Still reeling from the revelation that four Supreme Court Justices have withdrawn their support for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, I am pulling myself together to bring you this week’s blog roundup. Or actually two weeks’ worth of blog roundup, since I skipped last week’s due to travel.
Was math invented or discovered? We visited this ancient question here and here.
For your amusement, we had some brain teasers and, later on, a relativity puzzle. I’ll give solutions to all of these early next week.
We also made a brief foray into quantum game theory.
I commended Peter Leeson’s recent paper defending (to a degree) the practice of trial by ordeal, though I went on (the following day) to criticize Leeson’s assumption that priests cared about getting the right verdicts. I should have added that Leeson does not ignore this issue; he observes that the priests were at least partly constrained by private owners who benefited from the maintenance of law and order in their territories. This doesn’t completely solve the problem, but it helps.
Moving from ancient to modern justice, we discussed the trade-off between acquitting the guilty and convicting the innocent. I argued that we should be leery of letting the state execute too many innocents, essentially because power corrupts. A number of commenters also stressed that a state-sponsored execution is somehow “worse” than a random murder, but I couldn’t figure out whether they were agreeing with me or whether they perceived some additional key difference.
We also talked about the best way to allocate faculty offices, and, as usual, we (including several of the commenters) did a far better job than the execrable Randy Cohen.
I’ll be back on Monday.
For technical reasons, I could not take part in the debate on the “existence” of natural numbers. Perhaps that was for the best, since most of what I would have said has been said by others. Still, I’ll add a couple of redundant remarks here.
WRT our host’s question to Ben:
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/13/real-numbers/#comment-1820
My answer, in short, is no.
This answer has already been given by Ben and others, but I’ll add this: It has always been true that Steven E. Landsburg is Steven E. Landsburg, even before he was born; that does not mean that identity “exists”. In the same way, I do not believe that numbers exist.
A later reply, again from our host to Ben:
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/13/real-numbers/#comment-1836
contains the assertion that the natural numbers “have recognizable properties that are *not* entailed by reasoning from any set of axioms.”
The natural numbers might or might not have such properties: I have not yet made up my mind about that. The problem is that any property that WE know the natural numbers have, is a property that is entailed by reasoning from some set of axioms (though not necessarily the Peano axioms).
Snorri:
First, any true statement is of course entailed by reasoning from some set of axioms, e.g. the set of axioms consisting of that statement alone. So I misspoke when I said “properties that are not entailed by reasoning from any set of axioms”; I should have said “properties that are not true by virtue of reasoning from any set of axioms”.
Second, we surely know of such properties, and so have others throughout history. Ancient people knew that 1+1=2 without reasoning from any set of axioms. Pythagoras knew that there are no solutions to the equation A^2=2B^2, long before Euclid deduced it from axioms. We know that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true, without having the foggiest notion whether it follows from the Peano axioms, or what axioms are necessary to deduce it. We know from Godel that there are true statements that fail to follow from any *given* set of axioms; it follows (though not immediately) that there are true statements that can’t be derived from *any* self-evident axioms.
Third, when you say “The problem is that any property that WE know the natural numbers have, is a property that is entailed by reasoning from some set of axioms”, I’m not sure who you think this is a problem for. If you replace “entailed” by “known to be true” then your statement is a) false, as indicated by the counterexamples in the above paragraph, and b) would be evidence for MY position if it were true, since the existence of properties humans can’t know about is evidence that numbers were not invented by humans.
‘Still reeling from the revelation that four Supreme Court Justices have withdrawn their support for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution….’
My sentiments exactly. Even more startling is that they don’t appear to grasp that that is what their position is.
Hi Steve:
I misspoke when I said “properties that are not entailed by reasoning from any set of axioms”; I should have said “properties that are not true by virtue of reasoning from any set of axioms”.
That’s OK, but it makes no difference to my counter-argument, that WE know them to be true by virtue of reasoning.
your statement is a) false, as indicated by the counterexamples in the above paragraph
You could probably think up hundreds more counterexamples, but I take those you proposed as an exercise.
I claim that the ancients knew that 1+1=2 because “1+1=2” is the definition of 2.
“2+2=4” is not the definition of 4, but it follows logically from the definition of 4.
I am not familiar with the history of Phythagoras’ theorem, but if Pythagoras knew it to be true, he must have deduced it from *something*.
We know that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true, without having the foggiest notion whether it follows from the Peano axioms, or what axioms are necessary to deduce it.
… but we (or, at any rate, some of us, not including me) know what axioms are *sufficient* to prove it.
We know from Godel that there are true statements that fail to follow from any *given* set of axioms
This is a can of worms. All what I am prepared to accept for now is that there are statements that are *undecidable* from any given set of axioms.
your statement […] b) would be evidence for MY position if it were true, since the existence of properties humans can’t know about is evidence that numbers were not invented by humans.
I did not say that there are properties that humans can’t know about: I said that humans can’t know any such property IF it exists.
Snorri:
Me: We know that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true, without having the foggiest notion whether it follows from the Peano axioms, or what axioms are necessary to deduce it.
You: … but we (or, at any rate, some of us, not including me) know what axioms are *sufficient* to prove it.
