This is awesome! I'll be waiting for the video.

Ross,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and the debates that followed. I am a graduate student at Shorter College and I must say that now I will be READY for tonight's discussion in my Business Law class about the Citizens United v. FEC case! I admire everyone's knowledge and passion on the subject. I find it simply fascinating. Thanks again!

I came across your article, i think your blog is cool, keep us posting.

Ross: The statement that "To begin, you made a critical mistake in pegging unions as "for-profit" agencies. Trade unions are by definition, non-profit organizations" is simply erroneous. Unions ARE (at least supposed to be) agencies created 'for profit' (of their members if no one else). Thus the profit motive exists for unions as well, just not the kind of 'profit' you imagine.

Secondly, union membership is often INVOLUNTARY (see the concept of the "union shop" where if you don't join the union -- UAW for example-- you can't work at a certain job). Involuntary union membership = involuntary union dues.

And as for the comment that "the BBC recently pointed out, that Americans classically vote against their self-interest", who in the BBC has the right to tell us what our "self-interest" is? The fact is that the American Revolution was fought because we didn't want England telling us what to day or think or do. Their words carry no authority on "this side of the pond"...

Frankly, I cheered when news of this decision came down the pike. It was McCain-Feingold that provided me with more than enough reason NOT to vote for McCain for President in 2008 (that and Sarah Palin as his running mate). Heck, I'm willing to fight for the concept of "one corporation-- one vote".... May we see it in my lifetime.

NYT: Iran’s President Moves Ahead on Uranium Processing

"American intelligence officials have told Congress and close allies, in closed briefings, that covert efforts to interfere with Iran’s production capability are extremely active."

"The Iranian announcement Sunday appeared part of Tehran’s dual approach to confront western capitals seeking to isolate and penalize it for backing away from the exchange deal negotiated in Geneva in October. Iran has been saber rattling, testing missiles, holding war games, and on Saturday announced mass production of two missiles, one that can destroy 'low-altitude aerial targets that fly at low speed' and the other 'equipped with two warheads and can destroy armored vehicles,' according to state owned Press TV."

"The plans to increase enrichment to 20 percent fit with that leg of the strategy. The second leg of Iran’s strategy calls for presenting itself as ready and able to negotiate."

I apologize for that former comment as it seemed personal and any pointed comments should be directed a FDR or Teddy (also Lincoln and Hamilton). As much as the progressive movement uses populist rhetoric, the nature of regulation in our country has been written by big business to attempt to undermine their competition (why compete when you can write laws?).

Ross, you mentioned you think the US constitution is deficient when it comes to corporate interest. This is because the commerce clause in our constitution has been used in a way that was unintended by the authors. The Federal government should not have control of businesses, and when you remove this power the issue of campaign contributions becomes mute b/c it removes the incentives of special interests. Of course if you cannot count on the SCOTUS to enforce the constitution then the option of nullification should come up.

I do think my Constitution argument is valid, as we are talking about a SCOTUS ruling. Campaign finance is a clear 10th amendment violation. This is a criticism of the ruling, correct? I did not read any suggestion of a Constitutional amendment so I thought the author would have liked the court to rule differently.

I won't address your bias against for profit entities. I think its pretty clear to all readers that you favor some special interests if they favor your ideological view or else you would have suggested removing free speech from other special interests that you're in favor of.

I do encourage everyone to research the commerce clause and I do not mean that to be patronizing in any way. The reinterpretation over time has drastically affected our country for the worse. I am sure everyone that has taken the time to read an article about corporate influence would be interested in this subject. I would highly recommend a book by Thomas DiLorenzo called "Hamilton's Curse" for people that are interested in the merchantilist interests that have affected the US. Here's a lecture on American merchantilism from the author if anyone is interested. I don't think he talks about the commerce clause like he does in the book but he does give a history of American merchantilism, which is exactly what we're talking about when we discuss corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, etc., even if it has not been explicitly stated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu9SI0ZwtbM&feature=related

It seems that the Iron Law of Oligarchy has manifested itself in our bureaucratically driven American government.

"Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts."

Why else would the Supreme Court give away the power of human rights to the megalith of international corporations?

I agree with Lance, all informed dissent is happily welcome. And, as Lance points out, the comment made by "Thomas Jefferson" may not have been directly disrespectful; however, the tone it utilized is at the very least, and quite undoubtedly, meant to convey indirect impertinence, and again, future comments will be removed if that tone proves to be a persistent form of dissent.

