There has been a growing fury about the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, but much of that fury hangs upon an odd reading of the Court’s opinion. The Court, it is said, has given corporations all the rights of “persons.” It has elevated these artificial beings into entities “endowed by their Creator” (us) “with certain unalienable rights,” including the right to free speech.
No doubt the Court has a long history of recognizing the “person” in “Inc.” But this current wave of criticism is hard to understand, because the Court’s entire Citizens United opinion hung upon the fact that the First Amendment says nothing about who or what is to get the benefit of its protection. It simply bans certain kinds of regulation. As Justice Scalia put it in his concurrence: “The Amendment is written in terms of ‘speech,’ not speakers.” Thus, the government is blocked by the First Amendment from constraining the free speech of any entity, whether that entity is a corporation or a dolphin.
This interpretation of the First Amendment is going to create real trouble for the Court when Congress gets around to closing the gap that the Court’s opinion seems to create. If it is the regulation, and not the speaker that matters, then the Chinese are no different from the Chamber of Commerce. So how can the Court honestly uphold the inevitable law limiting the Chinese from campaigning, when they’ve just told us that identity doesn’t matter?
One need not be xenophobic to be troubled by the idea of foreign influence in American elections. Certainly the Framers were. The point is not that foreigners are evil. It is rather that elections are private. It is we—citizens—who are to select who is to govern us. And it is completely appropriate for us to protect the debate we have about that selection by limiting disproportionate spending by non-citizens.
This insight gives a clue to perhaps the most sensible constitutional response to the Supreme Court’s decision. Not, as an angry gaggle of activists have proposed, through an amendment aimed at denying what Citizens United never asserted—that corporations are persons. But instead, through an amendment that recognizes what no one has ever asserted—that whether or not they are persons, corporations are not United States citizens. And if there is something appropriate to keeping the conversation about who is to govern us to us citizens, there may well be something appropriate in protecting elections against undue influence by non-citizens.
A simple amendment would give Congress precisely this power:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election.
This amendment would not require that Congress enact any speech-limiting legislation. My own view is that we should encourage the broadest range of free speech, including speech by corporations, Canadians, and curious dolphins (at least when we learn to understand what they’re saying). To the extent members of Congress are, and seem to be, independent of these expenditures, there is no good reason for the state to limit them. But the amendment would give Congress a power to limit campaign expenditures by non-citizens, at least during a narrow window when America is focused upon the question of whom they should elect to represent them.
That power would not be absolute. Before the 60-day window, anyone or anything could say anything they like. And during the 60-day window, Congress could only limit campaign expenditures, not non-citizen political speech generally. And within that narrow class, it could not even ban campaign expenditures completely. Any citizen so moved, of course, would be free to then amplify those expenditures with his or her own funds. For instance, if George Soros agrees with an argument made by an Hungarian, he’d be free to spend his own money supporting it, since he, unlike the Hungarian, is a citizen, and his speech, unlike the speech of non-citizens, remains constitutionally protected. Likewise, if Rex Tillerson agrees with an argument made by Exxon, he’d be free to spend his own money supporting it, since Tillerson is a citizen, and Exxon is not. No argument or idea would be silenced by this amendment. And any argument that resonates could be amplified by citizens as loudly as they wish.
Or consider this: Just as the Supreme Court allows essentially anyone to file a “friend of the Court” brief for it to consider when deciding a case, and any party in a case is free to amplify or adopt any of the arguments in those briefs, the Court still strictly limits those who are permitted to argue before it, and strictly balances the quantity of argument that each side gets to make. Does the Court’s heavy-handed restriction on how much each side gets to say and who gets to say it violate any free speech principle? Does the First Amendment require that the Petitioner be free to sell part of its argument time to the Respondent? Not, in my view, if sanity and reason is to be a part of the market for free speech.
The justification for the power to limit non-citizen campaign expenditures goes back to the core justification for democracy. The Framers wanted to build a government “dependent upon the People” by limiting the risk that the government might become dependent upon anything else. The Constitution explicitly bans “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” because the Framers wanted our officers focused upon the people, not upon foreign powers. Likewise, giving Congress the power to limit campaign expenditures of anyone save citizens would help avoid a dependency, either real or perceived, upon non-citizens.
