1. Gee – what year did ballot access become an Act of WAR — with enemies, attacks and counter-attacks ???

2. You ARE kidding, right? For those who don’t subscribe to either the Republican or Democratic parties, EVERY election cycle is a ballot access war. You spend months gathering way more signatures that the above two parties are required, only to immediately have your petition challanged, so you can spend more time having every signature scrutinized to a hyper-techncial standard (signed name and printed name in wrong boxes, invalid), then finally appearing before a judge who keeps forgetting political speech is protected under the consitution, but apparently DOES believe the “two party” system IS.

3. The Illinois law requiring what is called a loyalty oath is, with respect to federal offices, unconstitutional, as it is well established that states may not use ballot access laws to establish criteria for federal office in addition to those in the U.S. Constitution. With regard to the office of President it is unconstitutional for putting an unfair burden on non-resdents of Illinois relative to residents of that state, insofar as the Constitution requires states to accept documents and contracts from other states, and insofar as there are many cases indicating that the right to vote is such that mere technical violations are not to be used to deny ballot access.

4. Just wondering, Richard – was the Massachusetts Notary Public corporate “person” or a human person?

5. Baron, I hope you saw the Truthout article published January 17, titled “The Problem with Citizens United Is Not Corporate Personhood.” It is by Rob Hager and James Marc Leas.

6. # 2 Gee – NO kidding.

   Obviously 1854 when the modern Elephants took on the Donkeys — a mere 158 years of ballot access battles in a LONG W-A-R.

   Gee – what has been the longest WAR so far in world history ???

7. Richard –

   Thanks for the reference. I read it.

   There are many significant problems in our political system. “Campaign finance” encompasses a number of them. Equating corporations and individual Americans with respect to freedom of speech is top of the list, in my opinion. I believe that if it were not for the precedence set by the USSC which assigned to corporations the attribute of “personhood,” then it would have been much more difficult for the activist conservative USSC to decide as they did in the Citizens United case. They might have managed it anyway, knowing the tendencies of this court to protect the rights of the powerful over the weak, the many over the few, but certainly the precedents were in play. It’s naive to think otherwise.

   You have defended the USSC’s decision. You have done so, among other ways, by positing that if corporations cannot exercise “free speech” by spending gargantuan sums of money, then perhaps the NYT (you always use the NYT, apparently believing this will irk me more than if you might cite the Washington Times, and it does not). Others who support that decision have asked me, simply, “Don’t you believe in free speech?” Well, yes I do. But the only way that corporations can be granted equal footing with me as respects free speech, is if they are granted equal status as individual entities under the umbrella of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights. My contention is that they are not, but only USSC court decisions of the past grant them that protection by virtue of them being identified as “persons.”

   You know that.

   I know that.

   And the authors of the article you cite know that.

   Now, we can agree that there are many, many inequities in our political system and how it is financed. They should be addressed as best we can. However, as the game is currently rigged, unfettered corporate access to “free speech” and therefore PURCHASED legislators and governors and the president…DWARFS the significance of all of the other problems, and addressing them first is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

   That, apparently, you don’t recognize, and it is beyond me why you don’t. We’re already at least $40 million dollars of corporate “free speech” into the first few events of the primary season. This is further cynical and unnecessary pollution of an already corrupt political process, but maybe you join George Will in believing that there isn’t enough money in the process yet. What should the ratio of corporate person to real person donations be? A million to one? Would that convince you that maybe something is well and truly fucked up?

   But perhaps you are actually a fascist. That would explain your position on the matter.

8. #7, do you think unincorporated associations have free speech rights?

9. 8 –

   This is old ground, Richard. I’ve stated previously that I don’t believe unions, for instance, should be able to contribute to political campaigns (and please…let’s not go through THAT again either – the millions of dollars being spent by PAC’s are money that campaigns don’t need to spend themselves, so it’s a trivial…no, fictional… distinction between those “independent” non-coordinated media spends and direct contributions to the campaign).

   Now please answer my questions –

   1) Do you think limits on direct individual contributions to political campaigns, imposed by laws passed by Congress, are infringements on free speech? If not, why not? If so, do you favor removing them entirely, and if you don’t why don’t you?

   2) Are you a fascist? If not, why do you support court decisions which promote fascism?

   3) Is there ANY limit you would place on corporate influence over our political process? If yes, how would you defend that position against the argument that you are infringing on your precious corporations’ free speech? Again, please don’t make the specious argument that by preventing them from contributing directly to campaigns that you have curtailed them in any way whatsoever. If you pay my electric bill directly rather than depositing the money in my checking account, you’ve still freed me up to spend that money on groceries.