But this is a trivial observation; we *always* know a single axiom that’s sufficient to prove *any* theorem, namely the theorem itself. What nobody knows, in the case of FLT (and as far as I am aware) is a list of “standard” axioms that are sufficient to prove it. Does it follow from first-order Peano arithemetic? No idea. From second-order Peano arithmetic? No idea. Does it follow from the ZFC axioms for set theory? I’d guess so, but I’d only be guessing.
There is a substantial subject area called “reverse mathematics”, pioneered by Harvey Friedman, where one starts with a known theorem and tries to figure out which of the standard axioms are sufficient to deduce it. There are hard problems in reverse mathematics, and I’m pretty sure that the status of FLT is one of them.
Steve: yes, I meant that FLT is derivable from “standard” axioms. Perhaps I should not have put it that way, since I don’t know what these axioms are, but the idea is the same as for Pythagoras’ Theorem: Wiles must have deduced FLT from something, and short of circular reasoning or an infinite regress, he deduced it from something we might call axioms; and they are “standard axioms” in the sense that Wiles did not make them up just to prove the theorem.
A Danish friend, who is much more mathematical than I am (i.e. I’ll never be able to understand his papers) has a refreshingly informal approach to proof: he says that all what matters is that the proof proceeds from statements that we can all agree on. That’s what I do in my own papers (although I include nothing that I call a theorem).
It was not that four justices do not support free speech, but that five justices support the right of corporate interest to drown out the free speech of others. The right to free speech is not just for those who shout the loudest. The playing field must be accessible to all. The reason for free speech is so that we have access to all ideas with the belief that truth will out, or at least that we can triangulate to the best ideas. That won’t happen if money rules the day.
James, the assumption in your first sentence (that corporate interest will drown out the free speech of others) may be true or partly true, but I’m not sure why it’s relevant. No one ever said that we have a right to be heard, just that we have a right to speak. Since that’s the case, your point about shouting the loudest isn’t relevant, I’m afraid.
It is relevant if we want to have the benefits of free speech. The right to free speech is to give everyone the possibility to be heard. There is no requirement that anyone listen. But is it not consistent with the right to free speech that some can effectivley limit the speech of others. The right to assemble does not give anyone the right to assemble in a way that prevents my group from assembling, by blocking the door to my assembly room for example.
I’m curious how a corporation’s right to free speech limits the rights of an ordinary citizen. If I can say what I want, but BP can afford to say what it wants over the airwaves, then my rights have in no way been impeded. If BP actively shuts me up, then your assembly analogy would hold. But the ruling doesn’t give corporations the right to do any such thing, so I’m missing your point.
The reality is that public opinion is heavily influenced by media and that access to media is purchased. Hence the opinions of those who can not purchase media time are not heard. It means little to be able to speak freely from your front porch if government is controlled by those with the ability to purchase media time.
Steve is a smart guy and I would like to understand his position with regards to free speech and corporations.
I understand that a corporation is a very important public entity but is it the same as a U.S. citizen? I don’t think a corporation should automatically have the same rights as citizens and I don’t think all the laws that apply to citizens and protect citizen rights should automatically as a matter of justice apply to corporations. I understand that legally they have many of the rights of a citizen, but are they identical rights? Corporations are in many practical and legal ways different from citizens. In particular we can’t imprison or execute corporations and they wield so many more resources than the individual. Some rights of citizens may be shared with corporations and some reserved. We have to figure out which ones. Why should the bill of rights apply in its entirety to corporations?
There might not be a right or wrong here there just seems to be a difference of opinion as to which rights apply to corporations but I think that it would be in the citizens’ interests to limit the power of corporations as much as possible. But maybe some can make the case as to why corporations should have more rights. Would that really be better for citizens if corporations had unfettered free speech, or since speech has been equated to dollars is it really in our interest that corporations should be able to spend unlimited funds in support of a politician?
I mentioned the “Professorial Office Picking” problem on the Election Methods list, and I thought one suggestion was quite clever. It’s a Clarke-Groves-Tideman-Tullock “voting with money” scheme (more info here: http://rangevoting.org/CTT.html). Basically, it boils down to:
1. Each professor submits his or her private estimate of the true worth of each room, in dollars.
2. The allocation of rooms that results in the greatest total amount is chosen.
3. All bids are reexamined, but now with the name of its bidder unveiled on each, to determine if a bid “made a difference,” i.e. caused the result to differ from what it would have been with that bid removed. If a bid makes a difference, then the bidder pays the difference between his actual bid, and the minimum amount necessary to secure his preference. In other words, if he bid $300 for a room but could have won with a bid of $100, he has to pay the $200 difference. This prevents extravagant bids by those who don’t have intention of paying.
(I think I did that right, but I had to convert from voting language to bidding language, so mistakes are possible.)
Jerome: It seems to me that the issue has nothing to do with the rights of corporations but rather with the rights of individuals to act collectively.
Steve, the minority opinion would not prohibit individuals from acting collectively. It would only prohibit individuals from acting through a corporation. The same individuals could form PACs and contribute as they wish, or acting in cooperation, make contributions through another collective of individuals, such as a political party.
I agree with Jerome’s points questioning the equivalency of the rights of corporations with those of individuals. Corporations cannot vote or run for office. It strikes me as ironic that the strict constructionist/founder’s intent advocates of a narrow reading of the constitution (including most members of the majority in this case) would argue for an expansive interpretation of the “the people” in the 9th Amendment to include corporations.
There is no basis for this interpretation in the debates at the constitutional convention (where we typically go to determine intent). In fact, Madison, considered the father of the Constitution and along with Hamilton its primary proponent in the Federalist Papers, would have deplored this reading. He was adamantly opposed to interest group politics of any kind, and he would have recognized the power this reading of the constitution will have on the ability of corporations to exert influence over federal policy making.
The decision establishes a right of corporations to contribute to campaigns using corporate funds derived from huge sums of money generated from the sale of products to consumers who are effectively mobilized, unknowingly and without consent, to support the “free speech” of corporations with which they may disagree strongly. It also allows corporations to contribute funds from proceeds that would otherwise go to stockholders, whether or not they oppose the contribution or are even aware of it. This is starkly different from contributions made by individuals.
Also, US corporations are often managed or controlled by foreign nationals. Foreign nationals are prohibited from making campaign contributions, directly or indirectly. This decision will allow them to direct contributions through the collective of the corporation.
Philip:
It also allows corporations to contribute funds from proceeds that would otherwise go to stockholders, whether or not they oppose the contribution or are even aware of it. This is starkly different from contributions made by individuals.
By the same token, we allow newspapers to run editorials in spaces that could otherwise be sold to advertisers, effectively taking funds from stockholders, whether or not they oppose the contents of the editorial. Does this seem problematic to you?
‘The decision establishes a right of corporations to contribute to campaigns using corporate funds derived from huge sums of money generated from the sale of products to consumers who are effectively mobilized, unknowingly and without consent, to support the “free speech” of corporations with which they may disagree strongly.’
That’s just factually wrong, Citizens United v. FEC doesn’t allow corporations to donate to candidates at all. And, it’s never been a problem anyway, for a very simple reason; as the famous political scientist Michael Jordan put it once, ‘Republicans buy underwear too.’
What the case was actually about was a small, non-profit corp. producing a documentary that they wanted to show on a pay per view cable tv channel. The law made that a felony, punishable by prison time!
The First Amendment categorically states, ‘Congress shall make no law….’ abridging free speech or the press. There’s nothing about any exception for amalgamations of people at all there.
Also, it gives people the right to peacefully assemble to petition for redress of grievances. Again, with no exception for people who assemble in corporate form.
For those who would like to actually know what was at stake in the case, here are the oral arguments:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/argument
To see why the govt. lost, go to about minute 28 and listen to the att’y tell the Justices that the FEC has the right to prohibit publication of a 500 page book if it has even one candidate advocacy line in it–note the incredulity in the voices of Justices responding to that.
The only thing the guy didn’t claim was that the FEC could censor Leno and Letterman monologues within 30 days of the primary. But, then he wasn’t asked.
Steve,
Interesting analogy, but I don’t think it applies. The editorial page of a newspaper is a feature that has value for readers (whether they agree with the opinion or not)and therefore contributes to the income that benefits stockholders.
And even if one assumes there is no income generated by the editorial page, the newspaper can simply add a page for editorials at a cost that is de minimis while corporate campaign contributions directly reduce returns to stockholders. Stockholders can sell their stock or muster a majority of stockholders to fire management, but there’s a cost imposed on them to do so and since the contributions cannot be recovered, they still lose their returns.
But my primary point is that corporate campaign contributions are a means for individuals (management) to extract funds from other individuals to promote policies that they may oppose, without their consent and most likely without their knowledge.
Philip, your primary point is baloney. Prior to 2002, corporations had the legal right to weigh in on political candidates. Was there a major effort of management of Colgate toothpaste, General Motors, Haynes underwear, Coca Cola et al, to ‘extract funds from other individuals to promote policies that they may oppose’?
Dreaming up fantasy problems is easy, but the reality of Citizens United was something altogether different from most of what the critics here are claiming the issue was.
The appropriate way under our current laws for people to pool their money to spend it on politics is a 527. Anyone suggesting that releasing the restrictions on corporations somehow did us any practical good on the grounds that people should be allowed to pool their money in this way, is simply unfamiliar with the reality of the law immediately before the court decision. Whatever other reasons you might give for this decision, the idea that it serves the good goal of allowing people to pool their money through an organization to spend on politics, is simply ignorant.
Patrick Sullivan writes:
>> Philip, your primary point is baloney. Prior to 2002, corporations had the legal right to weigh in on political candidates. <<
Don't be so quick to jump to inflammatory language… it shows overconfidence in your position, even though you're not quite as right as you seem to feel. What do you mean by "legal right"? This right wasn't recognized in the constitutional sense, so you're probably referring to what they were allowed to do by legislation. Your point seems to be that McCain-Feingold placed restrictions on corporate political spending that weren't there before 2002, and that's reasonable, but we're not just talking about repealing a bit of McCain-Feingold.
