rc3.org Rafe Colburn on software development (and other topics)

Why transparency won’t save us

In Commentary on 22 January 2010 tagged with 4 comments

The response to people worried about the Supreme Court’s cataclysmic decision to lift any limits on political spending by corporations has been that we can be saved by transparency. That’s what the majority argued in their decision, and that argument has been taken up by conservatives who think that more corporate influence on the work of government is a good thing. But transparency involves only corporations documenting how much they spend, and money that goes unspent is really the crux of the matter.

Corporations have powerful levers to pull without spending a dime, given that they have the opportunity to spend as much as they like. First of all, they can threaten to withhold contributions they might otherwise make unless a legislator does their bidding. Secondly, they can threaten to spend on behalf of a politician’s opponent unless they get their way. Neither of those threats must be reported in any way. And, in many cases, the threats do not even need to be made. Politicians know what corporations want, and they now know that they can spend whatever they like to get it. Does a lobbyist for a coal company really need to call a legislator and tell them not to vote to ban mountaintop removal mining?

So we are now in a situation where the influence of corporations has been magnified to an incredible degree even before the first dollar is spent. And no amount of transparency is going to fix that.


4 Comments

There should be a phrase for this: “corporate terrorism”.

Posted by Scott Parkerson on 22 January 2010 @ 3pm

Some of that will be inevitable but mostly it sounds like a need for more transparency: why shouldn’t legislators’ call records be public? All of these concerns apply equally even if we could magic away corporate personhood (I’d love that but it seems infeasible) since the rich can do it personally, particularly after the courts get around to acknowledging that that personal contribution limits are unconstitutional.

I wish we’d focus more on reforms which wouldn’t infringe on speech – even beyond follow-the-money improvements, isn’t it time to reopen the discussion of public campaign financing? Getting politicians out of the need to raise truckloads of cash just to be competitive in an election would make the ability of the rich to write checks less important. I’m also unconvinced that we’ve exhausted the gains from improving disclosure laws (which are much less of an issue constitutionally) particularly now that the web is playing a much larger role than it used to. I’d hope that the prop 8 donor maps are just the beginning of making it harder for people to quietly support things they’d be embarrassed to support publicly.

Posted by Chris Adams on 22 January 2010 @ 7pm

I would prefer to move toward public financing of campaigns rather than curtailing certain kinds of speech.

Posted by Rafe on 22 January 2010 @ 7pm

I think corporations do have a right to make their case just like individuals do. I also think that removing limits on political spending by corporations is not sufficiently counter balanced by transparency. I also support campaign finance reform, term limits in the house and senate and a balanced budget act in peace time so what do I know. ;o)

Posted by JJ on 26 January 2010 @ 12am

Leave a Comment

← →

About

This is the weblog of Rafe Colburn. I'm a software developer and computer book author, but this blog is really about whatever catches my interest on a day to day basis. I've been blogging since December, 1998.

Recently

Visit the full archive

Et Cetera

You can follow @rc3dotorg on Twitter here. My personal Twitter account is @rafeco. If you know what an RSS feed is, you can subscribe to the rc3.org feed here.


← Back to Home

© rc3.org. Powered by WordPress using the DePo Skinny Theme.