   4) Why do you think corporations have a need to spend this much on political campaigns, and why do you think we have an obligation to satisfy that need?

   5) Why don’t you recognize that as corporations increase their influence over our electoral process, EVERYTHING ELSE you cover in this blog is reduced and condensed into a single, tiny speck of triviality?

10. #9, I will be happy to answer your questions if you answer my question in comment #8…do you think unincorporated associations have free speech rights?

    Everything turns on your answer. The question isn’t about unions. It is about unincorporated associations. Do any of them have free speech rights?

11. I answered giving unions as an example, because you’ve used unions as a foil in our prior exchanges to give examples of unincorporated entities which might be prohibited from contributing to campaigns if corporations are.

    So here is my answer. We are a free democratic nation and are free to define rights in whatever way we feel is appropriate. The USSC has made its ruling in the Citizens United. They did so legally. I disagree with the ruling. They could have ruled otherwise. Legally. Others might have disagreed with that ruling had it happened.

    We have passed laws which restrict my ability to donate certain sums of money to a political candidate and his/her campaign. That is an infringement on my “free speech” by the lights of the CU case. But I accept that my representatives have a legal right to define how much I may contribute, for the better good of our society. The USSC, and you evidently, think there should be no such limits placed on corporations. I think they should.

    And now I’ll go further and answer your question. I think that only individuals should be able to contribute money to a political campaign. I think we are free to pass laws which would prevent incorporated and unincorporated associations from contributing to political campaigns, and from making proxy expenditures on their behalf.

    I would also add that I don’t believe that money = free speech.

    Do you?

    Please add that question to the others above when you provide your answers to them. I’m particularly anxious to learn whether you do support moving us to fascism in this country, or whether you’re just too naive to understand that the CU case did just that.

    Thanks.

12. Oh, BTW, Richard…please add one more question to my list.

    Do you think that by purchasing heroin, one is exercising free speech? Everything turns on that answer.

13. You still haven’t answered my question, as to whether unincorporated associations have free speech rights. The question was not about donating to campaigns. I am trying to understand what the free speech part of the First Amendment means, in your thinking. Are individuals the only entities that have free speech rights? That is the question.

14. 14 –

    Yes.

    Now answer my questions. All of them.

15. Incidentally, as you craft your answers to my questions, please keep in mind that the important question is INDEED whether corporations can donate to campaigns or act as proxies for campaigns’ expenditures. You continually sidestep that question. Please don’t do so this time, Richard.

    Thanks.

16. Baron, if you think only individual flesh-and-blood human beings have free speech rights, then your interpretation of the First Amendment would allow the government to censor Common Cause, the ACLU, Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters, MALDEF, NAACP, NOW, Lambda, the Friends Committee, COPE, LULAC, Tenants Unions, Gay Democratic Clubs, and tens of thousands of other civic groups.

    Your interpretation would have allowed the McCarren Act to stand, which subjected the Communist Party to punishing fines, basically just for existing.

    My ideal campaign finance law would eliminate all restrictions on how much money may be contributed to candidates. But it would provide for generous, non-discriminatory public funding, and full disclosure of all contributions that are larger than, say, $200 for federal office and statewide state office, and $100 for state legislature.

    Corporations has become a scare-word, just as Communist was a scare word in the Joseph McCarthy red scare era, and the 1920 Red scare era. When Citizens United came down, 25 states, including my own state of California, had absolutely no laws making it illegal for any kind of corporation to spend money promoting or attacking any candidate.

    What you are really upset about is Buckley v Valeo, the 1976 decision probably written by Justice Brennan, which struck down expenditure limits and said, yes, money is speech.

    The kinds of corporations that are making huge expenditures for or against Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are not the type of corporations most people think of when they hear that word. The money is not coming from big business. It is coming from groups of very wealthy individuals who have formed special corporations just for the purpose of influencing elections.

    I am in favor of disclosure, as I said above. I have disclosed my identity and my contact information. You have never even revealed your name, much less your phone number, address, or e-mail address. If you are really interested in dialoguing with me, why don’t you give me a phone number so we can get to know each other and have a useful conversation.

17. OK. Don’t bother to answer my questions, even though I answered yours and you promised you would answer mine if I did yours. I’ll just assume henceforth that you really are a fascist.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.