So much for public financing

[MoonOwl]

No, we're not a fascist country. No, not at all....

Everyone go back to sleep, everything will be just fine.......

The LandoftheCorporations? Nah....... That could Never Happen Here..... We don't have the best government money can buy... No, not at all......

Go back to worrying about Tiger & Haiti & being kept safe.... All is well here......

Remember, questioning the government and their motives is very UnPatriotic... The government would never act Against WeThePeople.... I mean really now..... Take this little pill and go right on back to sleep to the CorporateNews....

 

[Tangerine]

The only reason I say it's a conservative issue is because all 5 justices that supported it were republican appointees (ie conservative)

so what makes this a conservative issue? why did any of the justices support this?

Then I would say it's because the more conservative leaning justices tend to lean toward more literal interpretations of Constitutional language. "The Right to Free Speech" is the phrase that they have decided to focus on with blinders and accept it as only having one narrow meaning. They consider themselves "purists" when in comes to the Constitution, but the result, sadly, is a very modern bastardization of the intent of the document.

 

[nova]

For one, they can run adds for or against any candidate that might agree or disagree with their business plan. And you won't know who is running these adds, they will not be required to add that little disclaimer at the end of the commercial on who paid for it.

Didn't actually read the opinions did you? The court upheld disclosure requirements 8-1....

I am just against unions giving money as corporations. Unions ARE NOT people, neither are corporations. They can all get behind me when it comes to rights.

Unions and corporations are not people, but they are made up of people. People have the right to free speech and the right of free assembly. You don't suddenly lose your speech rights when you choose to assemble with and pool your resources with other people.

That restriction also brings up some knotty issues of equality under the law. If I am a sole proprietor of a business, I can spend my money on whatever political speech I wish. If my next door neighbor decides to file articles of incorporation for his business, he's suddenly barred from the same political speech. How do you reconcile two individuals being treated differently in the eyes of the law for the same action? The obvious conclusion is you can't, one individual is "more equal" than the other.

How do you justify the fact that corporate newspapers and other media are allowed to say whatever whenever and other corporations are not? You can't lean on "freedom of the press" because if the corporate label can trump speech rights why can't it trump press rights? Does all media now have to be non-corporate produced?

The best description of the decision that I've heard is thus...

Citizen United’s Concept of the U.S. Constitution | Cato @ Liberty

The Citizens United decision and the talk that has followed imply two different and incompatible ideas of the Constitution.

The majority in Citizens United believe that the U.S. Constitution establishes a government of limited and defined powers. They asked: “Does the Constitution give government the power to prohibit speech by corporations (and others)?” The First Amendment indicated the government did not have that power.

The critics of the Citizens United decision assume the Constitution created a government of plenary powers with limited exceptions. They recognize that free speech for individuals is one such exception. But that exception is limited to natural people, not legal constructs. If there is no exception to the plenary power of government, the critics conclude, then there is no right to speak. Congress may prohibit speech by corporations (and others).

The Citizens United decision depends on an idea of the Constitution that forces government to justify its powers to citizens. The critics of the decision assume an idea of the Constitution that forces citizens to justify their rights to the government. Absent such justifications, the government has plenary power over speech and much else.

Which concept of the Constitution do you find most appealing?

Then I would say it's because the more conservative leaning justices tend to lean toward more literal interpretations of Constitutional language. "The Right to Free Speech" is the phrase that they have decided to focus on with blinders and accept it as only having one narrow meaning. They consider themselves "purists" when in comes to the Constitution, but the result, sadly, is a very modern bastardization of the intent of the document.

Its a very good thing they decided to read things this way.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It does not say who or what can speak. It says "Congress shall make no law." We're in undeniably deep shit if we let the wonderful politicians in Congress start deciding who has what rights based on their own whims, without any sort of reflection and questioning of the legality of such things...

 

[Tim]

Didn't actually read the opinions did you? The court upheld disclosure requirements 8-1....

Still working on it... but yes, I did miss that point.

Unions and corporations are not people, but they are made up of people. People have the right to free speech and the right of free assembly. You don't suddenly lose your speech rights when you choose to assemble with and pool your resources with other people.

