President Obama Seeks Executive Order to Undermine Citizens United Case

[ParticleGrl]

No they didn't. They tried to do it to corporations while exempting unions, because unions usually give money to Democrats

This simply is not true. The Disclose Act as originally written did not include exemptions. By the time it passed the house, it did have exemptions, but not for unions. Instead the exemptions were 501c4 organizations with lots of members. These are things like the NRA, the Humane Society, the AARP, etc. This exemption was put in place to appease the NRA, a special interest more associated with republicans than democrats.

Trade unions are generally 501c5 organizations, and were not excluded under the law that passed the house.

It is the wrong way to go about it if it will only apply to one form of entity (corporations) that get government money.

Some information is always better than none. Asking for government contractors to disclose this information doesn't obviously hurt either party- contractors overwhelmingly give to the appropriations committees that decide on the contracts, which are made up fo democrats and republicans.

Keep in mind that ITS NOT ALL CORPORATIONS. Its ONLY government contractors.

I don't know if entities that give money but get nothing in return from the government should have to be public.

They already are if they give directly to a candidate. The only issue is funneling money through intermediaries to hide the source of funds.

 

[CAC1001]

This simply is not true. The Disclose Act as originally written did not include exemptions. By the time it passed the house, it did have exemptions, but not for unions. Instead the exemptions were 501c4 organizations with lots of members. These are things like the NRA, the Humane Society, the AARP, etc. This exemption was put in place to appease the NRA, a special interest more associated with republicans than democrats.

Trade unions are generally 501c5 organizations, and were not excluded under the law that passed the house.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75244772070710374.html?KEYWORDS=disclose+act" it did exempt unions. Maybe this is incorrect though (?).

Some information is always better than none. Asking for government contractors to disclose this information doesn't obviously hurt either party- contractors overwhelmingly give to the appropriations committees that decide on the contracts, which are made up fo democrats and republicans.

It could hurt a party if one of the appropriations committees for the contracts for a certain entity is controlled by the party that may be hostile to that entity.

Keep in mind that ITS NOT ALL CORPORATIONS. Its ONLY government contractors.

Only corporate government contractors apparently though. It should apply to all that get government money.

 

[CAC1001]

I was just watching "Special Report" on Fox News and they were discussing this very issue on the panel. Jonah Goldberg said that this executive order would require corporations that are contractors to police the giving of their employees. So if that is true, it wouldn't just be the money that the corporate management gives in the interest of increasing value for the shareholders, but also the money donated by employees of the corporation.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Jonah Goldberg said that this executive order would require corporations that are contractors to police the giving of their employees. So if that is true, it wouldn't just be the money that the corporate management gives in the interest of increasing value for the shareholders, but also the money donated by employees of the corporation.

Obama hasn't actually issued an executive order, so we don't actually know, we can only speculate. Under the definitions of disclosure in the 'Disclose' act, corporations would not have to police their employee's contributions.

The wording on the executive order would have to be particularly strange for this policing to be the case.

Its too bad Fox News (or any other news agencies) don't take the time to press their pundits for references. I'd be very curious as to why Jonah thinks this, and where he is getting his information.

According to this, it did exempt unions. Maybe this is incorrect though (?).

The $50,000 federal contract cap in the law seems to apply to all types of non-profits, not just corporations. The thing about entities with 20% or more foreign ownership is harder for me to parse, the language of the bill is hard to follow here, and I'm not competent to weigh in.

The issue (which is a bit different then exempted unions) that I think the article is raising in regards to unions is that the janitors union might negotiate a contract with the federal government that gives 10,000 employees a $5 raise (to make a silly example), but this won't be considered a $50,000 federal contract. So the janitors union could still make direct expenditures. Its essentially a difficulty in accounting- is the janitors union getting $50,000, or are 10,000 janitors getting $5 each. I think the proper way to think of this is to look at the janitors union as a type of PAC, which is what the act wanted to do. The authors of the wall street journal piece would no doubt disagree. I think we would find common ground in the fact that the law does not contain specific exemptions for unions.