For example, here in Massachusetts, no corporate spending on campaigns, even in kind, was allowed at all. McCain-Feingold had nothing to do with it. When I ran a fundraiser concert for a candidate some years ago, we were *required* to have the venue collect a cover charge at the door that would not go to the candidate, and that cover charge had to fall within their range for other shows; if we hadn't done that, they'd have been contributing their space for free, it would've had commercial value, and that would've been an illegal contribution. But now, pretty much everyone believes that as soon as that is challenged in court it will have to be overturned because of this new precedent from the Supreme Court.
Whether you think it's good or bad, we are in a whole new legal world now when it comes to corporate spending on politics. We're not just back where we were before McCain-Feingold.
The Court’s opinion in United Citizens overturned not only McCain-Feingold (2002) but also the Court’s 20-year old decision in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) thereby also removing the states’ authority to prohibit corporate camapign contributions (so much for the states rights values of this Court). The UC decision is broad and sweeping, going beyond even what UC sought from the Court.
Patrick, while the decision does not allow direct corporate contributions to candidates’ political committees, it does allow corporations to fund their own “vote for”/”vote against” campaign advertisements in support of those candidates. And while the Court could not stretch UC to reach the issue of corporate contributions to candidate committees, the Court’s logic is one step away from doing so, a decision your comments lead me to believe you favor.
Now let’s take a classic conservative approach to the “plain language”, strict constructionist, founders’ intent interpretation of the constitution.
Re: your point about the 1st Amendment, the word “corporation” nowhere appears in the constitution, and to the extent the common law has bestowed on corporations, in a limited fashion, some of the rights of persons, it has done so by creating a “legal fiction” (term of art) differentiating between “legal persons” and “natural persons”. I have no objection to this as to the law.
But making corporations “legal persons” does not make them human beings. And the writers of the constitution clearly had human beings in mind when they reserved certain rights to the people. (Even so, they didn’t have all human beings in mind–for example, blacks, native Americans and women were not extended all of those rights initially.)
As I said in a previous post, Madison, credited as the primary author of both the constitution and the Bill of Rights, abhorred interest group politics and crafted federal authority to minimize its impact on federal policy making (see Federalist #10). The United Citizen decision has him spinning in his grave.
And I leave you with these words from Thomas Jefferson, the hero of limied government and states rights advocates:
“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” (1816)
By the way, let’s try to show a little respect to those we disagree with rather than claiming they are “dreaming up fantasy problems” and their “point is baloney”.
Cos,
Excellent points. FYI, I think, though I’m not certain, the Mass. campaign regulations you discuss were struck down by the Court when it overturned Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
And “amen” to your points about inflamatory language and overconfidence.
Wow people, fantastic discussion. While what will happen remains to be seen, I’m with Cos and Phillip (excellent posts guys), the landscape has changed dramatically and IMO not for the better.
As I understand things, foreign owned companies with American subsidiaries can now officially endorse candidates. I don’t believe the framers had that in mind under any circumstances…
I don’t think it does us any good to pretend this is just some good and civic minded individuals pooling resources to act collectively. This is another in a long series of concentrations of power into the hands of a wealthy and privileged few, a further coupling of the unholy alliance of big government and big business that always rides on the backs of the people (and btw, telltale sign of decline of empire).
In theory, corporations are generally owned by and subject to the desires of shareholders. In practice companies are dominated by owners with “controlling interests (many of which are themselves collective aggregations like mutual funds).” So when a public company chooses what to air, it’s leveraging the wealth of many, but responding to the wishes of a very few shareholders, the board, and the CEO. The typical shareholder in actual practice has very little to say or even knowledge about what a company does.
It’s tempting to say if you don’t like what a company endorses, sell the stock. Again, practical reality gets in the way. For individuals and households, the vast majority of stock ownership is through company 401K’s and mutual funds, so there is no straightforward way to untangle from the company endorsement in question without incurring huge transaction fees.
Corporations are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. Campaign contributions are still prohibited, but it’s hard to imagine very many representatives, opposed to a bailout for example, standing up to an investment bank threatening to spend millions to unseat them if they don’t vote their way.
Well perhaps someone could explain to me why ‘baloney’ and ‘fantasy’ are inflammatory, but ‘simply ignorant’ isn’t.
Also, as to ‘What do you mean by “legal right”? This right wasn’t recognized in the constitutional sense, so you’re probably referring to what they were allowed to do by legislation.’
The First Amendment isn’t part of the Constitution?
And, I’m amused by: ‘you’re not quite as right’. Which, given the numerous concessions made, just how right am I, do you figure?
Izzydog, you are exactly right. Foreign owned companies with American subsidiaries will now be able to make campaign contributions, and foreign nationals managing US companies will be able to direct corporate funds to campaigns as they see fit.
Jeeze, Patrick, no one’s saying the First Amendment isn’t part of the Consitution.
Is this all you can muster to defend your position? If so, I’d call this an clean knock out in the first round.
And I’ll take a shot at providing the explanation you’ve requested: Cos’s statement that some of your words are inflamatory is based on the observation that they seem to be emotion-driven characterizations, while “simply ignorant” is clearly an evidence-based conclusion.
