They're Back....
| Wed Oct. 21, 2009 10:10 PM PDT
And now, in news that should surprise precisely no one:
Some of the biggest Wall Street firms are back in the political-spending game after hunkering down while they were getting government bailout funds.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., Morgan Stanley and other large financial-services firms stepped up their political donations in September to members of Congress, for many the first time this year they have joined the fray.
....The renewed assault on Washington comes as the Capitol Hill debate begins on a broad overhaul of financial-services regulations that is strongly backed by President Barack Obama and opposed by large swaths of the finance industry. The spending could also heighten tensions with Mr. Obama, who as recently as Tuesday called on Wall Street to stop lobbying against the proposed regulations.
The battle to pass financial regulatory reform is going to be like trench warfare: a grinding, bloody struggle that's won a single subparagraph at a time against a relentless barrage of money, lawyers, and lunches at Tosca. And that's the optimistic view. Strap on your flak jackets, folks.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Trench warefare
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 1:00 AM PDT.
The battle to pass financial regulatory reform is going to be like trench warfare.
Pretty apt metaphor, maybe not quite gruesome enough. If the the smoke signals out of the Supreme Court aren't deceiving, one of the two sides in this fight, and it's not yours, may be about to establish absolute superiority in the air(waves).
Though heavily outnumbered on the ground, that side will have the material resources to immediately counterattack any strategically significant hill your side has taken under heavy losses. And these counterattacks will succeed more often than not.
In the end, the political landscape may resemble what was left after the Battle of the Somme.
Hooray for democracy
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:51 AM PDT.
"The spending could also heighten tensions with Mr. Obama, who as recently as Tuesday called on Wall Street to stop lobbying against the proposed regulations."
Have we actually reached the point where the President of the United States is asking those who will be adversely impacted by regulations to not participate in the democratic process-- actually talking to congresspersons and giving an opinion is, apparently, an outrage. Talk about Chicago-style politics! Even if you want to make a TARP argument, that doesn't apply to Goldman Sachs any more.
Darryl - we are actually at
Submitted by Tom S (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 5:00 AM PDT.
Darryl - we are actually at the point where the banks are using our money and are unwilling to accept any restrictions. We have been at the point where they hold the economy hostage with threats of destruction if they do not get what they want. Asking them not to use our money to lobby against regulation of themselves is not absurd or devious
Tom, G.S. has repaid the
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 5:49 AM PDT.
Tom, G.S. has repaid the Tarp loans, and many of the banks effectively had money forced on them by the Treasury (out of concern that there would be a panic if only some banks accepted money). So, even if we accept the premise that TARP money should prevent somebody from voicing an opinion, that doesn't track. More broadly, that logic inevitably leads to virtually nobody being willing to participate in democracy. If you cashed your $300 stimulus check last year, can you still write a letter to the congressman? If you accepted the child tax credit, can you still call your senator's office? If you received mortgage assistance from the federal government post-crisis, can you register to vote? Please let me know.
Hyperbole. As near as I
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 6:03 AM PDT.
Hyperbole.
As near as I can tell this is just political hardball. Until the government has voting control or a signed contract, they can't keep GS from donating political funds or donating to the KKK for that matter.
The President (or anybody else for that matter) can however shine a spot light on political lobbying by a largely discredited industry and a spotlight on the votes of their favorite congressmen. Public shame and reelection considerations are fare game.
"the democratic process--
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:19 PM PDT.
"the democratic process-- actually talking to congresspersons and giving an opinion"
Interesting equation. Corporations buying influence is a part of the democratic process.
Kudos to Darryl!
Submitted by Detroit Dan on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 6:04 AM PDT.
Great analogy between average taxpayers writing letters to Congress and Goldman Sachs trying to influence Congress. Clearly the same principles are at work...
Don't be so Harsh
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 11:50 AM PDT.
Don't be so harsh on Darryl - he's probably just a little confused. While Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs were citizens of the Republic, and hence entitled to their Constitutional rights, he probably doesn't realize that "Goldman-Sachs" is now commonly used to refer to a corporation, that corporations are not actual human beings, and as such have no Constitutional rights. It's an easy mistake to make.
If you're comfortable with
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 12:17 PM PDT.
If you're comfortable with the notion that artificial entities have no constitutional rights, then I'm sure you have no objection to a law that would forbid Mother Jones from commenting on any political issues and prevent the NY Times from publishing.
