The Recent SCOTUS Ruling that's got the NYT in a frenzy

[Jason Rees]

When I first heard about it (the day after it happened), I was concerned. A few days later I remembered what the case itself was actually about. And a few days after that I was reminded by chance how the media skews things to create news.

This has to be the clearest treatment of that decision I've seen in a column since the decision broke:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/147447

[Bill Glasheen]

The thing that boggles my mind is hearing Obama - the constitutional law professor - blaming The Supreme Court for declaring a schitty law unconstitutional. So you want to shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message and deal with it? What-ever. Maybe you'll score points with the faithful. But it neither wins you votes nor does it make you appear to be the intellectual you're supposed to be.

The whole issue of denying corporations free speech while allowing freedom of the press (medias themselves being corporate entities) is patently absurd. Newspapers NEVER weigh in on political candidates or causes, right? Riiiggghhttt!

What this really has been about is squelching freedom of speech of corporate America so that they can be bullied by the media and those with lesser means. Never mind that said entities pay the bulk of the taxes which empower the rulers who govern them.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

I don't think corporations should be banned from making ads, though the general nature of campaigns these days does not sit well with me. To some extent, I feel that corporations making political ads is somewhat like letting the fox guard the hen house, but I'm not sure what a better solution is.

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm not sure what a better solution is.

I tend to agree with you, Justin. So when in doubt, it seems that falling back on The Constitution is a safe bet.

From what I've read on the matter, The Supremes just got tired of trying to make all those exceptions to free speech work. Simple was easier.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

It is a thorny issue. On the one hand, I'm a big fan of freedom of speech. Especially anything that gets into the area of disallowing people to talk about political entities seems pretty dangerous to me. On the other, we have established corporations as entities that we expect to go whole-hog in the pursuit of profits, with apparently no concern for any other ethical considerations as long as they're operating within the law. So the closer they come to having a hand in making the laws that are supposed to contain their worse tendencies, the more nervous that makes me.

[mhosea]

I'm not sure what a better solution is.

How about explicitly training kids to analyze and fact-check political ads in high school? The problem isn't free speech of any kind, rather that distortions have the desired effect on the intellectually unarmed.

[Jason Rees]

Would it be too terribly far-fetched to believe that the economy might have a chance of improving if business got to weigh in on how government restricted or assisted it?

Maybe the days of politicians greasing their campaigns by slurring 'evil corporate America' are finally numbered.

[Bill Glasheen]

Maybe the days of politicians greasing their campaigns by slurring 'evil corporate America' are finally numbered.

Vilfredo Pareto would disagree, sir. Since 20 percent of the population always owns 80 percent of the wealth, then class warfare works. It's the modus operendum of socialism.

Only the promise of opportunity and the joy of freedom can fight that. If the population can learn to appreciate the success of his/her fellow citizen, then OVERALL wealth can be achieved. And this works best when a competitive, capitalistic society has a strong moral fiber. If not religion, then certainly a celebration of The Golden Rule. Philanthropy is infinitely more pleasurable than forced wealth redistribution. And good corporate stewardship makes over-regulation unnecessary.

But I wax philosophic.

- Bill

[Jason Rees]

Only the promise of opportunity and the joy of freedom can fight that. If the population can learn to appreciate the success of his/her fellow citizen, then OVERALL wealth can be achieved. And this works best when a competitive, capitalistic society has a strong moral fiber. If not religion, then certainly a celebration of The Golden Rule. Philanthropy is infinitely more pleasurable than forced wealth redistribution. And good corporate stewardship makes over-regulation unnecessary.

No disagreement here, Bill.

[Valkenar]

And good corporate stewardship makes over-regulation unnecessary.

I'm more than happy to see wealth in the hands of some people. As you pointed out, Bill Gates is quite a philanthropist. Google for that matter, makes a lot of money, but they seem like a pretty upstanding company and so I respect them. But consider this, Google's motto is "don't be evil" and look what a big deal people make of that. To some extent sure, it's overblown. On the other hand, it really brings into focus the fact that simply not being evil is considered a bold step nowadays.

There's nothing inherently evil about corporations of any size. But we all know what effect power has, and big corporations have a lot of power. When they're choosing to participate in, as you put it, good corporate stewardship, then all is well. When they're gouging people, abusing the legal system , and generally making a mess of things, then that's a problem. And all too often I hear the excuse that "corporations exists to make money." and that since they promised the shareholders they would, that excuses any kind of underhanded, harmful activities they might pursue.

It's one thing to recognize that a competitive market system does great things for society and that having big winners is motivating and all that. It's another thing to glorify the pursuit of money to such an extent that it supercedes basic human decency. It's not just Pareto. I really don't think distaste for companies like Monsanto, Smithfield farms, etc, is just a matter of jealousy and resentment.

And furthermore, the animus against big corporations isn't that different from the animus against big government. Concentrated power is a dangerous thing, no matter who is wielding it.

[IJ]

It was interesting to read in "The White Man's Burden" some theories as to why the west is chock full of successful societies governed by the rule of law and why most African nations is corrupt and impoverished. The idea that struck me the most was that there was a successful middle class and lots of time for rules to develop. In nations where there is relatively too much success from the haves, including resource rich African nations, there's no incentive for sharing, and all goes to the controlling few (let's call them the 20%). The 20% is strongly incentivized to hold the 80% down. Depending on how some other factors work, either they succeed and you get a dictatorship more or less, and unfortunately all see their growth stunted but the 20% do very well relatively speaking, or there's enough instability that the oppressed minority revolt. This is what happened with Marxism. People were being abused, they knew it, they did something about it--they redistributed. There's a happy balance and resulting stability when the interests of the 20% and 80% aren't too separated. You want the grievances of the many heard and you want the rights of the welathy few more or less respected, but don't expect a flat fee or even flat tax rate to fund services. It doesn't respect the reality that without a little bit of favoritism to the poor 80%, they're abused by those in power who also frequently view the wealth separation as a pure matter of rewarded effort / taking care of their own (conversely the poor see it as pure inherited injustice/poverty and may not see the contributions of the deservedly wealthy as helping all).

In short: we don't want a revolt and land grab, but we don't want to revisit The Jungle either. Don't let the corporations get too much control. Might bite you in the a$$ someday.