Ban Corporate PACs

Here is a posting from GovTrack about H.R. 5129 2019.  I fully support it.  Corporations have no business in the political arena. 

Ban Corporate PACs Act would do just that.

GovTrack.us

Follow

Dec 13 · 3 min read

Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11)

Should corporate money be removed from politics, or is it a necessary component of free speech?

Context

Some corporations set up or fund affiliated organizations called Political Action Committees, or PACs, to fund advertisements and other expenditures intended to influence political or policy outcomes.

For last year’s midterm elections, 1,732 corporate PACs spent $404.8 million. That’s more than for any of the other biggest PAC categories: labor, trade, membership, or cooperative. Democrats decry this corporate money as corrupting.

Others note that corporate PACs are already limited in their potential and scope, since their $5,000 donation cap to an individual candidate has remained unchanged since 1974. (So-called “super PACs,” created by the Supreme Court’s 2010 deregulatory decision Citizens United v. FEC, have no such monetary limits. Corporations can contribute to super PACs and this bill doesn’t appear to affect that.)

What the bill does

The Ban Corporate PACs Act would fulfill its title, by eliminating the ability of for-profit companies or corporations to fund an organization intended to influence policy. The bill would also eliminate any existing corporate PACs within one year.

It was introduced in the House on November 15 as bill number H.R. 5129, by Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that corporate money influences election and policy outcomes, when the only variable should be the will of the American voters.

“Corporate PACs flood this city with contributions, but it’s not the American people’s priorities they have in mind — it’s their own bottom lines,” Rep. Rose said in a press release. “That’s wrong and at the root of Washington corruption. That’s why we must send a clear, unmistakable message to the American people that we are here to fight for them and only them — not the special interests and corporate PACs.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the fear of corporate money in politics is overblown, and indeed that it’s a protected right as a subset of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

“It’s not corporate money or campaign donations that help keep incumbency rates high,” Ed Krayewski wrote for Reason. “Through earmarks and other legislative means, members of Congress can direct federal funds to their districts. The longer they’re in office, the better they get at bringing funds to their district, the more likely constituents are to vote to re-elect their representative whether they agree with his politics or not, simply because the legislator brings home the bacon.”

“Taxpayer money in politics seems a lot more corrosive than corporate money,” Krayewski continued. “Politicians have effectively unlimited access to use taxpayer money in order to enrich themselves and ingratiate themselves with their constituents.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted four House cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Administration Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate.

It is my belief I must clearly make a statement about my goal in staging protests and what lines I will not cross.

I will not harm anyone.

I will not destroy or deface property that isn't mine.

I will not carry a weapon at anytime during my protests.

I will not store weapons in car.

I will not aide anyone that is destroying property or injuring someone.

I will respect police and other authorities that are doing their duty.

I will not resist arrest or temporary restraint by authorities.

I will not conspire with anyone about breaking any law or injuring anyone.

I will follow all laws that I am aware of.

I will ask what crime I am committing when authorities try to intimidated me.

I will in direr moments, when I can, send a message for my family and friends that I am under restraint or arrest.

I will in direr moments, when I can, send a message to my family and friends that I am about to be or have been injured.

I will act alone with no one else's knowledge about my activities, unless I am in a group that has made their plans in advance.

I will not act with a spontaneously group that has gathered to protest or challenge evidence currently unfolding in front of me.

I will not interfere with police or other authoritative action in an illegal manner.

I will be as open as possible about my activities.

I will not implicate others that may have acted on their own unless they broke the law, then I will be open about their personal activities only.

I will not associate with anyone that is either planning to brake the law or spontaneously braking any law that I am aware of.

If arrested, I will ask for a lawyer and demand one until I have one. 

Social Media Outlets and Executive Orders

Where does it say in the Constitution that the President has the power to regulate media?   

Trump recently stated that he is considering an executive order that will regulate Google, Facebook and other online social media outlets because they hide issues and evidence about conservative tenets yet promote liberal viewpoints.   