Maybe you should read the
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 2:58 PM PDT.
Maybe you should read the Constitution. The 1st amendment is a broad prohibition on the power of government, not just a guarantee of an individual's rights. In fact Mother Jones and the NYT's have no rights, but the government can't censor them because of the broad prohibition of its power.
By contrast you think that G-S and other such "artificial persons" have a broad general right to "participate in the democratic process". If so, then when does G-S get the right to vote, and why isn't it included in the census's apportionment of the house? (even slaves counted as 3/5 of a person). Good heavens, the artificial person of G-S is being deprived of the most basic rights to "participate in the democratic process"!
Worse, since the article was about bribes (oops, I mean political contributions) I must infer that you subscribe to the bizarre doctrine that money = speech. If that's true, then doesn't the 1st amendment guarantee my right to deliver a briefcase filled with large unmarked bills to my favorite politician, while incidentally discussing some political issue that's of concern to me?
Only natural persons have a
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:11 PM PDT.
Only natural persons have a vote, but corporations have limited constitutional rights. Perhaps you've heard of the Pentagon Papers case?
"In fact Mother Jones and the NYT's have no rights, but the government can't censor them because of the broad prohibition of its power."
This is completely, utterly wrong. See, among other things, New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) and First National Bank of Boston v. X Bellotti (435 US 765), both of which recognized a corporate right to free speech. You are, of course, free to argue that the Constitution should be interpreted to grant fewer liberties if you wish, but you are dead wrong on the state of law as it is now.
You forgot Sullivan v.
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 5:17 PM PDT.
You forgot Sullivan v. NYT!
Take a look at the cases you cited willy nilly - they don't talk about the NYT (or other artificial person) having rights, they talk about the government lacking the power to censor.
More pertinently, since the article was about bribes (oops, there I go again using plain English) rather than G-S or any of its employees being censored, what's your opinion of my 1st amendment right to deliver a briefcase full of large unmarked bills to my favorite politician?
UM, no. All of those
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 7:13 PM PDT.
UM, no. All of those opinions are explicitly held on corporate first amendment rights. Here's an entire book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-First-Amendment-Rights-SEC/dp/0899304508
Here's an entire blog on it: http://www.uschamber.com/nclc/caselist/issues/freespeech.htm
You are, in sum, flat wrong.
Further, you DO have a right to deliver as many unmarked bills as you like to your elected representatives. You can even donate money to people who agree with your politics, in the hopes they'll stay in office. Certain quid pro quos are forbidden, but the mere giving of money is not.
Ooh, a book and a blog. Then
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 7:34 PM PDT.
Ooh, a book and a blog. Then you must be right! While we're at it the Flat Earth Society has a blog too, so they must be right.
Not that either of the links you provided refutes my distinction, so why don't you look at the text of the SCOTUS opinions you so learnedly provided and cite the text where it refers to an artificial person's rights, as opposed to a limit on the power of government.
Darryl: "you DO have a right to deliver as many unmarked bills as you like to your elected representatives"
Oh good, then my senator won't be embarrassed by those pictures of me doing just that, and there won't be any question of ethics violations.
Darryl: "You can even donate money to people who agree with your politics"
Subject to certain contribution limits, so I guess I only have a limited right to "free speech".
Darryl: "Certain quid pro quos are forbidden"
So that's the rub. Well, I'm sure those bright folks at G-S aren't stupid enough to make any explicit quid pro quo demands like "keep giving us the taxpayer's money or these contributions dry up". OTOH I'm equally sure that politicians aren't dumb enough not to figure that out for themselves.
"Not that either of the
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 8:28 PM PDT.
"Not that either of the links you provided refutes my distinction, so why don't you look at the text of the SCOTUS opinions you so learnedly provided and cite the text where it refers to an artificial person's rights, as opposed to a limit on the power of government."
Very well: " The question in this case, simply put, is whether the corporate identity of the speaker deprives this proposed speech of what otherwise would be its clear entitlement to protection. We turn now to that question. . . Freedom of speech and the other freedoms encompassed by the First Amendment always have been viewed as fundamental components of the liberty safeguarded by the Due Process Clause and the Court has not identified a separate source for the right when it has been asserted by corporations. They illustrate that the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw. A commercial advertisement is constitutionally protected not so much because it pertains to the seller's business as because it furthers the societal interest in the "free flow of commercial information. We thus find no support in the First or Fourteenth Amendment, or in the decisions of this Court, for the proposition that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation that cannot prove, to the satisfaction of a court, a material effect on its business or property." 435 U.S. 765, majority opinion of the Supreme Court in FIRST NAT'L BANK OF BOSTON V. BELLOTTI. Full text here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/765/
Thanks for the link. From
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Fri Oct. 23, 2009 9:52 AM PDT.