I understand better where Steve and Patrick are coming from. In doing more research into what exactly the organization of Citizens United was I found they were a 401(c)(4)
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees
Now I think such an organization certainly should have free political speech and in that case, as Steve says, this is a victory for free speech.
But now it still seems a bad thing that an organization created by the state for the purpose of making money can buy political speech. There are too many conflicts of interest between this organization and the citizen. Clearly what would benefit a money making organization is economic rent seeking and elimination of environmental and consumer protections.
Since I won’t be able to dig further into these issues I hope that the court simply did not have the basis in law to distinguish between these two sorts of corporate entities in this case and that law can still be made that distinguishes these two and limits the political speech of the later.
I have also seen arguments that this won’t change much, the corporations already have lobbyists and places to contribute money that affects government to their benefit.
I have to conclude that this is a victory for free speech. As for and the issues people were afraid of, for profit corporations having political speech. That horse was already out of the barn anyway. If anything this would only add some clarity to what speech the corporations are supporting.
‘Jeeze, Patrick, no one’s saying the First Amendment isn’t part of the Consitution.’
Thanks for the temperate response, but someone did claim, ‘This right wasn’t recognized in the constitutional sense….’, which would seem to qualify as not an ‘evidence-based conclusion’.
I’m much against ’emotion-driven characterizations’. for instance, this one: ‘corporate campaign contributions are a means for individuals (management) to extract funds from other individuals to promote policies that they may oppose, without their consent and most likely without their knowledge.’
Wouldn’t the managers be using corporate revenues to promote candidates who were thought to be in favor of policies that would promote greater profitability for the corporation and its shareholders? It’s also kind of hard to see how they’d keep that a secret.
I guess I should congratulate Jerome for actually bothering to determine what the issues were in Citizens United v FEC. However, he’s repeating the same hypothetical (polite enough?) horrors without dealing with my earlier questions about when corporations have ever (prior to it being made illegal in 2002) done such things. When did a toothpaste, car, underwear, or soft drink manufacturer risk antagonizing roughly half their customers by endorsing candidates?
And, aren’t conflicts of interest precisely why the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, in the first place? Btw, is ‘the press’ a person?
Much better, Patrick! Quite temperate.
I’ll take these one at a time:
* I’ve hunted for the unattributed “This right was not recognized in the constitutional sense…” Where is it?
* HA! Nice try. But my statement about corporations using funds from stockholders and consumers is a statement of fact. You’re welcome to try to refute it with other facts, but so far, no effort to do so.
* No, ccorporations may very well (in fact, have and do) employ campaign contributions to pursue objectives that have nothing to do with stockholder value. For example, support/opposition for abortion rights, “creation science” and prayer in public schools, getting the US out of the UN, capital punishment; civil rights for blacks and gays, gun control, welfare reform, foreign aid. Corporate interests have wade in on all these issues at the state and federal levels, often as a pet project of corporate owners or executives.
Moreover, the interests of stockholders are not identical to those of the corporation. Most stockholders have a diversified portfolio. Some of their holdings may suffer well from a corporation’s political agenda, especially if the corporation seeks an advantage over a competitor, supplier or distributor whose stock the stockholder also holds.
I won’t even get into the issue of customers of the corporation.
* The examples of corporations risking customer ire by being active on controversial or self-interested political issues are too numerous to cite. Just take a look at the state and federal campaign and lobbying reports corporations must file. Do you really believe that the overwhelming consensus among campaign finance experts decrying the effect of UC is wrong?
* No, the press is not a “person”. But unlike corporations the press is explicitly protected in the constitution under the First Amendment. But it’s worth noting that even the freedom of speech and press are not without limits.
‘ I’ve hunted for the unattributed “This right was not recognized in the constitutional sense…” Where is it?’
Cos
January 26, 2010 at 11:34 am
‘ But my statement about corporations using funds from stockholders and consumers is a statement of fact.’
No, it is an assertion. Unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
‘For example, support/opposition for abortion rights, “creation science” and prayer in public schools, getting the US out of the UN, capital punishment; civil rights for blacks and gays, gun control, welfare reform, foreign aid.’
Again, you’re asserting (almost exclusively left-wing) generalities. I’m interested in some specific instances of corporations involving themselves in political issues or candidates. To try to see just how serious the issue is. I’m sure that somewhere, sometime, some corporation probably did involve itself, but as McCloskey asks, ‘How big?’
Btw, what business of customers would it be how a corporation spends its revenues? The customer voluntary parts with his money in exchange for the product of the corporation. Then it’s no longer the customer’s money.
Do you similarly worry about an employer’s interest in how its employees spend their wages?
‘The examples of corporations risking customer ire by being active on controversial or self-interested political issues are too numerous to cite’
That’s a classic dodge. If they are so numerous that ought to make it easier to cite examples.
‘No, the press is not a “person”. But unlike corporations the press is explicitly protected in the constitution under the First Amendment.’
That was my point. All this talk of rights only being for people is invalid, since the Constitution recognizes rights of inanimate objects too.
