Dr. Bozian,
First, do you have evidence of the alleged magnitude of "the
avalanche of money pouring into . . . political campaign[s]" in the wake of Citizens United? It seems the maxim that both Republicans and Democrats buy sneakers is, largely, holding true.
Second, I believe Adam Smith was concerned about government oligopoly, that is, industries (like the East Indies, as you mention) that have a monopoly by operation of the law (which is far more fun than having to occasionally dump to put competition out of business). To be sure, corrupt politicians can be bought and do create this kind of legislation. I would first like to challenge you to look closely at state and federal oligopolies (e.g., the health care industry, pre- PPACA and after), and then question whether eliminating Citizens United would, in fact, resolve this at all. Wouldn't tight restrictions on corporate and union independent expenditures (that is, money used to speak) serve to protect those oligopolies already in place? Would it not insulate corrupt politicians from being challenged when he or she gives special protection to a corporation (etc.)? Assuming independent expenditures are the equivalent of quid pro quo payments: In the case of oligopoly / corporate favoritism, does the solution lie in making government unable to grant special favors, or to cut off certain people and associations from seeking it?
In your proposed amendment, will we consider the value of speech that does not have a price tag? I believe Sarah Palin speaking on behalf of certain candidates around the country is having far greater effect than would McDonald's expanding its "I'm Lovin' It" campaign to include political endorsements. Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh not only get free airtime, but get paid, to reach a bigger audience than you and I every day: is all this speech making a travesty of our so-called democratic process, too?
Finally, how do we figure out what the Common Good is if certain segments of the population (such as smaller businesses that don't have the resources to form a PAC) can't make themselves heard with business funds?
Stephen Klein
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:59:55 -0400
From: "Richard C. Bozian" <rcbozian@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Floyd Abrams & Citzens United
To: <richardwinger@yahoo.com>, rick hasen
<election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Message-ID: <BAY138-W277388CFB6F93CA85BDC76CF6D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Though I erred in referring the freedom of speech phrase of the 1st
amendment to "the people", that does not change the faultiness of Floyd
Abrams' masterful exposition. It is because it is an example of the
"GOONEY BIRD SYNDROME". The Gooney bird is an albatross, and also the
nickname for a WWII transport plane. The syndrome describes a bird that
fails in its effort to fly forward because it is looking backward, and
heads for a collision. Maxie Maultsby , a friend and eminent
psychiatrist, has used this effectively in describing the irrationality
of addictive behavior.
The Citizens United decision, in my opinion, falls into the category of
the syndrome. It is based on an obviously valid concept, but totally
non-contextually. Freedom of speech is essential to a democratic
society, and minimally or not regulating to any extent, was valid in
the 18th century. However, with modern technology and practices, the
avalanche of money pouring into the political campaign makes a travesty
of a so-called democratic process. The magnitude of this since the
Citizens United decision is frightening.
With the Courts' current Orginalist majority, and their inability to
entertain what Goethe described as "provisional bases of certitude",
there is need for a constitutional amendment challenging money as free
speech and challenging corporate personhood. Public Financing of
Elections would eliminate much of the negatives, but it is doubtful that
the current Court majority would accept it.
Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism. warned of corruption of the system
by the entrepeneur accumulating capital and power. He called for
regulation and he was referring to such as the East Indies Corporation.
The Founding Fathers, with their European roots, knew of Adam Smith and
his warnings. It is clear from the writing of the majority of them, that
they considered the Common Good as the whetstone by which they would
abide. Provisional bases of certitude as a guiding principle, rather
than irrevocable certitude, is what is needed in our society.
Richard C. Bozian M.D. F.A.C.P.
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine