignored the First Amendment and passed laws trying to keep the Communist Party, and certain other Marxist Parties, off the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t invalidate those laws until 1974.
How many of the gerrymander party hacks in ONE party safe seat gerrymander areas are sweating bullets ???
— i.e. WILL have some sort of opposition in general elections
— perhaps a party hack of the same party — trying to get votes from independents and even votes from the other major party [actually the minor party in the gerrymander district involved].
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
DeVore appears to like the phrase “stifle competition” he also used it in reference to the teachers unions. This is odd, since it is likely that they will also come out in opposition to Prop 14. In the case of the teachers unions, it will be because they will have less control over the Democratic primary; and in DeVore’s case it is probably a concern that conservatives won’t have control over the Republican primary.
DeVore would probably prefer that independents not vote in the Senate primary, as he tries to gain enough support so that he can be demonized.
His AD 70 is a reliably Republican district in Orange County, which supports the Republican by a 60:40 margin or better. In 1998, when the Democrats did not field a candidate, the NLP candidate received 23% of the vote. I wonder how much money the Democrats actually expend in his bastion, beyond enough to tie down some Republican money?
Under the blanket primary in 2000, there were 5 parties on the primary ballot, though none of the 5 nominations was contested. So the primary was essentially a preview of the general election. Each of the minor party candidates did slightly better in the primary than the general election, even though turnout for the primary was probably skewed towards the Republican Party because of voter habit and the coincident presidential primary.
This contradicts claims by some that voters won’t vote for minor party candidates in June. While at one time there was a Libertarian presence on the ballot, in 2006 and 2008 only the Democrats have even bothered to put up a challenger in the district.
There were contested Republican primaries in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996, including two where the incumbent Republican was challenged. Under the Top 2 Open primary, there could well have been two Republicans on the general election ballot.
Since then, the only seriously contested primary was in 2004 when (now-Congressman) John Campbell was term-limited, and Chuck Devore won the nomination.
5 –
But we’re not talking about “corporations” here, are we? We’re talking about “persons.” So, since you and the USSC are evidently willing (and eager) to grant “personhood” to corporations and some of the rights attendant to being a “person” in the United States, then the problem does become a sticky one of determining which rights should be conferred to which persons.
If that’s the rub, then where can we as a society of laws make the distinction, Richard? Anywhere at all? Can corporations marry? There’s nothing in the US Constitution which prohibits any “class” of person from doing so. Can they adopt children? When my name and the name of all other male persons who were born in 1951 went in to the draft lottery in the late sixties, why did not corporate “persons” which were incorporated in 1951 go into the lottery too? Indeed, why are corporate “persons” not enabled to just go down to the polling place and put in their vote.
Or is that coming soon?
But let’s not waste time caviling over such trifling details. Let’s just cut to the chase, dust off Benito’s playbook for how a country ought to be run, and give all the power over to the corporations. The USSC decision was a very good second step in that direction, and if you don’t see that you are hopelessly blind.
A central premise of this website, I thought, was to identify and call out attacks on a system that should allow fair and equal access to the political process of electing representatives in a republican, democratic society. But shrugging one’s shoulders while the supposedly “non-activist,” “conservative,” “strict constructionist” bench in Washington tosses the keys to moneyed power, entities which control more cash and power than any individual voter or any possible association of individuals in any conceivable number could hope to muster, and then pointing as you did to a supposedly “well-reasoned” and “dispassionate” defense of such an egregious usurpation of the power of persons – the two-legged, flesh and blood variety – well…it fairly well puts the lie to the rest of this site.
There may be “dispassionate” and “well-reasoned” defense of fascism, but you’ll just have to pardon those who react in opposition with a whole lot of passion, and who understand that “reasoning” only gives credence to a morally bankrupt position.
You know the famous Barry Goldwater quote. Play it back for yourself.
The Communist Party is not a person, it is a group. Groups have free speech rights just as individuals do. Baron, do you agree with that sentence?
Who said anything about the Communist Party? Or do you think Barry Goldwater only cared about external threats to individual American liberties?
Do YOU think the only threats to your individual liberties as an American come from without our borders?
Are you really that naive?
Or is a slow creep toward fascism okie dokie with you as long as it’s “well reasoned” and dispassionate?”
So, Baron won’t answer the simple question, do groups have free speech rights? If I knew your real name and/or your phone number, I would enjoy talking on the phone about it. My number is 415-922-9779.
Only human beings have *rights*.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-101.htm
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
——–
Sorry – private artificial fictional invisable somethings have NO rights.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-118.htm
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 18
Of Corporations
Gee — how much of a perversion of ALL Anglo-American law for about 800 years was involved in the CU case regarding *corporations* — private artificial fictional invisable **persons** ??? Duh.
NONE of the 9 appointed party hack Supremes had any mention of Blackstone in their MORON CU opinions — par for the course in this New Age of MORONS in governments.
For NON-MORONS — Blackstone’s Commentaries had about 100-200 updated editions from the 1760s to about 1900 — i.e. was used to teach Anglo-American LAW for generations of lawyers — before everything became mysterious — especially due to the party hack Supremes.
Richard – Thanks for the invitation, but no thanks. You haven’t been inclined to answer any of my questions or respond directly to any of my points, but that’s not a surprise, frankly. It’s hard to defend fascism in what is supposed to be a democratic society, so I know how difficult that must be for you.
But here…here you go. Yes, I believe that groups are entitled to free speech. I believe that the Communist Party and any other political party you choose to name has the right to free speech in this country.
And as for your next question, no, I do not believe that corporations can or should be considered “groups” in the same political context as are associations of individuals. Not now, not ever. I do not believe that corporations are “persons” and I therefore do not believe that corporations should be afforded the same civil rights as flesh and blood persons.
The USSC evidently believes so, and I believe they are wrong. Five of them, anyway.
Now…answer MY question – how do you propose to grant the franchise to US corporations? After all, if corporate persons have a right to free speech in all its forms, then how can we constitutionally prevent them from exercising the most important form? Do we allocate their votes based on their net worth? Gross sales?
Or should we just give them Deibold’s number and let them work it out among themselves?
#13 Republican Moderate Party, Inc.?
14 –
I think that would technically be a sole proprietorship.
Good post. Its vital to find good party favors.