Corporate Disclosure

[talon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63S3GN20100429

Unveiled by Senator Charles Schumer on the steps of the court, the White House-backed initiative calls for the unprecedented disclosure of money in politics three months after the court ruled 5-4 that long-standing campaign finance limits violated the free speech rights of corporations.

Corporations are not individuals. They cannot be born or serve jail time or have babies or get married or get cancer or dance in the streets or vote. They are artificial constructs created on paper and this ruling is wrong, wrong, wrong to claim they have the same Constitutional protections as individuals that work within the corporations.

New measures require corporations, unions and other groups to disclose their financial roles in political TV campaigns including those that favor or oppose specific candidates.

Yes. If they are going to be allowed to spend as freely as they want, then we, as individuals, have the right to boycott those corporations whose political choices offend us (or, should any corporation warrant it, to be supported).

"This legislation will stop the funneling of big money through shadow groups in order to fund ads that are virtually anonymous," said Schumer

One can hope, anyway...

The measures require corporate, union and advocacy group leaders to disclose their names in TV ads. The measures also ban election spending by government contractors, companies with over 20 percent foreign ownership and bank bailout recipients.

I support that. Of course, I'd support corporations being blocked entirely from donating political funds. Individuals within the corporations have always had the right to donate their money where they will, but corporations are not speaking as individuals, nor do I believe the employees and customers will be given a say in how the corporation spends political dollars. I'm not even sure all of the stockholders will have a say in that, either. I know I hold stock in several companies and since I have such small holdings, I usually only get a say in the size of budget items and a general budget category (such as advertising, employee compensation...) but not how the money is actually spent in detail. I can see how this could become a hidden item in the budget, perhaps under "advertising".

Some Democrats believe companies and organizations will be too timid to risk adverse publicity if they are required to identify themselves as sponsors of political campaigns.

Good. Good good good. Let the companies and organizations consider well what public opinion will be - and yanno, if they choose wisely, those companies and organizations may find they are lauded for their support and their business will increase and improve. Companies need that sort of oversight.

"An effort to disregard the First Amendment and defy the Supreme Court in order to limit the speech of those who may disagree with you is an effort that has no place in this country," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

That sounds great when applied to individuals - you know, the people who can vote - but it does not apply to artificial constructs that cannot vote. Why is Mitch McConnell trying to protect something that can't vote? Oh, right, those corporations probably give him lots and lots of money. Let's check

The advocacy group Citizens United, which was at the center of the Supreme Court decision, said in a statement that the new legislation would have a chilling effect on free speech and burden legitimate organizations with unnecessary costs.

No, it won't have a chilling effect on free speech - that only applies to individuals and it won't burden legitimate organizations with unnecessary costs - it doesn't cost anything extra to include a name or logo with the ad or the donation. It does cost more to create fake groups and filter the money through many avenues, so I think in both the short and long run, putting your name to what you say and who you support is cheaper, so that's just bogus right there.

This is not a partisan issue. Many of those corporations are owned by people in other countries. I don't know about you, but I really don't want the Japanese, or the Chinese, or the Germans, or any other country's citizens having such a strong and direct influence in our politics. Let them be devious and circumspect and behind-the-scenes as they've always been. I know other countries do their best to influence what happens in the countries neighboring them or that may have an effect on what they do - we certainly aren't too quiet about our interests in other countries' politics. But to give them such a direct and powerful say? No. I fully support having corporations and organizations "disclose their financial roles in political TV campaigns including those that favor or oppose specific candidates."

Of course, I'd even more fully support barring corporations and organizations from being involved in giving campaign funds or supporting specific politicians or political candidates. Only those who can vote have the right to give their money to political campaigns and politicians - in my opinion.