Philip:
Moreover, the interests of stockholders are not identical to those of the corporation. Most stockholders have a diversified portfolio. Some of their holdings may suffer well from a corporation’s political agenda, especially if the corporation seeks an advantage over a competitor, supplier or distributor whose stock the stockholder also holds.
Whenever you join a group, it’s pretty near certain that group will undertake some activities that hurt you. If I join a country club, they’re likely to spend some of my money maintaining the tennis courts, even though I don’t play tennis. I don’t think that’s a reason to stop me from voluntarily joining a country club, or to prohibit country clubs from maintaining tennis courts. Why is corporate advertising on issues I don’t believe in substantially different from a country club spending money on sports I don’t play?
I found this to be so interesting (and apparently so did our host) as to deserve a separate answer:
‘Moreover, the interests of stockholders are not identical to those of the corporation. Most stockholders have a diversified portfolio. Some of their holdings may suffer well from a corporation’s political agenda, especially if the corporation seeks an advantage over a competitor, supplier or distributor whose stock the stockholder also holds.’
Why wouldn’t the ‘faction countering faction’ argument be the better answer to this, rather than prohibiting open argument of such issues altogether. It’s hard to see why this kind of thing is better argued out in private between competing lobbyists.
Another thing that strikes me as odd is that the rallying cry of the American revolution was, ‘No taxation without representation.’ Isn’t it unfair for corporations to be subject to taxation, but be denied the right to campaign for the representation of their choice?
A member joins a country club knowing their membership will support facilities they may not use, and they know that other members will be supporting the cost of facilities they use but other members do not. This arrangement is likely to “hurt” some members and benefit others. By joining they consent to this arrangement. Of course, some members will be net beneficiaries (financially) from the arrangement (by being heavier users, or using more costly facilities). But even those who are “net losers” benefit since they could not afford the pool, golf cource, etc. if they constructed their own facilities. Also, there must be a benefit because most new members have considered other clubs, including services andmembership fees, and decided their choice maximizes their values.
Philip: I agree with every word of your latest comment. Why can’t I equally well say that a shareholder invests in a company knowing his funds will support expenditures (including campaign expenditures) he may not support; by joining he consents to this arrangement. But there must be a benefit, because most shareholders have considered alternative investments, including the campaign expenditures made by other corporations?
Thanks for the attribution, Patrick.
Cos is correct, but I’d phrase it in terms of a “constitutional right”. You’re confusing a constitutional right with legal authority to do something, whether the authority is expressedly granted by Congress or because Congress has not addressed the issue. Just because Congress hasn’t addressed an issue doesn’t mean they lack the power to do so.
If corporations were allowed to make campaign contributions at some time in the past, that doesn’t mean Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate corporate campaign contributions now. It would simply reflect Congress’s choice not to regulate.
But in UC, the Court says the constitution DENIES Congress the power to regulate corporate contributions, overturning previous decisions that said it did have that power.
Re: my list of issues, these are neither conservative nor liberal. You overlook the fact that I specified “support/opposition” to those issues, recognizing that corporations could take either side; my objections are the same either way.
Re: constitutional protection of freedom of the press: No, may discussion doesn’t make your point. Your point is that “freedom of the corporation” is protected by the constitution when in fact…
* “corporations” are not mentioned in the constitution (while the press is), and
* in the convention debates the framers never stated that “the people” was to be read as including corporations, and
* the constitution’s primary author (Madison) sought to curb the power of interest groups in his design of the federal government and made this a major selling point (through Federalist #10) during the ratification debate, and
* absent any other support for the notion that the framers’ original intent was to equate “corporations” with “a person” or “the people”, we are left to resort to a common sense understanding of the terms, and under that standard, since a “corporations” is not a human beings, they cannot be “a person” or “the people”.
Why do I feel like we’re covering the same ground over and over?
‘Cos is correct, but I’d phrase it in terms of a “constitutional right”.’
Since Cos denied that it was constitutional, clearly you think he was wrong.
‘You’re confusing a constitutional right with legal authority to do something, whether the authority is expressedly granted by Congress….’
In a free society the legislature doesn’t grant authority. As Ronald Reagan tweaked Gorbachev, in totalitarian societies everything is prohibited except for what is authorized. In free countries the reverse is true.
‘But in UC, the Court says the constitution DENIES Congress the power to regulate corporate contributions,….’
Clearly wrong (assuming by ‘UC’ you mean Citizens United). It doesn’t address ‘contributions’ at all. It’s about freedom to speak, as I’ve pointed out ad nauseum.
‘Your point is that “freedom of the corporation” is protected by the constitution when in fact…
‘* “corporations” are not mentioned in the constitution (while the press is), ‘
You’re a very poor reader. I said no such thing about corporations being mentioned in the Constitution. I merely noted that corporate forms of assembly aren’t denied in the Constitution. The (printing) press is an inanimate object obviously in the control of some combination of human beings, and corporate control is not DENIED.
Further, do you deny that these constitutional protections:
‘No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner….
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….
‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
‘….In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.’
are denied to corporations?
‘the constitution’s primary author (Madison) sought to curb the power of interest groups ‘
The Federalist Papers are pretty clear that faction was be contended by (other) faction, not by some factions being denied the right to confront others.