But why not just allow anyone to speak, and measure a candidate by the company he keeps? If Exxon is spending $10,000,000 to support a candidate, won’t the voters of the district recognize that (for the Court upheld disclosure requirements), and vote against the candidate because of that fact alone?
Yet it is here that the Court’s practical insight into the ways of politics is most strained. If Exxon wants candidate X to win, but recognizes that a $10,000,000 expenditure by it would be toxic for candidate X, then why wouldn’t they spend the $10,000,000 on candidate Y? They, like anyone, can measure the effect of their speech. Why wouldn’t they tailor their speech to achieve the desired effect?
More ominously still, as recent scholarship by Marcos Chamon and Ethan Kaplan demonstrates, it may well be that the mere threat of spending a large amount on one side of a campaign would be enough to buy the loyalty of an incumbent. Like the Republicans with the filibuster, if Exxon can merely threaten to enter a race on the opponent’s side, that may be enough to induce the threatened candidate to behave. On this account, the expenditures we see would just be the tip of the influence iceberg. And influence flowing just underwater (call this the “iceberg effect”) would be invisible, and thus be embarrassing to no one.
“We the People” have a completely compelling reason to assure that representatives remain dependent upon citizens, and not upon special interests. But the Supreme Court has made that practically impossible. The “iceberg effect” means we cannot even know what influence was exercised. That uncertainly will only make suspicions grow.
Only an amendment can reverse this now. But that amendment should restrict freedom as little as possible. Giving Congress the power to limit non-citizen campaign expenditures is power enough to assure that Congress has but one dependency—upon the People. If exercised properly, it could help restore the people’s trust in this key institution of American democracy.
Lawrence Lessig is professor of law and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and the author most recently of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Penguin).
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Print
Good article. Recently saw you on TV with the leather jacket guy from Reason and enjoyed it very much.
Still seems rather arbitrary. So George Soros can dump $30M into getting someone elected using commercials days before the election, but a husband and wife that own 2 McDonalds under the name of XYZCorp LLC cannot spend $10,000 within 60 days of the election? But they could pay themselves a bonus and then use that?
And if Exxon's CEO and board agree it's important to spend $20M on "issue" commercials, what stops them from awarding the CEO a $20M bonus and him doing it as a private citizen a a la Soros? Or setting up a non-profit and doing it a la Soros with MoveOn.org?
If big money in the elec ... view full comment
Good article. Recently saw you on TV with the leather jacket guy from Reason and enjoyed it very much.
Still seems rather arbitrary. So George Soros can dump $30M into getting someone elected using commercials days before the election, but a husband and wife that own 2 McDonalds under the name of XYZCorp LLC cannot spend $10,000 within 60 days of the election? But they could pay themselves a bonus and then use that?
And if Exxon's CEO and board agree it's important to spend $20M on "issue" commercials, what stops them from awarding the CEO a $20M bonus and him doing it as a private citizen a a la Soros? Or setting up a non-profit and doing it a la Soros with MoveOn.org?
If big money in the elections is a problem, then it's not clear how this proposed amendment fixes it. Either you open wide up, like the recent ruling did, or you move to federally funded elections and limit all advertising
What an abysmally stupid article. The constitutional amendment approach takes years or decades and has a miserable chance being ratified by 3/4 of all states. I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I am pretty certain an amendment is NOT the best way to go. A court packing bill would probably stand a better chance, as an alternate bad idea.
What an abysmally stupid article. The constitutional amendment approach takes years or decades and has a miserable chance being ratified by 3/4 of all states. I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I am pretty certain an amendment is NOT the best way to go. A court packing bill would probably stand a better chance, as an alternate bad idea.
I think an amendment may be the right way to go, but that the suggested wording is an abysmally stupid amendment. It elevates the 60-day period before an election in which political spending is to be constrained from a torturous compromise worked out in McCain-Feingold to...Constitutional Law.
A law professor should know that constitutional language needs to be written in such a manner as to make clear the principle you want to set down in law; it should not be written the same way as an OSHA regulation, with specific implementation language that might need changing at any moment.
Also, this proposed amendment cedes the second-most important point that the court was wrong on in Citizens Unite ... view full comment
I think an amendment may be the right way to go, but that the suggested wording is an abysmally stupid amendment. It elevates the 60-day period before an election in which political spending is to be constrained from a torturous compromise worked out in McCain-Feingold to...Constitutional Law.
