Share this: http://action.change-congress.org/corppplvid
Lawrence Lessig discusses how the proper response to the recent Supreme Court “Citizens United v. FEC” ruling isn’t to reverse the decision or to regulate speech, but to address the fundamental influence of money in congress. The best way to fix congress is to support the Fair Elections Now act, which will put in place a system of citizen funded elections. CC licensed images from Flickr: Wall Street: f-l-e-x, Capitol: cowtools.
Duration : 0:7:55
[youtube MUHWfIabz0Q]
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Corporations …
Corporations shouldn’t exist.
They cannot be effectively regulated, they now have rights greater than ours, they get taxed at a rate lower than ours, and if they get big enough and fail, they get bailed out because the country has become too dependent on them.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Full quotation from …
Full quotation from georgetown link: “Making campaign contributions is a relatively rare but significant form of participation, and those who give are different from other Americans. Our preliminary results from a survey of 1996 contributors shows that 80% of those who gave $200 or more are male; 95% are white; less than 1% are African-American; 55% have training beyond a college degree, and more than a quarter have incomes of over $250,000.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@sklanger
Cont. …
@sklanger
Cont.
Below the top two deciles, every other income decile provides a
percentage of contributions to the two major parties that is smaller than their share of
the population.
Also, even if we accept your position it still doesn’t discount the influence PACs have as they are currently accounting for close to 40% of the money the average congressional candidate is taking in.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@sklanger
Both …
@sklanger
Both parties overwhelmingly depend upon the richest decile of
population for their funding, even though the zip codes in this decile only account for 18
percent of the nations voting age population. In 2004, the Democrats garnered 60
percent of their contributions from the top decile of median income alone Republicans were not far behind, collecting 49 percent of their contributions from these
same locations.
-From bsos(dot)umd(dot)edu/gvpt/apworkshop/contributions(dot)pdf
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@sklanger
“And …
@sklanger
“And despite much attention to the
growing role of small donors in these elections, a full two-thirds of the cash collected from individuals
by presidential candidates came from donors of more than $200.
Who are these donors, and where do they come from? In this study, we show that the great
majority of these contributions—some 90%—come from wealthy, white neighborhoods.”
-From colorofmoney(dot)org/report/2004_cofm_pres_complete(dot)pdf
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@sklanger
r …
@sklanger
r have incomes of over $250,000. Our survey of the most active contributors is still in the field, but preliminary results suggest that this group is even more unrepresentative of the general public.”
-From georgetown(dot)edu/faculty/wilcoxc//joycebktoc(dot)htm
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Why is it unlikely? …
Why is it unlikely? $200 would qualify as a “large” donation according to your rubric. That’s not beyond the reach of most middle class individuals, or even some of the politically-zealous poor. “Large” donations don’t necessarily come from the wealthy.
Nor, for that matter, do “small” donations necessarily come from the poor. You’re making several assumptions and leaps of logic that aren’t well-founded.
All of which have nothing to do with Citizens United in any case.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Cont.
“In terms …
Cont.
“In terms of volume — the actual number of contributions given — this category (small indvidual contributions) is far and away the biggest. Many more checks or online donations for $50 or $100 arrive at campaign headquarters than contributions of $1,000. But in terms of the money they add up to, small donors are a small slice of the overall funding pie — generally under 15 percent for most members of Congress”
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
For the 2010 …
For the 2010 election cycle the average congressional candidiate is receiving about 38%of their contributions from PACs. Regarding your first point I was originally going to say that, but I ran out of room. It’s highly unlikely those who are poor are giving large donations. Large donations and PACs make up a large chunk of the total moner congressional candidates bring in: opensecrets(dot)org/bigpicture/wherefrom(dot)php?cycle=2008#
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
So it’s irrelevant …
So it’s irrelevant to the case we were discussing? You’re allowed to change the subject, of course.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
All legislation is …
All legislation is presumptively “designed to avoid a constitutional challenge.” It doesn’t mean they will.