‘absent any other support for the notion that the framers’ original intent was to equate “corporations” with “a person” or “the people”, we are left to resort to a common sense understanding of the terms, and under that standard, since a “corporations” is not a human beings, they cannot be “a person” or “the people”.’
Common sense being, in Einstein’s words the prejudices acquired before the age of 21, I’d say the rules of logic tell us that if someone didn’t address an issue they are silent on that issue.
‘Why do I feel like we’re covering the same ground over and over?’
Perhaps because you refuse to think about these issues from a fresh perspective.
Steve,
Of course, current stockholders have not consented to contributions that corporations will now be able to make under the CU decision since those contributions have been prohibited until now. So informed consent it impossible.
Moreover, unlike a decision to buy a country club membership where the usefulness of various facilities and the cost of joining are at the heart of a buyer’s decisionmaking, the campaign contributions of a corporation lay well outside the core financial considerations that drive an investment decision. Further, if an investor wanted to include contributions in their investment calculations, they’re not going to find the information in any prospectus (and they never will; corproations like to keep that information as private as possible.) In fact, investors will have to go to considerable trouble to dig it up on their own.
OK, you make the same argument I make about comparison shopping. Of course, these are empirical questions and neither one of us has any data to offer on these points. But I’d wager you a large sum of money that more prospective country club members do fee/facilities cmparision shopping than propsective investors do campaign contribution comparison shopping. For investors, it’s just too costly and too remote from the basic value propostion to mess with.
Philip:
For investors, it’s just too costly and too remote from the basic value propostion to mess with.
Of course, saying that it’s “remote from the basic value proposition” is another way of saying “no big deal”, which makes one wonder why it should be given substantial weight in policymaking.
No, I’m saying that since a corporation’s campaign contributions are not transparent by being at the heart of an investment decision (as it is in your comparison) and since corporations make it difficult to obtain this information and it’s damn difficult (i.e., costly) to obtain it elsewhere, investors are left in a position of sacrificing a return without their consent.
And we don’t know if this is “no big deal” to them or not. Since they don’t (in practical terms, can’t) get information regarding campaign contributions, they don’t have the information to decide whether it’s a big deal or not. Neither do we.
Moreover, in principle, why should we not object to the cumulative financial (much less the political) effect of the reduction in shareholder returns without their consent?
Philip, you continue to confuse the issue by talking about ‘a corporation’s campaign contributions’. That is not what the issue is. Corporations are still prohibited from donating to campaigns.
What they are now free to do, is to weigh in–aka exercise their First Amendment rights–on partisan politics. They won’t be able to keep such advocacy a secret.
And, we’re still waiting for your specific examples of when that was a problem in the past.
Of course they’re contributions. If a corporation, in cooperation and in coordination with a campaign committee, which under CU they are free to do, spends $1 million dollars on advertisements saying “vote for X” and here’s why, and “vote against Y” his opponent, by any reasonable definition of “contribute”, how does this not contribute to the campaign just as substantially as a direct contribution to the candidate’s committee?
And of course, corporations can keep those contributions secret, despite government regulations that attempt to prohibit it, regulations you would seem to oppose, by creating campaign committees with innocuous names that give no hint of where the money come from.
OK, I’ll research the examples I have in mind and get back to you, despite the fact that I have previously provided many specific examples of the the historical basis for my interpretations, which you have ignored and provided none to refute them.
Steve, even if I were to concede the question you raise regarding whether the effect on stockholders is “no big deal”, that has no bearing on my more fundamental argument about whether the CU dissents infringes on rights acknowleged by the First Amendment.
That question rests on whether it’s reasonable to equate corporations with “persons” or “the people”. So far you haven’t addressed or presented an argument to refute the historical evidence I’ve provided for why it is not reasonable to do so. Do you have an evidence-based argument to offer?
Do you still believe the argument contained in the CU dissent means the four justices in the minority “withdraw their support for the First Amendment”. If so, why?
Patrick,
I never met a free speech issue I didn’t like — At least on the surface. I suspect we don’t agree about this particular ruling, but I also suspect there is something we can agree upon: Policies like heavy regulation and the complicated tax code — so many of the things that so many people dislike about the laws of this country — are the product of special-interest intervention into the legislative process. One need not look hard to find examples of this. Here’s one from today’s headlines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29bags.html?ref=business
Airline baggage fees are not taxable income for the airlines? Huh?
Last year special interests spent $3.2B lobbying. For a list of some of the companies, organizations and amounts spent, go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/01/washington-lobbying-grew-to-32.html
Is this a problem? Depends on how you define the word “problem.” From where I sit, CU looks like more of the same – Handing a megaphone to a wealthy select few so they can more effectively drown out the voices of individuals and families, in this case distorting voting decisions in the process. I happen to think that it may take a few cycles before companies figure out what to do with CU, but there already is a kind of precedent in California where companies can, and do, weigh in on voter propositions. Look no further than the prop 87 campaign if you want to see how much money can be spent producing a lot of irresponsible advertising, misleading information, and noisy suppression of genuine discourse (Chevron $30M, Aera Energy $27M, other oil industry players $38M, individual Steve Bing $39M).