Thanks for the link. From the decision:
"The Constitution often protects interests broader than those of the party seeking their vindication. The First Amendment, in particular, serves significant societal interests. The proper question therefore is not whether corporations 'have' First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons. Instead, the question must be whether § 8 abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect. We hold that it does."
In other words SCOTUS explicitly said that it's not necessary to consider corporations as having 1st amendment rights.
Now, want to talk about the money?
Um, no. The court
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Fri Oct. 23, 2009 10:56 AM PDT.
Um, no. The court explicitly says corporations have first amendment rights. The entire decision is premised on that. You're quoting another part of the case-- the analysis to be used to determine how broad that right is-- to try and get around what the court explicitly held. I don't know what your problem is. And, again, you do have a right to gift as much money as you want to anybody you like. I hope to god you're not a lawyer. Even if you were right, which you're not, it would be a distinction without a difference: A restriction on government power that prevents it from restricting corporate speech is the same as a corporation having free speech rights. That's why the government couldn't forbid the NY Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Darryl: "You're quoting
Submitted by alex (not verified) on Fri Oct. 23, 2009 1:24 PM PDT.
Darryl: "You're quoting another part of the case"
I quoted from the same section of the decision (III) that you did.
Darryl: "Even if you were right ... it would be a distinction without a difference"
If you think it's a distinction without a difference, then why have you been bothering to argue it?
By contrast I actually have a point: it's bizarre and potentially dangerous to speak of corporations as having rights in the same sense as people. Hence the distinction is important. SCOTUS certainly thought it was an important enough distinction that they stated, in the part that I quoted, and in direct contradiction of your assertion that "the entire decision is premised on that", that the decision did not depend on the notion of corporations as having rights.
Darryl: "That's why the government couldn't forbid the NY Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers."
That case is even clearer about my point. Unlike Bellotti where they write about corporate rights and then say that that bizarre notion isn't key to the case, the NYT v. US decision doesn't digress into weird notions of the "rights" of artificial persons, and speaks entirely about what the 1st amendment actually says in terms of limiting the power of the government. Since the 1st amendment doesn't mention the source of speech, it doesn't matter whether the speech comes from "natural persons", "artificial persons", hobbits or elves.
Darryl: "you do have a right to gift as much money as you want to anybody you like"
A right? Where does that right appear in the Constitution?
If you mean that it's legal, I'm well aware that many forms of bribery are legal. That's what I was complaining about!
That's a false analogy.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 2:58 PM PDT.
That's a false analogy. "Mother Jones" and the "NY Times" is not commenting on anything. People, reporters are. They speak with the help of the corporation. But it is not a corporation that speaks.
A corporation speaks with Money. So therefore more money equals more speech which is not what this country is about. Also giving corporations power in our government opens the door for foreign entities to own corporations that influence our government. How scary is it that some Chinese backed corporation could be picking our politicians for us...
Um, the NY Times is a
Submitted by Darryl (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:06 PM PDT.
Um, the NY Times is a corporation. So is Mother Jones. If the government can censor G.S., it can censor them. Corporations DO have limited constitutional rights. You can argue they shouldn't, but then you would effectively be gutting the first amendment freedom of the press. Maybe a reporter could say whatever he or she wanted, but the government could then prevent anything from being in the newspaper it didn't like.
Banking
Submitted by Janet (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 8:03 AM PDT.
Yesterday we received a letter from Citibank. They are raising their variable APR rate for purchases to 29.99%. I guess they need to pay their lobbyists.
Just plain ol' corruption
Submitted by Luther on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 8:16 AM PDT.
Just plain ol' corruption when moneyed lobbyists in effect call the shots rather than merely voicing their positions.
The only thing that will bring about indignation today it seems is political incorrectness. Oh, Dems complain a little about torture and Bush's assaults on freedom, and a pathetic handful of honest, patriotic Republicans complain about the millions of illegal aliens enticed into the country, but on the whole both parties are corrupt, one hand washes the other, and the sheeple endure.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
