Corporations Can't Fool California?

When I made a video earlier this year supporting the Supreme Court's holding in the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission case that "the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," I got a lot of negative reaction some of which went as far as to claim that protecting "corporate free speech" would lead to the end of democracy, but the failure of two corporate backed measures in California's June 2010 primaries despite the massive spending advantage those measures had for advertising is strong evidence those concerns about the recent Supreme Court decision were somewhat overblown as I show in this video.

The news clip of consumer watchdog Harvey Rosenfield I use in this video comes from the May 17, 2010, KABC-TV news story available online at http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics/local_elections&i...

The images I use of my previous video titled "Is It Just Corporate Free Speech" come from the YouTube player page at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_e2L9_8t8Q

The image I use of the election results in California's June 8, 2010, primary comes from the California Secretary of State's webpage at http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm

The image I use of Dan Morain's June 10, 2010, Sacramento Bee editorial titled "Voters get wise to sly corporate power plays" comes from the webpage at http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/10/2811561/dan-morain-voters-get-wise-to.html

And, finally, the images I use of the text of Proposition 16, the so-called "Taxpayers Right to Vote Act," and Proposition 17, the so-called "Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act," comes from the California Secretary of State's webpage at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/text-proposed-laws.pdf

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• campaign
• finance
• corporate
• free
• speech
• personhood
• citizens
• united
• california
• proposition
• 16
• 17
• power
• company
• pG&E
• insurance
• mercury
• spending
• advertising
• elections
• initiatives
• consumer
• protection
• harvey
• rosenfield
• dan
• morain
• sacramento
• bee
• supreme
• corp
• liberal
• viewer
• liberalviewer

[sonicboomz]

Boiling the point down to win/loss is too simplistic. We need to know how the money influenced the voting totals. If both sides of Prop 16 had spent an equal $90K on their campaigns, would there have been anywhere near 2.4 million 'yes' votes? Probably not. It's likely that many of them were influenced by corporate money. So, If voters can nearly be convinced to approve a long shot like Prop 16, it should be a cakewalk to tip the scales in contests that are more competitive by nature.

[midgety1]

The diamond backs won the world series and they dont have nearly the budget that the yanks do.. so money doesnt matter right? Wrong .. and thats why the damn yanks kick ass and have won like 30 word series.

Just because the money doesn't *guarantee* a win doesn't mean that it doesn't still have a an overwhelming effect.

[daedamot]

I initially agreed with you, but now I believe CU is the death knell of our democracy.

You point out CA, but consider all the radical anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-union, and anti-immigrant laws that have been passing in OTHER states, pushed by new politicians helped by PACs. We have institutionalized corruption - private prisons donate to PACs to advocate tougher laws to create more prisoners. Obama and Romney are breaking all fundraising records.

Are you ready to change your mind?

[LancePoint9]

The issue is not just on specific policies but also in the election of individuals. How do you explain the politicians who change their views and the correlating influx of money from private interests? Newt (the historian) has been a great example of this as he has changed his politics after around the same time as receiving money from big oil, pharmacy, and Freddie Mack.

[masluxx]

II think he cherry picked a few uncommon examples to prove a rule and businesses would not keep doing it if it did not work

[hopes26]

I have to respectfully disagree with you again. Yes, outspending opponents doesn't secure an election. However, It increases the probability of winning by a tremendous amount

[CarMoves]

@midgety1 -- you're mixing apples and oranges. The outcomes of the games isn't decided by the FANS (voters). Winning games is based on talent. The teams spend MONEY to secure that TALENT.

[Iamnemo1994]

@LiberalViewer, how do you counter arguments that the precedent created by this ruling (namely, that corporations have the rights of individuals) is a harmful precedent? Keep presenting your opinions; while I don't agree with all of them, they are well-reasoned, and beneficial in the modern political culture

[sklanger]

@lionssmile Because the company is also "everyone": individuals who wish to speak in association with others. The company's right to speak IS the associational right to speak of its constituent individuals. Under your view, the government can ban the newspaper from publishing the piece--after all, the author is the one who retains the right in question and can publish it himself. Yet you're still violating his right to speak in association with others (such as an editorially sympathetic paper).

[lionssmile]

@sklanger I must have missed your comment. If an author is paid by a newspaper and in return the paper publishes that paper, it is still the individual author that has free speech and not the paper because the paper isn't a person. The NAACP shouldn't have free speech rights because the NAACP can't talk, because it isn't a person. If the NAACP doesn't have free speech everyone in that group still does. Why should everyone in a company have free speech and the company?