So, if I understand you correctly, Izzy, you’re in favor of taxation without representation?
Patrick writes:
“So, if I understand you correctly, Izzy, you’re in favor of taxation without representation?”
Sheesh Patrick, that must be exactly what I think. Let us know when you can think beyond a sound bite and have a real conversation. Until then, you can go back to sleep. Money doesn’t distort the legislative process in any way. Sweet dreams…
Izzy, YOUR example was Prop 87 in California, which was about taxing oil producers. Your complaint that campaigning against it was ‘irresponsible advertising’ indicates you believe it illegitimate for the target of taxation to have a voice in oppositiion.
By the way, the New York Times, CBS, NBC et al. produce irresponsible news story on a regular basis. Do they have a First Amendment right to do so?
Patrick,
You asked for examples of corporations spending big money on camapaign contributions. I provided some. I mentioned prop 87 because something like $130M was spent on that campaign and it is an example of how out of hand things can get. To me, its obvious that when rich and powerful interests dump $130M into something, distortions will occur, and yours and my voice is not equal in that environment. Should we sell town hall speaking slots to the highest bidder?
I most specificially did not say which side of prop 87 I voted (you might be surprised) — I simply claimed the voice of the people was drowned out and we were not better served by it. The arguments on both sides were weak and poorly reasoned — the real debate never emerged in that noisy climate.
In either case, prop 87 was a vote put before the people, so in no way can you claim it would have been “taxation without representation,” unless you think Chevron is more of a person than the citizens of California themselves.
As to your other question, the Press is specifically carved out in the first amendment as having free speech protections. I assume we don’t disagree on that point.
‘You asked for examples of corporations spending big money on camapaign contributions.’
I most certainly did not. I asked for examples of profit seeking, large corporations advocating for candidates or issues. This business of several participants here conflating contributions with advertising tells me just how weak you know your argument is.
‘To me, its obvious that when rich and powerful interests dump $130M into something, distortions will occur….’
That appears to be an argument against the First Amendment itself, just as our host originally posited: ‘Still reeling from the revelation that four Supreme Court Justices have withdrawn their support for the First Amendment….’
Btw, does Steve Bing lack First Amendment rights because he’s wealthy?
Was Prop 87 not a campaign or issue? I’m sorry, I thought it was both. If you check my original wording, I explicitly wrote the words “a kind of precedent,” meaning not exactly the same but certainly in the same neighborhood. As in something we might look toward to hazard a guess about how things might play out in the future under similar conditions…
As for the business of “several participants here conflating contributions with advertising” telling you just how weak “you know your argument is.” Umm, first I never conflated them. I was pretty specific to separate the two when I wrote “campaign contributions are still prohibited.” But I do enjoy the rich irony of someone crying conflation and then turning around to conflate my argument somebody else’s. Of course it is also true that it really isn’t hard for me to see a corporation saying to a candidate, “gosh, the law prevents us from contributing as much to your campaign as we’d like, but how about if we run this ad campaign for you instead so you don’t have to…would that help you out Ms candidate? And uh, oh by the way, could you please vote with us on this issue?…” But you’ve already had that debate with others.
Is this your way of agreeing that we’ve gotten over the “taxation without representation hurdle?”
No, Steve Bing does not lack first amendment rights because he’s wealthy.
Sorry, Izzy, but I’m a long time veteran of sophistry wars, you said (and I quoted it for you):
‘You asked for examples of corporations spending big money on camapaign contributions.’
That’s conflating campaign contributions and independent advertising–itself a phrase mentioned, and defined as non-collaborative in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. I enthusiastically recommend (yet again) that my worthy adversaries actually read it.
Why do you think I said, ‘I most certainly did not’?
Yes Patrick, you are an excellent Sophist.
Advertising and campaign contributions are different as Kennedy defined them and the two will never cross and the parties will never collaborate in the real world. What is truly beautiful about the whole thing is corporations don’t even have to advertise at all to get their votes. All they have to do is let it slip that if a particular representative doesn’t vote a certain way, they might consider an ad campaign for the challenger. But that probably won’t happen in the real world either…
Steven Landsburg: My issue with the country club analogy is as follows..
I evaluate a country club, perhaps for its leisure value. Perhaps for its social networking value. But whatever I am evaluating for, I am unlikely to be able to replicate it in any meaningful way on my own. I may be okay with joining, and thus supporting the tennis courts I don’t use, for the opportunity to chat it up at the pool after a game of golf. My alternative is to do without the leisure, since I can’t afford to buy up a golf course and staff the pool with conversationalists.
On the other hand, I am not inclined to be favorable to corporate spending for political purposes. I can determine my political goals and direct my assets towards supporting them with relative ease. Of course, in order to do so I may be required to join a political lobby whose goals I don’t entirely agree with, but that is my choice to make. In such a situation, I do not know if my stock ownership is more valuable. Corporate expenses towards political ends are eliminated, of course, but corporate revenues may fall from less favorable legislation. If this is a significant loss, I can support political lobbies to support my stock ownership. I suspect that I would end up with about the same amount of wealth, either way (and likely everyone else, too), but have more choice about where the money goes.