Beyond that, I look forward to and encourage all retorts and I am happy to embrace this, and all future, debate!

I find Ross's article to be excellent, and the discourse that has followed has been very healthy and critical.

That is why I want to make clear that we welcome dissent, especially that prepared by Thomas Jefferson and Bob.

Regarding Mr. Jefferson's comment: "I don't expect anyone writing for the 'Roosevelt Institute' to know the original intent behind the commerce clause, so I was merely suggest you research it." I do not interpret this as an attack on our institution, but rather as a veiled allusion to the political legacies of former Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.

To my spirited contributors:

Mr. Jefferson,
I believe we can agree on the unprecedented amount of corporate influence in politics and its unfavorable effects. However, there are several things you have assumed that are inherently wrong.

First, I was not striving to make a "constitutional argument" as much as a moral one. Undue corporate influence is one area that I believe our constitution lacks severely in, which, I assume is because either the founders could not have fathomed the monumental strength of international corporations in the 21st century, or because they authored our founding documents in a manner that severely favored the wealthy and their preponderant right to influence(re: Federalist no.10 and 71).

Second, you said, "But being different in no way makes one less entitled to free speech than the other. That's an illogical constitutional argument." I find fault with this on two points. One, corporations are not, in my opinion and that of many others, deserving of human citizen rights. They simply are not human beings, nor do they have any inherent qualities that dispose them towards human behavior, and consequently they should not be afforded the same privileges that others (HUMANS) have. In addition, to again make reference to the constitution is a fallacy. Corporations are not mentioned one time in any constitutional document, just as they make no reference to God, which, as many a legal scholar has pointed out, was a clear attempt to shed the influence of those entities in the political system (don't forget the titans of the times like the British East India Company which fraught all sorts of economic and political havoc on early Americans).

Finally, Mr. Jefferson, I think you should be mindful that disrespect will not be tolerated in this thread or any on this website. Statements like, "I don't expect anyone writing for the "Roosevelt Institute" to know the original intent behind the commerce clause, so I was merely suggest you research it," will from now on lead to a removal of your comments. Discourse is always encouraged until it bridges onto purposeful impertinence.


Bob,

I think you failed to understand the point of my argument.

To begin, you made a critical mistake in pegging unions as "for-profit" agencies. Trade unions are by definition, non-profit organizations. You are right in assuming they exert influence on the American electoral process, although, by almost every measure, in a heavily declining way. Coupled with the decline of the American worker, by measures of his wage earnings, his employment opportunities, and the constricted nature of every one of his political actions has produced an already incredibly lop-sided presence in American politics that favors the wealthy and corporate elite. The money these workers spend, and by extension the unions they have elected to represent them, is from voluntary dues from members who expect that entity to produce political gains, in their favor.

The critical distinction here is that corporations collect money in increasingly monopolistic fashions, by unwitting contributors, to exact influence in a way that works almost 100% of the time, against American interests.

To sum it up, union members willingly pay their dues so that (often democratically) appointed leaders can act in a manner that benefits the American workers whom participate, in an effort to balance out the all-too-often authoritarian and exploitative practices maintained by corporations. While, on the other hand, corporations collect money from a much more vast collection plate (the international and American consumer industry) to influence politics in a way that benefits almost exclusively the members of its board and its primary stockholders.

Finally, I would like to add two things. First, before you approach a legitimate research-based article to put together a reply, you should consider if it is really prudent to use talking points from Rush Limbaugh (SEIU was brought up in the exact same context as you presented, on Mr. Limbaugh's Jan. 22nd broadcast- I checked the transcript). Legitimate research and thoughtful, self-reflective replies always leads to a better understanding of the subject matter at hand, which brings me to my next point: this case IS momentous, and if people don't act now the political ramifications will harm this country for generations to come. It is true, as the BBC recently pointed out, that Americans classically vote against their self-interest. However, as a point of academic pride, I have always striven to get full understanding of a subject before commenting on it and I would suggest that you do the same in the future. I find it incredibly hard to justify a very obvious argument to anyone who does not conduct research on subjects outside of the incredibly biased and narrow-minded insight they gleam from talk radio.

Nice report.

The importance of citizen awareness was also emphasized during the discussion about market-based approaches. "We are creating ethical products through citizen education," said one sustainable development consultant. By "ethical products", he is referring to the cost of negative externalities on what we buy—like ethically produced fair-trade coffee vs. economically produced free-trade coffee; and "creating" these products (e.g. pricing carbon emissions) requires people to be informed and inspired enough to pay for change. This cost makes ethical products all the more difficult to create.

