Adam argues that
You see, contra Fox, through lobbying and other means industries already have a good deal of sway in designing the “rules of the game” in which they operate. Unlike these surreptitious ways that industries gain political influence, allowing corporations free speech in political matters only influences the “rules of the game” if they can persuade individuals to vote differently.It seems to me that allowing corporations’ influence to be determined by the persuasiveness of their arguments seems infinitely more benign than doing so through the political clout they wield behind closed doors.
I am not sure about this.
How does lobbying work. It would seem that the lobbyist either has to persuade using reason or enticement. Allowing corporate free speech would seem to encourage “enticement.”
First, I wouldn’t underestimate the power of lobbyists as reasoners. I don’t have first hand experience at the Federal level but at the state level it is often only the lobbyists who have any idea what a particular piece of legislation does. Moreover, its often not possible for the situation to be any other way. There may only be a handful of people in the world who understand what a the need for a particular law and how it might be used. The odds that those people happen to either be politicians or to work for the legislative staff is vanishingly small. So one must turn to a lobbyist for the answer.
Second, enticements that lobbyist could offer to elected officials seem to be rather circumscribed. Outright bribery is out. Campaign donations are limited. However, with corporate free speech opened up, character assassination is now fair game.
Scandals are much more damaging to politicians than poor positions and infinitely more damaging than poor rationales. Giving a corporation free speech gives them the ability to use vast resources to dig up dirt on just about anyone and blast it across the airwaves.
Pharma’s negotiations over Medicare Part D not going well? That seems like $80 Billion reasons to hope that Max Baucus has succumb to the temptations that afflict all men of power and status. In fact, it might just be enough of a reason to throw a little temptation his way. Its not extortion. Its just an experimental documentary. Temptation Size Me.
Even without those extremes, a documentary portraying all the worst parts of a politicians life is a scary thing. Something that could be personally as well as politically embarrassing. Giving corporations that leverage shifts the balance of influence in the direction of enticement.

3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ January 26th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Adam Ozimek
Even before this decision corporations are free to make scandal documentaries, they just couldn’t broadcast them within 30 of a primary or 60 days of a general election. So the Max Baucas scenario you laid could happen during non-election seasons, and yet won’t don’t seek to outlaw corporations from criticizing politicians in non-election seasons.
Also, even within the 30 and 60 day limit, nothing is stopping corporations from digging that dirt up and giving it to the media through written communication. A scandal that would be so damaging in video form would be very damaging as a simple fact, which non-corporations could turn into documentaries. Yet we don’t seek to limit corporations ability to publish mailers, newspaper ads, or other non-video criticisms of politicians during election seasons.
Since this things were already available to corporations, yet weren’t really that disruptive or important a part of the electoral process, I think the scenario you lay out is fairly unlikely.
I agree that lobbyists have value, but their ability to lead to abuse and aggregation of political power and favors is far greater than free speech for corporations.
Tuesday ~ January 26th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Links and Quotes « Modeled Behavior
[...] Ozimek 1. Justin Fox responds to my post on the Supreme Court decision (see Karl’s take below). The best so far on this issue are Julian Sanchez and Eugene Volokh. Julian writes: Why is it that [...]
Wednesday ~ January 27th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
TGGP
What’s the difference between “reason” and “enticement”? Ex post we like one but not the other?
Interesting point about the state level. Some states already allowed unrestricted campaigning (at the state level) by corporations. We could look at ways in which they differed systematically from states that didn’t.