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.

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…

‘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’?

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.

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?

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.

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?

“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…