A law professor should know that constitutional language needs to be written in such a manner as to make clear the principle you want to set down in law; it should not be written the same way as an OSHA regulation, with specific implementation language that might need changing at any moment.
Also, this proposed amendment cedes the second-most important point that the court was wrong on in Citizens United (the first being the non-personhood of corporations): Spending is not speech.
The trouble with the proposed language is that nothing in it prevents Congress from making corporations into citizens. It is even possible, though the argument is rather weak, that a state could deem a corporation to be a citizen of the state and the federal government would be bound by that determination. The important point is that nothing in the proposed amendment prevents a corporation from being deemed to be a citizen.
The trouble with the proposed language is that nothing in it prevents Congress from making corporations into citizens. It is even possible, though the argument is rather weak, that a state could deem a corporation to be a citizen of the state and the federal government would be bound by that determination. The important point is that nothing in the proposed amendment prevents a corporation from being deemed to be a citizen.
Seattle - To me there are two different issues in your example; that spending is treated as speech (and individuals have the right to speak as they wish), and whether a corporation (an artifact of the state) is granted the same rights as a citizen in this regard.
The first presents a much thornier issue than the first; there are those who believe that attempts to constrain spending in elections amounts to a suppression of free speech. I would disagree, but it's rather tangential to this case.
What is pertinent is that while corporations have been able to give bonus' to employees with the express intent that you outlined (to donate), there does not appear to be much evidence that this has bee ... view full comment
Seattle - To me there are two different issues in your example; that spending is treated as speech (and individuals have the right to speak as they wish), and whether a corporation (an artifact of the state) is granted the same rights as a citizen in this regard.
The first presents a much thornier issue than the first; there are those who believe that attempts to constrain spending in elections amounts to a suppression of free speech. I would disagree, but it's rather tangential to this case.
What is pertinent is that while corporations have been able to give bonus' to employees with the express intent that you outlined (to donate), there does not appear to be much evidence that this has been occurring a great deal (and with our revolving door system, there are other ways to achieve the same goal).
Now it may be that the amounts corporations spend in elections isn't going to change much based on the decision. And as supporters of the decisions note, most of the states that top the "open governance" scorecard do not have any restrictions on corporate spending in elections either.
Where I am concerned is that it seems reasonable that this lack of spending was due to a) other avenues been open and b) self-restraint, as I'm sure we can agree that it has a somewhat unseemly image to it (not to mention likely to cause blow back). Now however, the "right" to do this is codified by the supreme court. Since we do expect companies to act in their own best interest (and in fact require them to) it seems reasonable that at least some will take the much easier approach of legally threatening our representatives - give us what we want or we will bury you in cash.
Thus we have a twofer by allowing unfettered corporation participation in the electoral process; we have allowed our government to be corrupted and the inevitable result of this occurring just once is a diminishing of the credibility of our institutions in the eyes of the citizenry. And honestly, it is the latter that worries me more due to the historical implications of that development.
And there is another important distinction between a citizen and a corporation. As the article noted, the Chinese PLA or the Iranian can own a corporation.
So like everything there is a trade-off. Do you want to inconvenience the owners of XYZCorp LLC into having to pay themselves bonuses, or would you rather direct foreign participation in our electoral system?
And lets not fool ourselves about whether this will occur - witness the glee with which Senator Shelby attempted to sink millions of American jobs on the basis of ideologically driven economic purity while defending a foreign automaker that was attempting to suckle at the teat of its home government at the same time. If someone was paying the bills for that to occur, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult to find many willing volunteers.
But the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to only US citizens (otherwise we could argue that habeas corpus only applies to citizens). So the language of the amendment would have to be so specific as not to interfere with the general idea that the bill of rights tell the government what it can and cannot do.
But the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to only US citizens (otherwise we could argue that habeas corpus only applies to citizens). So the language of the amendment would have to be so specific as not to interfere with the general idea that the bill of rights tell the government what it can and cannot do.