That restriction also brings up some knotty issues of equality under the law. If I am a sole proprietor of a business, I can spend my money on whatever political speech I wish. If my next door neighbor decides to file articles of incorporation for his business, he's suddenly barred from the same political speech. How do you reconcile two individuals being treated differently in the eyes of the law for the same action? The obvious conclusion is you can't, one individual is "more equal" than the other.

How do you justify the fact that corporate newspapers and other media are allowed to say whatever whenever and other corporations are not? You can't lean on "freedom of the press" because if the corporate label can trump speech rights why can't it trump press rights? Does all media now have to be non-corporate produced?

The best description of the decision that I've heard is thus...

Citizen United’s Concept of the U.S. Constitution | Cato @ Liberty





Its a very good thing they decided to read things this way.



It does not say who or what can speak. It says "Congress shall make no law." We're in undeniably deep shit if we let the wonderful politicians in Congress start deciding who has what rights based on their own whims, without any sort of reflection and questioning of the legality of such things...

This is from Stevens opinion... and probably the most disturbing aspect of this case.

Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.

As far as your points to people make up corporations and unions so they should still have a voice... You lost me there...

How does belonging to or owning a corporation impede your free speech. Johnny can own a corporation or not and his free speech is still the same. We are talking about the corporation having a voice as a free person. So if Johnny owns a corporation, he should get two voices? One as his own person and one as his corporation???

 

[Tim]

Here's my problem with this whole case.

First, the court expanded its ruling to include litigation that was never part of the case, this is the definition making your own law.
Second, they are giving constructs (corporations, unions, etc) the same protections under the constitution that were enumerated to the people. From Stevens opinion:

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. 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 of eligible 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.

bold text = my emphasis.

It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

Third, the court is going against it's own prior rulings...

I could go on...

 

[nova]

As far as your points to people make up corporations and unions so they should still have a voice... You lost me there...

How does belonging to or owning a corporation impede your free speech. Johnny can own a corporation or not and his free speech is still the same. We are talking about the corporation having a voice as a free person. So if Johnny owns a corporation, he should get two voices? One as his own person and one as his corporation???

The thing is, Johnny doesn't have two voices even if he uses his corporation to speak. Its only two different uses of the same voice. One on an individual basis and one in which the individual has assembled with other individuals. As I said, using one's right to free assembly does not remove the right to speech, both can be excercised at the same time.

Here's some better explanation that I can put forth. Somin is a Constitutional law professor @ George Mason...

http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/

It’s true, of course, that corporations “are not human beings.” But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. Human beings organized as corporations shouldn’t have fewer constitutional rights than those organized as sole proprietors, partnerships, and so on. In this context, it’s important to emphasize that most media organizations and political activist groups also use the corporate form. As Eugene points out, most liberals accept the idea that organizational form is irrelevant when it comes to media corporations, which were exempt from the restrictions on other corporate speech struck down by the Court today. The Supreme Court (including its most liberal justices) has repeatedly recognized that media corporations have First Amendment rights just as broad as those extended to media owned by individuals. Yet the “corporations aren’t people” argument applies just as readily to media corporations as to others. After all, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations “are not human beings” and they too “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” We readily reject this reasoning in the case of media corporations because we recognize that even though the corporations in question are not people, their owners and employees are. The same point applies to other corporations.

There are various other arguments for treating political speech by people organized as corporations differently from that by people using other organizational forms. I’m not going to try to address them all here. We can discuss them more productively if we first dispense with the weak but popular claim that corporations aren’t entitled to freedom of speech because they aren’t people.

UPDATE: I should mention that it’s irrelevant that the First Amendment specifically protects the freedom of “the press.” It does not specifically mention “press” entities organized as corporations. So if you believe that freedom of speech doesn’t apply to corporations because they “aren’t people,” the same point applies to freedom of the press. As co-blogger Eugene explains, “freedom of the press” is not a constitutional right for a particular group of people or organizations. Rather it is a right to engage in a certain class of activities (such as publishing newspapers and pamphlets), whether the person doing so is a professional member of the media or not.

