The law in its majesty
By Thoreau
The law, in its majesty, bars the individual and the corporation alike from camping out while assembling for redress of grievances.
The law, in its majesty, allows the individual and the corporation alike to spend money on political ads.
Comment by Wonks Anonymous —
November 16, 2011 @ 2:45 pm
I’ve actually heard that the financial industry were not such big fish when it comes to political campaigns. Possibly because their model is a small number of very highly paid employees, and corporate PACs still limit individual donations.
Comment by Wonks Anonymous —
November 16, 2011 @ 2:46 pm
Of course, relative to the average joe they donate a lot. It’s just other industries or types of organizations that donate more, according to my hazy recollection.
Comment by matthew h —
November 16, 2011 @ 4:10 pm
ONe has to look at the symbiosis of finance and government to see that political contributions are not really needed, except perhaps for specific benefits for specific companies.
GOvernment provides subsidies and guarantees in the form of actual and too big to fail bailouts, deposit insurance, central bank (Fed) liquidity, etc. and also provides protection against easy-enttry competition via heavier than average regulation in the sector.
Finance provides real money credit and management and currency support for politicians who buy their careers and incumbencies via deficit spending and inflationary interest rates.
Finance needs no special contributions to have advantages, no more than the WHite House CHef has to give extensive contributions. When you are already doing business in a deep relationship, you don’t need to pay the advertising or entry fees.
(I hope Jim, if he is reading Dr T’s stuff, will forgive me for still using libertarian-type reasoning.)
Comment by The Heretik —
November 16, 2011 @ 6:53 pm
Oh, the majesty. I’ll sleep under that bridge when I come to it.
Comment by Happy Jack —
November 16, 2011 @ 8:02 pm
A look at the career of a Rahm Emmanuel or a John Kasich is the only symbiosis you need.
Comment by Karen —
November 16, 2011 @ 8:20 pm
Brilliant!
Comment by Thoreau —
November 16, 2011 @ 8:27 pm
I take comfort in knowing that there’s at least one internet commenter with a law degree who appreciates my post about the law (in its majesty).
Comment by Killing in the Lame of —
November 16, 2011 @ 10:00 pm
I just drained the main Bain.
Comment by Barry —
November 17, 2011 @ 9:33 am
Let’s see – take an individual in the financial industry, limiting donations to each campaign to $2000 per year:
56 (?) presidential campaign funds (national, each state, each territory
56 Party committees (national, each state, each territory)
100 Senate campaign funds
455 House campaign funds
that’s 667 campaigns. At $2,000 each, that would be $1,334,000 that this individual could legally donate. Each and every year.
And then there are the PAC’s and various groups; I imagine that that could double the figure.
Comment by Barry —
November 17, 2011 @ 9:35 am
However, Thoreau, your nice slogan breaks down:
The law, in its majesty, does not imprison corporations, nor fine them beyond petty cash, nor seize their property under civil forfeiture, nor does it enhancedly interrogate them, let alone execute them. A corporation which has been found guilty of the most heinous acts is not stripped of rights.
Which, of course, is half-moot because the law, in its majesty, doesn’t prosecute corporations much.
Comment by TGGP —
November 17, 2011 @ 10:23 pm
I would expect that corporate owned property would be vulnerable to civil forfeiture. Set up a corporation as a front for a drug cartel, use company trucks to ship cocaine, we can expect those trucks to get seized.
Comment by Barry —
November 18, 2011 @ 7:54 am
That’s a good question. Somebody once pointed out that private aircraft/boats have been seized due to finding even small amounts of drugs (e.g., what could have been in one person’s pockets), but that no airline’s aircraft was even seized (in the USA).
Comment by Whammer —
November 18, 2011 @ 12:54 pm
Hey Barry, why would that individual in the financial industry limit him/herself to one candidate in each race? Might as well make sure you get an audience, regardless of who wins, right?
$2,668,000.
Comment by Inkberrow —
November 18, 2011 @ 1:56 pm
“Brilliant”, yes, but the unattributed Anatole France gets the credit.