Sarah, I look forward to your work from Brazil!

Ross, from your comment, I'd be inclined to believe that you are the type of person who blindly attacks corporations and ignores the actions of other organizations. What I mean is that you class corporations as for-profit and ideologically-focused, when a few of the other organizations that you mentioned have either one of both of those characteristics.

Think-thanks, of course, are ideologically-focused. They use an ideological foundation when debating public policy and making policy recommendations. This is why think-thanks are often classified as conservative or liberal. There are other think-thanks that focus on specific issues, but these too have to be ideologically-focused to consistently recommend the policies which think-thanks were founded to recommend.

Unions are also ideologically-focused, with their ideology being the rights of the worker. That is their reason for being. Additionally, unions often collect money from their members through dues and other fees, which would classify them as "for-profit".

Additionally, major unions, such as Service Employees International Union, already wield considerable power in Washington, more so than many corporations. This union donated many millions of dollars to President Obama's campaign (if they can afford to spend so much money on a campaign, you cannot tell me this union does not profit somehow from its members). It comes as no surprise that one of the goals of Congress and President Obama last year was the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it much easier to form unions in a workplace, and as a result make it easier for major unions such as SEIU to grow even larger, and wield even more power in Washington. It's also often reported during elections that unions are often the main force behind "get out the vote" initiatives, giving them considerable power over elections.

What the Supreme Court has done here is simply removed restrictions applied to corporations that did not apply to unions and other organizations which have just as much interest in the political process as corporations. I have to agree with Thomas Jefferson that the best option would be to have as little special interest influence in Washington as possible. The best situation would be where Congressmen actually take calls from their constituents and act on what's best for their voters, instead of what's more profitable for their own self-interests. This Supreme Court decision does nothing to change that. It simply maintains the status quo in Washington. It is not as momentous as it is made out to be.

I did read the article but perhaps I did not summarize my point clearly. I do want to preface this by saying that I am not happy with corporate influence on our government.

However, your article fails to make a sound constitutional argument. Corporations are no less composed of people than another other organization, including unions, nonprofits, etc. Constitutionally, there is no distinction between the two.

You say they are different because of "incentive and ability". But being different in no way makes one less entitled to free speech than the other. That's an illogical constitutional argument.

Moreover, if you think unions and other special interests group have no financial motive you're either naive or biased. I would lean towards the latter since the GM bailout is in recent memory. Union financial incentives are responsible for the largest zombie corporations in America that are not called banks (this also shows your ability false as well since facts suggest otherwise).

Nonprofits absolutely pander for government grant money, as well as policy that favors their specials interests outside of said nonprofits. I guarantee you the tarriffs we have on Chinese tires or subsides for US steal are not for "aggregate American benefit". Currently, every american pays a higher price to subsidize these union interests. Public school institutions are also political. Its no wonder they support federal loan guarantees for college. That's the reason college is unaffordable. Colleges would actually have to control their own costs to compete if this interference was not there. Rest assured this is a kickback o university administration and faculty and not students. Should these organizations be barred from contributing to campaigns? Maybe you would like to see that happen, but it IS unconstitutional and your argument does not successfully make a case against this.

My point is clear. Special interests control our country. You wrote this:

"McCain-Feingold Act and the 100+ years of aggregated statutes that helped facilitate honest elections"

This is ignorant. We just had the largest corporate bailout in our nations history before this law was struck down. Not to mention the GM bailout and countless other examples of special interests kickbacks. Was there a limit to specials interest control before this decision? No, and it makes no difference. 100 percent is 100 percent.

You fail to see the real protection provided in the Constitution and that is the 10th amendment. I don't expect anyone writing for the "Roosevelt Institute" to know the original intent behind the commerce clause, so I was merely suggest you research it. Its actually ironic since FDR and teddy both made cartels for big business could use monopoly pricing. The fact is our federal gov does not have the constitutional right to interfere in business. The purpose of not giving them this power was to prevent the current level of corruption. Why would corporations donate to politicians that can't help their cause?

Yes, Americans are reaping what they've sowed, despite the fact that they've been constantly tricked by both the progressive movement and the conservative right. The solution to this is state nullification of unconstitutional powers, but people are so ignorant of nullification it is not even an issue anymore. I think I'll repeat some of what i wrote another time free speech was violated and DC was overstepping their authority.

