"Funnily enough, a lot of these situations where we have to accept the consequences of corporate spending arise because the government is infringing upon the free market. Huh. Maybe if the government just quit over-regulating and left people alone, corporations wouldn't have need to spend. Because they wouldn't otherwise."

Are you mad? You're arguing that we should loosen regulation so corporations wouldn't have to spend money on fighting regulation? And that less regulation would lead to a reduction in negative externalities? Here's another problem with the new conservative movement: it makes all regulation out to be evil. Unless you are in favor of a United Corporations of America, then you ought to drop that mantra. There is room for regulation. In fact, many of the problems I outlined would grow worse if it weren't for some of the regulations that are currently in place (and probably require more or more effective regulation). To equate health insurance rescission with over-regulation is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. And you've made some stupid arguments. Please make that connection for me!! Or how about Walmart. If we loosened regulation, would they provide better health care benefits to their employees so we wouldn't have to subsidize it (public assistance programs)? Please explain those points.

"So when Obama attempts to enlarge government purchases of insurance (to about 70-80% of the market according to the non-partisan Letwin Group), then health care companies' bottom lines are threatened so they spend money to thwart these efforts."

HAHAHA, non-partisan? Do you have an Eric Cantor fetish? I imagine you are citing the Lewin Group, which is owned by UnitedHealth Group. This might help you understand why I don’t consider the Lewin Group a non-partisan or legitimate source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lewin_…

"While unions MAY help improve income and benefits for existing employees, CEOs and shareholders actually create new jobs and preserve old ones. So anyone with a background in economics will be in my boat, thanks."

Great. Instead of challenging my point, you just changed the subject. Go you. Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Dent. Perhaps you should include some in your arguments.

Participating in a corporation's spending, yes, is voluntary. But, participating in the deleterious consequences of their participation in the political process is not. We must all live with health insurance companies that have perfected the art of rescission, corporate prisons that lock up a larger portion of our population for longer by lobbying for stricter criminal laws, the Walmarts of the world that in effect make us subsidize their workers' health care, the large agri-businesses that squeeze out small farmers while providing us with food that is virtually void of nutrition (and in some instances is harmful), the pollution from large industries that affects our air and water, etc. Where's the freedom in having to accept the negative externalities of corporations? There is no off button. My point was not that we could decide to "participate" in their spending or not, but that our lives are altered by the power of corporations in Washington regardless of our association with them.

I don't think that corporations OR labor unions should have been granted more influence over the political process. Our politicians often cater to corporations or unions in lieu of the American people. But, the "artificial distinction" between for-profit and nonprofit entities is very important. Unlike unions and nonprofits, corporations aren't issue-oriented — they are solely profit-oriented. That's why I thought it was funny when Mr. Weyand wrote that large companies were interested in the "preservation of America’s free enterprise system." Haha, no. They're interested in preserving and increasing their profits. The free enterprise system is just a means to that end for them. And while unions do trump issues that try to help improve the income and benefits (along with rights) of working-class Americans, equating that with what corporations are and attempt to do in Washington is nonsense. Yeah, try analogizing union workers with CEOs and shareholders and see how many people are on your boat.

Because there's clearly no ideology involved in your perfectly reasonable idea that "if [corporations are] speaking, it's probably because the owners of this capital have something to say about the very powerful interests of government." There is absolutely no naivete involved in the assumption that corporations don't try to manipulate or hoodwink people and public institutions when they are left to their own devices. They clearly only speak out when they are being oppressed by an overbearing master. Corporations never pick fights on the playground and they never steal other people's lunch money. It's so easy to follow the rules, when there aren't any rules to follow.

