Dear Al,

A for-profit corporation is constituted by the purpose of maximizing its own profit, short-term or long-term, or, perhaps, maximizing its own growth—-in any event, for the overriding purpose of maximizing its own advantage. That is simply the nature of the case when speaking of institutions constituted to participate in a market economy. Indeed, on capitalist principles, that is what we want such institutions to do, because the laws of supply and demand have their beneficial effect only if both producers and consumers seek to maximize their own advantage. So, the defining purpose of a for-profit corporation, when it spends money in relation to political campaigns, is to do so in a way that maximally advances its self-interest.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has, in effect, decided the following: Each of a major set of voices in our democratic discussion should speak for entirely strategic purposes—-that is, for the sake of its own advantage or self-interest. These voices should not consult the common welfare or the common good or ideals of the good community; rather their participation should be self-interested. Justice Stevens said that “corporations are uniquely equipped to seek laws that favor their owners,” but he might well have said “are uniquely required” to seek such laws.

Nothing destroys discussion and debate about justice and the common good more effectively than participation for solely strategic reasons. So, in this way at least, the Supreme Court has failed to interpret the First Amendment as constituting a truly democratic political process.

All best wishes,
Chris

Dear Al,

A for-profit corporation is constituted by the purpose of maximizing its own profit, short-term or long-term, or, perhaps, maximizing its own growth—-in any event, for the overriding purpose of maximizing its own advantage. That is simply the nature of the case when speaking of institutions constituted to participate in a market economy. Indeed, on capitalist principles, that is what we want such institutions to do, because the laws of supply and demand have their beneficial effect only if both producers and consumers seek to maximize their own advantage. So, the defining purpose of a for-profit corporation, when it spends money in relation to political campaigns, is to do so in a way that maximally advances its self-interest.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has, in effect, decided the following: Each of a major set of voices in our democratic discussion should speak for entirely strategic purposes—-that is, for the sake of its own advantage or self-interest. These voices should not consult the common welfare or the common good or ideals of the good community; rather their participation should be self-interested. Justice Stevens said that “corporations are uniquely equipped to seek laws that favor their owners,” but he might well have said “are uniquely required” to seek such laws.

Nothing destroys discussion and debate about justice and the common good more effectively than participation for solely strategic reasons. So, in this way at least, the Supreme Court has failed to interpret the First Amendment as constituting a truly democratic political process.

All best wishes,
Chris