" that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits"

Thomas Jefferson, I am afraid your comment reflects the fact that you did not read the entire article; although I already addressed many of the points of disagreement you raised I will go through it point by point:

"many entities give to campaigns including unions, thinktanks, and non profits but nobody mentions these special interests undermining the welfare of the people."

Again, the significant difference between those entities you mention and corporations is incentive and ability. Those organizations (think tanks, unions, non-profits, etc) produce information and opinions that are tied very intimately to research and the political sentiments of member citizens. Corporate "for-profit" and ideologically-focused institutions solely propagate information related to economic advantage, which puts their expressed political opinion often at odds with the well-being of human, American citizens. Without even mentioning foreign input, the distinction is tangible and prevalent already, the Supreme Court decision just exacerbates the issue.

Beyond that, of course, is ability, which with the amount of cash flow these previously "discriminated entities" possess, means that dominant political discourse will soon only be set by those with the biggest wallets.

"Most congressmen today already serve corporate and special interests so I don't see how the ruling changes anything. From Obama's AIG bailout (stealth GS bailout), GM's bailout (union special interests coveniently ignored), to Bush's wars, no bid Halliburton deals, US steal and farm subsidies, special interests already control both parties."

Again, a reading of the article you refute would absolve the question here. Essentially, the ruling changes the time period and amount of influence these corporations can have. This statement also demonstrates the inherent contradiction in your argument: if you believe that corruption is already a serious issue, than it stands to reason that enhancing the abilities of those at the source of the problem will only further contribute to their perpetuation and reach.

"The plan for liberty's protection was in place, however it has been systematically destroyed over time and forgotten by government textbooks. The people of this nation are simply reaping what they've sowed if you ask me."

This again underlines your serious misjudgment of the issue in reference and your misunderstanding of even your own argument. "Liberty's protection", in this situation, was largely the McCain-Feingold Act and the 100+ years of aggregated statutes that helped facilitate honest elections. The people of this nation can't possibly be "reaping what they've sowed", because the Supreme Court is not elected, not directly impeachable, and not subjected to anything even approaching democratic tenure. This was a judgment that reflects constitutional weakness and lack of consideration of the comprehensive interest of the "people of this nation" by an increasingly out-of-touch Supreme Court.

I think critics of this decision are missing the constitutional point pretty badly but the SCOTUS did as well. The federal gov was created with certain enumerated powers, saying what entities can contribute to campaigns is not one of them. Also, many entities give to campaigns including unions, thinktanks, and non profits but nobody mentions these special interests undermining the welfare of the people.

Most congressmen today already serve corporate and special interests so I don't see how the ruling changes anything. From Obama's AIG bailout (stealth GS bailout), GM's bailout (union special interests coveniently ignored), to Bush's wars, no bid Halliburton deals, US steal and farm subsidies, special interests already control both parties.

People's attention would be better served by objecting to the absurd rulings the scotus has had regarding the interstate commerce clause. US framers did not want a central gov micromanaging business bc they knew it would breed corruption. Any meaningful research clearly shows that the intent of the commerce clause was to prevent states from discriminating against each other via unfair commerce regulation (interstate mercantilism), not to allow Congress free rein to regulate anything even indirectly related to commerce. Subsequently, the SCOTUS also ruled that Congress authority over INTRAstate commerce as well.

The plan for liberty's protection was in place, however it has been systematically destroyed over time and forgotten by government textbooks. The people of this nation are simply reaping what they've sowed if you ask me.

I wholeheartedly agree that corruption is a major obstacle we face in Afghanistan. However before criticizing the Afghan government, even if it is deserved, we must assess the motives and intentions of our own government. It is my belief that we are waging a seemingly endless war so that certain corporations with influence can profit. I only need to cite the billion dollar contracts Haliburton gets to set up military infrastructure or the half-ass work done by KBR. If these types of issues are not addressed, the Afghan people will, as you mentioned, act out against their tyrannical leader who is supported by our government. This creates an environment conducive for rebellion and extremism.

That last quote, "the end is not technology; technology is only the enabler," is a great one to emphasize and for the government actually to keep in mind when it considers where to allocate it's resources.

From ideas to reality, engineers are the ground source for that process - and especially for a plan like the Smart-Grid, you're going to need a whole lot of smart minds to not only work around the funding, but also program the extensive computer technology needed to sustain the flow of digital information. And that's not even touching upon the electrical hardware "device" that would ostensibly "read" the household appliances.