Now, honestly, I don't think the disclose act is perfect. I don't think any person, non-profit or corporation should be barred from contributing- but I think that all donations should be made out in the open. Thats part of the reason the signing statement is better in some ways- it makes no bans, simply requires disclosure.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is nonsense. ...

Ah, I see the light. How stupid of me to think that any corporation with power could ever consider using its power over other corporations to influence their political activities.

There is nothing wrong with this- if people want to vote on the issue of who is taking money, its their right. Your argument is that its better to hide this information from people because they might vote on it?

No, my argument is that it's foolish to pretend that there aren't people who will exploit a lack of privacy for nefarious purposes.

Both of these points seem to be "if people have this information, they might act on it."

I suppose -- except that I am not taking an extremely narrow and idealistic view of what constitutes an "act".

 

[ParticleGrl]

How stupid of me to think that any corporation with power could ever consider using its power over other corporations to influence their political activities.

Its more efficient to simply give money to the candidate directly than try to force a supplier to give. Trying to force a supplier to donate will only lead to the corporation paying more money for supplies. Its cheaper and easier to simply give the money directly to the candidate.

You are implicitly assuming that corporations will try to influence elections beyond what is immediately profitable to them, (i.e. they may be willing to sacrifice profit to swing an election, even if it won't profit them). Corporations generally can't operate this way- shareholders would revolt.

Further, you are implicitly assuming a monopsony (one buyer with tremendous purchasing power). If that's the case, then there is no need to pay for political favors, because they are the only game in town, and will get the contract.

No, my argument is that it's foolish to pretend that there aren't people who will exploit a lack of privacy for nefarious purposes.

Given that's its much easier to exploit information asymmetry, doesn't this imply that there are as many, if not more people taking advantage of the lack of transparency for nefarious purposes now? i.e. the net 'nefariousness' will decrease in passing such a decree?

Do corporations have a right to privacy? (no). Also, as any study of markets will tell you, its lack-of-information that leads to market failures. What we are looking at here is a market (though one skewed by monopsony, the government is the only buyer). Symmetric information (everyone knows what everyone else knows) makes these markets work better.

I know of no economic model (even one in public choice theory) where more information leads to worse market outcomes (where worse is defined by pareto efficiency).

 

[CAC1001]

Its more efficient to simply give money to the candidate directly than try to force a supplier to give. Trying to force a supplier to donate will only lead to the corporation paying more money for supplies. Its cheaper and easier to simply give the money directly to the candidate.

You are implicitly assuming that corporations will try to influence elections beyond what is immediately profitable to them, (i.e. they may be willing to sacrifice profit to swing an election, even if it won't profit them). Corporations generally can't operate this way- shareholders would revolt.

What if it is a privately-held corporation?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Privately held corporations still have shareholders, just fewer of them. Its still much more efficient to give directly to the candidate in question (or PAC, or whatever)

 

[CAC1001]

Privately held corporations still have shareholders, just fewer of them. Its still much more efficient to give directly to the candidate in question (or PAC, or whatever)

It depends on the private corporation though. Koch Industries is a privately-held company with revenues of over $100 billion a year, and that company is owned by two people. Charles Koch, the CEO and half-owner, has also stated in interviews that he never would have been able to build the company to that level over the years if they had been a public company for thereasons you stated (shareholders wanting short-term gain). I would think such a company, left-leaning or right-leaning, could try to influence elections beyond what is immediately profitable to them.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do corporations have a right to privacy? (no).

You seem to be suggesting the fact^* a person doesn't have a particular right means it's a good thing that they don't have that right...

Anyways, at least you're addressing some of the relevant concerns rather than ignoring them, even though I think you're attacking strawmen rather than trying to give them fair consideration. I don't expect to get a much better result, so I'm content with our discussion.