I'm well aware of the way that markets work, thank you very much. But just as the Court is now confusing "metaphor with reality," in the words of Rehnquist on the corporate personhood question, so you are confusing metaphors with the idea of voting in the marketplace. Yes, it is a useful metaphor to say that consumers and investors "vote" in the marketplace with their dollars, but this isn't really comparable to "voting" in the sense that it is used in political discourse. In a democracy, one citizen gets one vote. Citizens cannot aggregate votes by being wealthier than others, as they can with the metaphor of voting in the market. Some of the American founding fathers thought that they should be able to aggregate votes; others did not. Those who thought that they should were wrong, and their ideas have been discarded. This is because economic markets and political elections, while similar in some ways, have fundamentally different aims, even with your naive view of capitalist economic pluralism. This is why markets and elections need to operate on different principles. This is why we don't give the rich more votes based on how much money they have. This is why treating money as speech is going to undermine our democracy. It amplifies an already amplified voice. In the words of Johnny Q, "I'm of the belief that corporations already have a great deal of influence in Washington." More than a great deal, in fact. An undue, corrupting amount. And I would bet a CEO's yearly bonus that most Americans agree with me.

Should make sense, as in should make sense to any normal person. I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Campaign contributions are an extension of free speech. I never said that because people can do it, corporations can too. I merely pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids corporations from taking part in the same rights as people.

Also, I found this article particularly enlightening regarding how far the government intended to take this whole campaign finance thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

No sir, when everyday Americans see multi-national corporations with billions of dollars in assets dropping money on politicians like it's their job (because now, in part at least, it will be), they don't think anything is amiss. That's just everyday democracy. I got to hand it to Scalia and co., they're some really smart legal surgeons. No common-sense conservatives, these.

The dissenters, who in a strange historical irony might in fact more accurately be termed "Protestants" here, say it better than I ever could.

"Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests ofeligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate
concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

I did not contradict myself. You missed my point entirely. As I said, shareholders, CEOs, etc. ALREADY HAVE the right to free speech. They don't lose it by buying into a corporation. However, by allowing them to, in essence, to "re-exercise" their right to free speech through a corporation, you are privileging their speech. You have the right to free speech whether you own stock or not; I don't understand how restricting the free speech of corporations — *things* that are created by laws — is restricting the free speech of those who are associated with said corporations. They can still exercise free speech as they please without the added benefit of having their voices amplified by their corporation. In fact, the word "abridge" can imply that Congress ought not diminish the right to free speech. By allowing corporations to spend freely, I don't think you can argue that the Supreme Court hasn't abridged the right to free speech of millions of Americans.

"Settled law" is a legal concept. If an even controversial decision has been the law for long enough without having been legitimately challenged, it's said to be settled law. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 5-4 decision with a flawed majority opinion is not settled law. A change in the make-up of the Supreme Court, even by one judge, could overturn the decision.

In a market system, actors vote with their money: Boeing buys parts; McDonald's chooses suppliers; Wal-Mart outsources product demonstrations to another firm. These actions, taken by individuals (hopefully) incentivized to act generally according to the interests of the capital that made the firm's existence a reality and that made the firm's demand for labor possible, have enormous influence over the lives of individuals. But few long-term decisions in our society are really made by individuals; they are shaped more by the general will of the collection of individuals that make up society. In a capitalist economy, capital and labor are reshaped in part according to these collective decisions.

For example, if people don't way to buy Windows Vista because it is junky, they may buy Apple computers.

Most economists recognize that these reshaping decisions, made by those in positions of power but shaped by forces of the collective, don't require government intervention. There's no need for the feds to raid Redmond, fine and jail the controllers of capital (putting labor out of work), and divest its owners (stockholders) of their short-term decision-making capacity just because the corporation is in a position of power.

If the corporation is speaking, it's probably because the owners of this capital have something to say about the very powerful interests of government. When a populist President goes on a crusade against private interests, those private interests should be free to use their power to defend themselves against the voice and power of an overbearing master seeking votes. Shouldn't individuals be free to hear both sides of the story? According to your point of view, only the Federal Election Commission and elected officials may speak on political issues close to election time.

Political power can be just as strong and overbearing as economic power. The two can be useful counterbalances, and can check each other. I like it that way.