Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down campaign finance rules it said violated the free speech of corporations. President Obama warned the decision would "open the floodgates for special interests" in Washington. Others hailed it a repudiation of flawed, Constitutionally-dubious regulations. We examine possible legislative responses, and the role of money in American politics.
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2010-02-03/campaign-finance-what-next
Campaign Finance- What Next?
Listen Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. in Economy, Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Technology
CD or 
TRANSCRIPT of this program.
Guests
Chris Van Hollen
U.S. House of Representatives (D-Maryland, 8th District); Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Ellen Miller
Co-founder and Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation; founder, Center for Responsive Politics; and Founder, Public Campaign
Roger Pilon
Vice President for Legal Affairs and Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the CATO Institute
Related links
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD, 8th District) explains what Congressional critics of last month's Supreme Court campaign finance decision are looking to accomplish in a legislative response to the ruling. Requiring CEOs to identify themselves in political ads their companies have sponsored and preventing large corporations from using taxpayers' dollars for campaign contributions are two of the main measures Van Hollen says would temper the ruling.
Kojo says he is flattered by the Washington CityPaper's exhortation for him to throw his hat into the 2010 mayoral race (January 20, 2010). But he's not interested. Still, the following attack ad surfaced today during our discussion of campaign finance.
Search
Find Past Shows
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Shows
- Tragedies and the DC Emergency Medical Services March 17, 2010
- Rainy Weather and River HealthMarch 15, 2010
- Protection for Renters?March 18, 2010
- The Politics HourMarch 12, 2010
- Domestic Violence and Protective Orders in MarylandMarch 11, 2010
Related NPR Stories
- House Democrats Trumpet Health Bill Cost EstimateMarch 18, 2010
- Tell Me MoreFacing Tough Times, Detroit To Close 44 SchoolsMarch 18, 2010
- Tell Me MoreInternet Access May Get Faster, BroaderMarch 18, 2010
- Morning EditionGlobal Reality Challenges IMF's Free Market GospelMarch 18, 2010
- Morning EditionBoomerang Kids Drive Rise Of Extended Family LivingMarch 18, 2010
Comments
Your guest, Roger Pilon, argues that the democrats have misunderstood corporate law when he conflates the sensible limitaions of corporate rights with the tax benefits of corporate charity.
The fact is that the court errored. Corporations do not and cannot speak for all of its shareholders. To argue that is to assume that all shareholders hold the same opinion. It's inevitable that shareholders would disagree on the issues addressed by any corporation, regardless of their shared financial interests as owners. This notion of the collected exercise of individual rights is flawed.
In their most basic feduciary responsiblility corporations regularly trample the rights of shareholders. A cursory review of executive compensation in relationsip to stock price will prove the point. If shareholders had any real voice in the corporation then they would be able to vote on executive compensation. Propose that in any board room in America and see how far free speech goes.
Until you can show that a corporation perfectly represents the point of view of its shareholders, the asertion that corporate "free-speech" is the same thing as the free speech of individuals will remain a fundamentally flawed argument.
The answer to this issue is one that no one in power seems willing to take on, including Chris Van Hollen. The solution is publically financed campaigns.