This is the wrong approach, and also a badly drafted amendment. An amendment giving Congress the power to define and limit "personhood" under the law for all entities other than organic human beings is the proper way to go here. But even accepting Lessig's flawed solution, his proposed language is sloppy. A better approach would look something like this:
Congress shall have the power to regulate campaign expenditures by persons who are not citizens of the United States.
An amendment normally shouldn't tell us what the rest of the Constitution doesn't mean; it should define or limit the powers of one or more branches of the government.
This is the wrong approach, and also a badly drafted amendment. An amendment giving Congress the power to define and limit "personhood" under the law for all entities other than organic human beings is the proper way to go here. But even accepting Lessig's flawed solution, his proposed language is sloppy. A better approach would look something like this:
Congress shall have the power to regulate campaign expenditures by persons who are not citizens of the United States.
An amendment normally shouldn't tell us what the rest of the Constitution doesn't mean; it should define or limit the powers of one or more branches of the government.
Overall an excellent analysis by Prof. Lessig. However, I prefer rhubarbs's amendment.
While we're trying to pass a constitutional amendment, which can take years, there is another approach which Congress or any state legislature can pursue. Read footnote 76 of Justice Stevens's dissent, which says in part, "among the many other regulatory possibilities [the decision] has left open....legislatures remain free in their incorporation and tax laws to condition the types of activity in which corporations may engage, including electioneering activity, on specific disclosure requirements or on prior express approval by shareholders or members."
That last clause, "prior express approval by sharehold ... view full comment
Overall an excellent analysis by Prof. Lessig. However, I prefer rhubarbs's amendment.
While we're trying to pass a constitutional amendment, which can take years, there is another approach which Congress or any state legislature can pursue. Read footnote 76 of Justice Stevens's dissent, which says in part, "among the many other regulatory possibilities [the decision] has left open....legislatures remain free in their incorporation and tax laws to condition the types of activity in which corporations may engage, including electioneering activity, on specific disclosure requirements or on prior express approval by shareholders or members."
That last clause, "prior express approval by shareholders", is worth focusing on. The Court has said corporations may decide to spend money on campaigns, but who gets to make that decision: the owners, or the hired managers? Is it the many of us who own stock, or is it the CEO and his golfing buddies on the board?
State legislatures (and Congress, too, I think) can and should require an express delegation, from shareholders to officers or directors, of the precious right to speech as exercised in political campaigns. The usual arguments about the need for decisions to be made by directors or officers (efficiency, expertise) have little application in the context of which candidate to fund (or which side of a referendum to fund).
This approach would have wide appeal politically; even some "Tea Party" members would support it.
Do I need to add that shareholders would hardly ever agree to delegate such decisions to the board? (Although I'm sure there would be a well-financed campaign to convince them to do so.)
Do I need to add that shareholders would hardly ever agree to delegate such decisions to the board? (Although I'm sure there would be a well-financed campaign to convince them to do so.)
I think Mr Lessig's proposal would be reasonable if the threat posed by the economic power of corporations were not so great, or if corporations were subject to any effective oversight and social governance. As things actually stand today, corporations are largely controlled by their most senior managers, with only limited oversight by the board and almost no voice at all for shareholders. The regulators, including the SEC, are toothless and ineffective. And the track record of corporate spending to influence the political process suggests that we should be wary of Lessig's argument for such a permissive legal approach.
In my view, corporations should be banned from the political process. ... view full comment
I think Mr Lessig's proposal would be reasonable if the threat posed by the economic power of corporations were not so great, or if corporations were subject to any effective oversight and social governance. As things actually stand today, corporations are largely controlled by their most senior managers, with only limited oversight by the board and almost no voice at all for shareholders. The regulators, including the SEC, are toothless and ineffective. And the track record of corporate spending to influence the political process suggests that we should be wary of Lessig's argument for such a permissive legal approach.
In my view, corporations should be banned from the political process. It's not as if big corporate executives don't already have many more times than most people the capability to donate personally to the candidates and issues they wish to support or resist. Why should we let them also spend money that their shareholders might prefer to see in a dividend check, had they any real choice in the matter.
Fundamentally, the Court's ruling operates in the real world to magnify the power of our least democratic institutions to undermine the democratic aspirations of the Constitution. The amendment we need must go a lot further than Lessig deems necessary.
Neil
bjones, I like the elegance of your legislative proposal. And such a statute could certainly stipulate that the authority cannot be delegated to the board but must be exercised only through shareholder ballot.