I don't know if the means to this Smart Grid idea has been figured out yet tech-wise, but keep the public informed on such a compelling and potentially revolutionary idea. Thank you for the wonderful post & pictures!

This is an example of a poorly researched topic, and a post written by an out-of-field author.

Any aerospace follower would note that the most viable candidates in the competition spent well OVER $10 million dollars in development of their space craft. Scaled Composites alone, spent $25 million to develop SpaceShipOne (all funded by Paul Allen). Sure, there should be private industries involved in space exploration, but this is just a poor argument! If anything, those competing for the $10 million prize were more after bragging rights in the history books, than the money which would not have come close to covering their developmental costs.

And to make the argument that NASA isn't taking part just shows poor research. Just 7 days ago, on Nov. 5, the X PRIZE Foundation along with NASA awarded $2 million (funded by NASA) to Masten Space Systems and Armadillo Aerospace. This is the largest X-Prize payout since the Ansari X-Prize.

Capitalism ALREADY IS handling the rest, as the author suggests. Space tourism and exploration is currently a highly developing sector. Commercial Space Ports are being built, space flights are being booked, and space hotels are being planned and developed. Even the government's Augustine Panel on Human Space Flight has suggested that private industry take a larger role in the future of space flight - taking on missions to deliver cargo to the International Space Station.

I expected much better reporting from a this think tank, and an rather saddened to see such a poorly researched post by an out-of-field author who clearly has a chip against NASA and the government. While his intentions are good, and his vision admirable, the errors and misinformation only detract from his message and the image of The Dynamo.

RE: Concerned College Student

Although I would like to address any inadequacies in my article, I do not feel that you exposed any legitimate problems, certainly none that have not already been explained.

That in mind, I think it is important to note a few things:

First, this article is not an attack on Fox News; it is an observant and detailed account of the amount of rhetoric and propaganda-based fallacies that are employed by that network and others, in light of the effect it has on viewers and listeners. The information presented in this article is accurate, comprehensive, and not meant to be singularly offensive. It is addressing a problem, where (by means clearly substantiated evidence) a problem exists.

Second, a pundit, be him O'Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, Beck, Matthews, or any rhetoric-based opinion journalist, has a moralistic responsibility to act in a fashion that befits their post. People derive their news from these people, and even though there is some expectation of a slant, they expect facts. Unfortunately, the often baseless rhetoric that these hosts utilize affects the perspective of the public, which is easily shown by the information I provided above, in ways that are so corrosive and irresponsible it is damaging the very pursuit of actual civil political discourse in this country.

To address your second paragraph: as I have stated earlier (both in the blog and in responses) a majority of Americans do actually favor Public Option health care. This fact is acknowledged not only by proponents of the legislative measures, but by opponents of it as well. The real discrepancy lies then with a minority of people dictating terms to a majority of citizens for reasons that cannot be grounded. To illustrate this, you can look at remarks made recently by Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who described her role as "protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority". To even more clearly illuminate this point, you can see Fox News Anchor, Shep Smith, in an interview with Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) where the senator states that it is ultimately the role of the the Senate to decide what is best for the people (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/fox-newss-shep-smith.php).

The sad truth is Concerned College Student, that this blog was meant to be wholly comprehensive and unbiased, and to present a meaningful link to the damage rhetoric is causing this meaningful debate. By directly attacking moderates like me, who have facts in their arsenals, conservatives run the risk of alienating whole sections of the population. But politics aside, with any amount of reason, it is readily apparent how providing health care not only would improve the livelihoods of MILLIONS of Americans, but how that improvement would so likely provide for the prosperity of our nation. Sick, in-debt people are less productive, less ambitious, and less willing to commit to education and other pursuits that could help continue to define our country as a world leader. Employ capitalism- the public option is meant to be a competitive measure, not a punitive one! Loosening of the markets should be a measure we can all agree on, and health care for everyone should be even more universally accepted. At the end of the day however, in considering any method we use, the bottom line should be far less important than the human cost.

It is important to not "leave a child behind", but I think it is still possible to have an educational system where you encourage the best students to excel even more. In some classes here at UF, you can get an A without much effort. When you have a solid A already, you have no incentives to dig deeper into the material and learn more. This is unfortunate! In Norway, where I am from, the average grade is much lower, and a B is considered a very good grade. In a class of 200, there could be incidences where only 2 students get an A. By lowering the average grade, and by reevaluating what is a "good" grade, the best students will always have something to stretch for..