As for candidates raising “more money” from “big donors” and “less money” from “small donors” — that’s a truly astonishing insight. Who knew big donors gave “more” money and small donors gave “less”?
It’s tautological. It certainly doesn’t follow that small donors are poor and big donors are wealthy. Rich people can give small amounts below $200, and vice versa.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
I never claimed it …
I never claimed it was, but I know many indviduals agree with me. I’m talking about the need for publicly-financed elections. It was needed before Citizens United and it’s still needed.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
But Citizens United …
But Citizens United wasn’t about donors or donations, so what you “believe” is irrelevant to the ruling.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
According to the …
According to the nonpartisan group Common Cause, in every election this decade, candidates for Congress have raised more money from big donors and political committees and less money from small donors giving $200 or less. The 2008 election was the most lopsided yet: wealthy interests put in $8 for every $1 from small donors.
That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. I’d also like to point that the Fair Elections Now Act was specifically designed to avoid a consitutional challenge
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
But over the last …
But over the last 30 years a lot of our progress has begun to unravel. I believe much of it is due to the disproportional influence corporate and other special interest donors have.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Nor do corporations …
Nor do corporations say that all its stakeholders believe such and such (although they may). Indeed, elected representatives claim to be representing the will of their constituents all the time. So they do in fact say such things, contrary to what you assert.
So again, why is delegative authority suddenly inappropriate in the corporate context when it has all along been a feature of representative democracy?
You are incoherent.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
The sky didn’t fall …
The sky didn’t fall in the 200 years prior to McCain-Feingold, so it’s worked pretty well in practice. Citizens United didn’t do anything except return to the First Amendment status quo.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Yes, but when a …
Yes, but when a representative does it no one says that the district/city he is representing necessarily believes such and such. They say that representative believes such and such. I guess it’s just semantics because if I say it’s really the CEO’s voice you will probably tell me his voice is the coporation’s if the charter deems it so. I hope we can get some safeguards though like the shareholder approval idea and the idea of requiring the identification of the groups funding such speech.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
I’m not because I …
I’m not because I don’t think the current bunch in Congress has the guts to pass it. Again, if even that is deemed unconstitutional then I’d hope our fellow citizens would be willing to fight for a consitutional amendment. The old system didn’t work and I don’t believe the system created in the wake of Citizens United will work either.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
The Fair Elections …
The Fair Elections Now Act could face constitutional hurdles of its own, depending on its final form. Don’t bet your house on it.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
The same way that a …
The same way that a congressman could theoretically vote for legislation that the majority of his constituents are against? Why is delegative authority suddenly inappropriate in the corporate context when it has all along been a feature of representative democracy?
What you “believe” is in any case irrelevant: the ruling wasn’t about “financing a candidate.” It was about funding independent expenditures on political speech, not monetary contributions to a candidate.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
If for example, a …
If for example, a certain corporation delegates the responsibility to the CEO then couldn’t he theoretically finance a candidate the majority of his employees and the shareholders are against? In that case, it’s just the voice of the corporation’s CEO not the whole corporation. I believe shareholder approval should be required before any funds are taken out of a corporation’s general treasury to finance a candidate or initiative.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
The spokesman is …
The spokesman is told what to say. Ultimately I would like a consitutional amendment, but in the mean time the Fair Elections Now Act would be a good starting point. Once the public financing option is available those who choose the route of private financing by special interests would likely face immense criticism from voters.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
The spokesman …
The spokesman speaks for the corporation, obviously.
Corporations have diverse internal charters that delegate the decision to speak on behalf of the stakeholders to whomever it likes — whether its board of directors, CEO, employees, or executives.
Good luck on that constitutional amendment.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Well, who speaks …
Well, who speaks for the corporation? The shareholders? The employees? The board of directors? The CEO? PACs already gave these people the right to pool together with their corporate colleagues. In any case, I favor publicly-financed elections. If it takes a constitutional amendment then so be it, although the Fair Elections Now Act now under consideration in Congress would set up an optional system of public financing.