However, it is a solution only for ordinary publicly traded corporations. That leaves some pretty big holes for privately held companies, partnerships, and some forms of subsidiary proprietorships, holes big enough for the Chinese Communist Party to drive a hell of a lot of money through should it choose. Do you see a statutory solution to such cases?
bjones, I like the elegance of your legislative proposal. And such a statute could certainly stipulate that the authority cannot be delegated to the board but must be exercised only through shareholder ballot.
However, it is a solution only for ordinary publicly traded corporations. That leaves some pretty big holes for privately held companies, partnerships, and some forms of subsidiary proprietorships, holes big enough for the Chinese Communist Party to drive a hell of a lot of money through should it choose. Do you see a statutory solution to such cases?
Could we add in some language preventing the U.S. government from spending money to influence or manipulate other countries' elections?
Could we add in some language preventing the U.S. government from spending money to influence or manipulate other countries' elections?
Thanks for the comments. Some replies below.
seattleeng: I don't think the line between citizens and non-citizens is "arbitrary." I think it is the core of democratic rights. Of course the constitution gives all sorts of rights to non-citizens, as it should, but the core political rights are for citizens. And if the concern is to assure that representatives are responsive to citizens, then setting aside a space within which citizens dominate the discourse is not arbitrary, but instead, consistent with the conception of democracy. Corporations are free to give their employees whatever they want, though if they give on the condition that the employee spend, I wouldn't read that as a citizen ex ... view full comment
Thanks for the comments. Some replies below.
seattleeng: I don't think the line between citizens and non-citizens is "arbitrary." I think it is the core of democratic rights. Of course the constitution gives all sorts of rights to non-citizens, as it should, but the core political rights are for citizens. And if the concern is to assure that representatives are responsive to citizens, then setting aside a space within which citizens dominate the discourse is not arbitrary, but instead, consistent with the conception of democracy. Corporations are free to give their employees whatever they want, though if they give on the condition that the employee spend, I wouldn't read that as a citizen expense.
drofnats1: "abysmally stupid"? actually, I don't address here the mode by which such an amendment gets passed. 3/4ths is hard. 67 senators is even harder. But even FDR couldn't succeed with court packing, and rightfully so.
janus: "abysmally stupid" again? Actually, what a review of the constitution reveals is that the style of amendments has radically changed. Compare the 25th with the 2d -- and after you tell me what the 2d really means, you'll see why. As I think one should grant the power to limit liberty narrowly, I think the constitution needs to give Congress the power to limit "campaign expenditures" narrowly. And you agree with that, then a clear (if arbitrary) line is cleaner than a standard which would invite endless and useless litigation.
JohnEMack: The distinction is between United States citizens and state citizens. The states can't force the United States to make anyone a citizen -- that's governed by section 1 of the 14th Amendment. And while I doubt the court would recognize "naturalizing" an artificial entity, I'd be happy to have that political fight. After all, the whole uproar about the "corporation is person" stuff is the way it has been constitutionalized without any press political participation.
Nari224: Your pointing to the threat is critical and ignored by the court: the "invisible" money in politics is the power to credibly threat. Citizens United has radically increased that threat.
gzenome: in fact the scope of the bill of rights is all over the map. This amendment just nails down one aspect.
rhubarbs: I don't get how you see Citizens United to turn on "personhood"? If the Court held tomorrow that "corporations are not persons," what in Citizens United would change?
And no doubt your revised version of the amendment is simpler. It also gives Congress more power to regulate speech than it needs. There's no reason to give Congress the power to ban such speech always, and liberties should be limited as little as possible.
Finally, "an amendment normally should tell us"? What about the 9th and the 11th? Instructions about construction are a standard tool of constitutions.
bjones: thanks. But here's the part about the corporate governance strategy I don't get. Corporations are to maximize shareholder value. If rent-seeking maximizes shareholder value, why wouldn't the shares be sold to those who want rent-seeking? How could a board or management live up to fiduciary obligations by foregoing what maximizes value? It isn't a crime to seek a targeted tax benefit, is it?
purcellneil: I do think we need more than one amendment. That's why I support Fair Elections Now. And why the complete amendment I've proposed at CallAConvention.org requires Citizen Funded Elections.