Trump makes these claims about the media outlets without any evidence, but this blog will still examine the idea of an executive order to regulate media. 

Even if the social media outlets did downplay conservative issues while at the same time promoting liberal ones, as Trump suggests, they have every right to do as they please. 

So, let’s look at four issues, three of which are clauses in the 1st amendment and a third that is a logical application from many Supreme Court decisions: 

• - A clause in the 1st amendment says Congress has no power to regulate the press; 
• - Another clause states that there shall be no law preventing people from assembling; 
• - A third clause states that people shall have a right to petition the government to answer to their concerns; and, 
• - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principle. (1) 

Here is the 1st amendment in its entirety: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Here are details to the issues. 

The first clause that prevents the President from regulating the press is: 

• - “Congress shall make no law respecting…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” 

The legality of recent executive orders aside, it is still a legal instrument of the United States government.   

Since Executive orders are an instrument of the government, it has no power to order any action that is against Constitutional principles. 

An executive order that is issued by the President directing social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional. 

The second clause in the 1st amendment that prevents the President from issuing an executive order that restrict the social media outlets is: 

• - Congress shall make no law that prevents “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. 

Assembling is not always as we think of it, that is, people physically being in the same geographic place at the same time.   

Assembling can also be a formal network of people that belong to an organization, or, it can be an informal assembly of people that visit a website throughout their day. 

The website, in this case, a social media outlet, has the right to draw to it only the people who are the same mindset as the outlet or its owners. 

To attract the people the outlet wants, it will present information and entertainment that is deemed important and useful to these people. 

This is no different than a campaign rally held by a presidential candidate.  The candidate will only want his or her supporters at the event.   

With only having people that support the candidate at the event it avoids hecklers and others that may present opposing arguments to the statements made by the candidate. 

An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional. 

The third clause of the 1st amendment states that people have a right to ask the government to address their issues. 

• - “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” 

A social media outlet may from time to time, present facts, information and entertainment that they want the government and the culture to address. 

To confuse the user of the outlet about which issues they want the government to address means that less people will choose to join the outlet in asking the government to address issues. 

Let’s return to above about a presidential campaign rally. 

The candidate stands on the stage alone backed by people that support him.   

The people behind the candidate are chosen because of their support of the presidential candidate. 

The signs, the clothes and the actions they take are in support of the candidate and no others are allowed.  

It is so the candidate can say these are my ideas and these people support me. 

No different then a social media outlet doing the same thing. 

An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution. 

Finally, the Supreme Court rulings that decided that corporations are people. 

• - Numerous Supreme Court rulings (2) 

All the above presented arguments are meant to be directed at individuals.  After all, that is the focus of the Constitution. 

But social media outlets are corporations, not unlike many other media outlets such as the New York Times, the ABC network and CBS radio.   

The Supreme Court has ruled many times about extending Constitutional rights to corporations, all in favor of expanding their rights and not retracting them. (2) 

Since corporations are afforded the same rights as individuals, then all rights that are explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution apply to corporations. 

The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.  

In conclusion: 

- An executive order that is issued by a President that directs social media outlets to follow guidelines or issue rules that regulates the social media outlet’s content, is unconstitutional. 

- An executive order that violates the outlet’s ability to draw the type of people they want to their site is unconstitutional. 

- An executive order that forces the outlet to present information that isn’t consistent with their goals would be a violation of the Constitution. 

- The 1st amendment of the Constitution apply to corporations and an executive order that limits 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional.  

Any President issuing an executive order that regulates social media outlets is in violation of Constitutional principles and Supreme Court rulings. 

1. (1) The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “people” when applying Constitutional principles. While I don’t think that was a correct decision, I am going with it right now.  Both, because it is the “Law” but also because those on the right that might agree with Trump most likely support the Corporations are People concept. 

2. (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood