What are the Left's objections to the free speech argument against campaign finance restrictions?

Jonathan wrote below:

I get the free speech argument; I just don't think anyone left of center buys it.

I think this is true for the most part, but it puzzles me: Why does the left reject the free speech argument against campaign finance restrictions?

A lefty friend of mine wrote as her Facebook status message:

"Big business: +1000000. Democracy and the American people: 0.
Down with corporate personhood!!!!"

and then linked to this Reuters article titled "Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash."

So I understand her objection to be something about corporate personhood. I understand and partially agree with some of the left (often left-libertarian) critiques of corporate personhood, especially the concept of limited liability, which invalidates the notion that all corporations are are simply groups of people pooling their resources together for a common goal. For if this were truly the case, corporate shareholders would be held liable for losses caused by management, just as partners in a legal partnership are held liable for losses caused by their partners. Of course, I understand why courts may not hold shareholders to the same degree of responsibility as partners in a firm, but I can hear reasonable arguments either way.

But none of this dispute has anything to do with the issue of speech. As far as I can tell, the rallying cry "Down with corporate personhood" may nor may not be called for in the case of limited liability, but it surely is not called for in the case of corporate donations to help politicians get elected. After all, even if the legal concept of limited liability were abandoned, people would still get together in groups, and sometimes pool their money together to speak as a single, more powerful voice. How can anyone who supports the concept of free speech object to this?

Here is how I responded to her on Facebook:

A very good ruling my book. Here is a libertarian perspective on the issue: http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/22/obama-bemoans-the-stampede-whi

How is lobbying money spent by political interest groups *not* an example of free speech, deserving First Amendment protection? Just because some lobbyist groups get their money from corporations? So what? Are corporate political donations at all different from, say, gun enthusiasts all getting together and lobbying politicians (the NRA), civil liberties enthusiasts all getting together and lobbying politicians (the ACLU), elderly people all getting together and lobbying politicians (the AARP, or American Association of Retired Persons, which is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States according to Wikipeda)?

A pull quote from the article linked above: "[A]ren't [Democrats who control Congress and the White House] the ones who are inviting a horde of lobbyists to descend upon Washington by aggressively expanding the size and scope of government?"

In other words, the more of the economy the government controls (healthcare, retirement, the auto industry, the financial sector), the more incentive there is for wealthy, powerful people to pool together with others (who are sometimes not so wealthy but numerous) to lobby politicians to direct that portion of the economy in their favor. This creates the classic regulatory capture that public choice economists and political scientists warn about. The only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of the economy.

Share this


I think lobbying falls rather nicely under petitioning for redress of grievances.

As for personhood, if corporations are people, how can a holding corporation own a subsidiary? Isn't slavery illegal?

Who will be in a better monetary position to buy politicians?

The NRA or Red China? The NRA or OPEC?

You think the power wasn't being bought and sold already?

You think you can legislate the market for power away? The only purpose of campaign finance reform is to cut voters out of the loop - the politicians want the buyers to have to come straight to them, they don't want to have to compete with voters for their client's attention.