And ironyroad: I'd be for it!
Thanks again for the help and criticism.
Nice to have a response here from Prof. Lessig, and I will look to see the rest of his thoughts on improving the fairness of elections. However, I am convinced that something must be done to address serious problems with corporate governance before I would be willing to see the law of the land permit corporate CEO's to purchase allies in Congress in broad daylight. Contrary to his assertion that corporate sponsorship would be an embarrassment to these politicians, I think the law would put a Good Housekeeping stamp of approval on such corruption -- as we have seen prior to McCain-Feingold, only the law stands between government of the people and outright corruption.
If you are still readi ... view full comment
Nice to have a response here from Prof. Lessig, and I will look to see the rest of his thoughts on improving the fairness of elections. However, I am convinced that something must be done to address serious problems with corporate governance before I would be willing to see the law of the land permit corporate CEO's to purchase allies in Congress in broad daylight. Contrary to his assertion that corporate sponsorship would be an embarrassment to these politicians, I think the law would put a Good Housekeeping stamp of approval on such corruption -- as we have seen prior to McCain-Feingold, only the law stands between government of the people and outright corruption.
If you are still reading comments, Prof Lessig, thank you for joining the conversation.
Neil
Professor Lessig,
The third proposed amendment on your website just seems very clunky to me. I read the explanatory text, but even so, I feel this is an awkward thing to stick in the Constitution.
Here's the text:
Courts shall defer to factual judgments about an actual or reasonably perceived appearance of dependence when such judgments are made by independent, non-partisan commissions whose Members pledge not to enter elected office for a period of at least 10 years after service on the commission.
Professor Lessig,
The third proposed amendment on your website just seems very clunky to me. I read the explanatory text, but even so, I feel this is an awkward thing to stick in the Constitution.
Here's the text:
Courts shall defer to factual judgments about an actual or reasonably perceived appearance of dependence when such judgments are made by independent, non-partisan commissions whose Members pledge not to enter elected office for a period of at least 10 years after service on the commission.
The influence of money in politics is so huge that even if the Supreme Court ruled the other way, it would still be a huge problem. So I don't think such an amendment means that much. I would like to see a strict no conflict rule that legislators can not accept money from anybody period, but that's never going to happen. I would note the irony in Justice Roberts intimating that if President Obama is going to exercise free speech at the State of the Union indication, Justice Roberts is thinking of not attending.
The influence of money in politics is so huge that even if the Supreme Court ruled the other way, it would still be a huge problem. So I don't think such an amendment means that much. I would like to see a strict no conflict rule that legislators can not accept money from anybody period, but that's never going to happen. I would note the irony in Justice Roberts intimating that if President Obama is going to exercise free speech at the State of the Union indication, Justice Roberts is thinking of not attending.
Our government is already corrupted; independent campaign expenditures by corporations are not going to further corrupt it. We already have a singularly corrupt group of individuals in Congress and trying to get into Congress. On the other hand, a corporation is a creation by the state and therefore, has only specific rights granted it by the state. Those rights need not include free speech. At the same time, corporations are owned by shareholders who deserve to NOT have their property confiscated by government, the same government that is charged with protecting their life, liberty and property.
When the government taxes us to protect our life, liberty and property, they are acting as a legi ... view full comment
Our government is already corrupted; independent campaign expenditures by corporations are not going to further corrupt it. We already have a singularly corrupt group of individuals in Congress and trying to get into Congress. On the other hand, a corporation is a creation by the state and therefore, has only specific rights granted it by the state. Those rights need not include free speech. At the same time, corporations are owned by shareholders who deserve to NOT have their property confiscated by government, the same government that is charged with protecting their life, liberty and property.
When the government taxes us to protect our life, liberty and property, they are acting as a legitimate government. When it taxes us, directly or indirectly [printing money is an indirect tax; borrowing money is a future tax] to give the money to others, whether for health care or any other purpose, charitable or not, it is theft. Transfer payments are theft. When it bails out Wall Street, it is fraud and theft. Bushes, Obama, Clinton, there is little difference and then, only at the margins.
Dale Ogden, Libertarian,
2010 Candidate for Governor of California;
http://www.daleogden.org
http://www.daleogden.net