And here's some more writing he's done on the case that I haven't had time to digest completely...

http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/should...ause-corporations-are-state-created-entities/

http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/why-restrictions-on-corporate-speech-undermine-political-equality/

And here's some links to work by Stephen Bainbridge that I've only skimmed so far...

http://volokh.com/2010/01/22/bainbridge-et-al-on-citizens-united-and-corporate-personhood/

The first Bainbridge link has some interesting tidbits that I really didn't know...

On the one hand, the courts have never empowered corporations with "privileges of citizenship." The second clause of the 14th Amendment - the so-called Privileges and Immunities - states that: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." But it is settled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not protect corporations, because corporations are not deemed citizens for purposes of the 14th Amendment. Western and Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of California, 451 U.S. 648, 656 (1981). Conversely, however, "It is well established that a corporation is a 'person' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 881 (1985).

The common law had long recognized the legal personality of corporate bodies. See Book I, Chapter 18 of Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). But what of the Constitution?

The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation. We see this view further confirmed Roscoe Conkling's recounting of the relevant legislative history in Conkling's arguments in San Mateo County v. Southern Pac. R.R., 116 U.S. 138 (1885). Conkling had been a member of the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the 14th amendment and in Southern Pacific argued to the Justices that it had been the intent of Congress for the word "person" to include "legal" persons (corporations) as well as "natural" persons within the protective scope of the due process and equal protection clauses of the amendment. The Court accepted Conkling's argument.

Third, the court is going against it's own prior rulings...

Thats a bad argument to make. Brown v. Board went against the prior ruling of Plessy v Ferguson and thankfully so. Thankfully we have a system that allows for bad decisions to be overturned...

 

[Tim]

Do you personally believe that corporation, unions, etc should not have any restrictions with regard to how much they can spend in our elections? Do you honestly believe that this is good for the country?

 

[nova]

Reading more of Stevens dissent, it just gets more and more hokey the more I think about it. I didn't think it possible but its probably worse than his dissent in DC v. Heller.

In normal usage then, as now, the term “speech” referred to oral communications by individuals. See, e.g., [various citations]. Given that corporations were conceived of as artificial entities and do not have the technical capacity to “speak,” the burden of establishing that the Framers and ratifiers understood “the freedom of speech” to encompass corporate speech is, I believe, far heavier than the majority acknowledges.

​

​

Ok, so if "speech" is oral communication, then what happens to all our well established protections for symbolic speech? Throwing those under the bus is a tough pill to swallow for me.

Do you personally believe that corporation, unions, etc should not have any restrictions with regard to how much they can spend in our elections? Do you honestly believe that this is good for the country?

Good, bad or ugly, I'm concerned with whats legal, especially as it applies to the Constitution.

If we abandon rule of law and set the precedent that the supreme law of the land is essentially meaningless everytime its inconvenient, then all of the protections we as individuals enjoy are in jeapardy.

USA Patriot? Oh well its for the good of the country, go ahead.
Warrantless wiretap? Good of the country...
Indefinite detention? Good of the country...

If its honestly felt to be that big of a problem and that damaging, then we have a process for amending the Constitution, which is the right answer. Ignoring the law is fundamentally the wrong answer.

 

[nova]

Yep yep

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that's the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

 

[Tim]

Reading more of Stevens dissent, it just gets more and more hokey the more I think about it. I didn't think it possible but its probably worse than his dissent in DC v. Heller.


[/INDENT]Ok, so if "speech" is oral communication, then what happens to all our well established protections for symbolic speech? Throwing those under the bus is a tough pill to swallow for me.




Good, bad or ugly, I'm concerned with whats legal, especially as it applies to the Constitution.

If we abandon rule of law and set the precedent that the supreme law of the land is essentially meaningless everytime its inconvenient, then all of the protections we as individuals enjoy are in jeapardy.

USA Patriot? Oh well its for the good of the country, go ahead.
Warrantless wiretap? Good of the country...
Indefinite detention? Good of the country...

If its honestly felt to be that big of a problem and that damaging, then we have a process for amending the Constitution, which is the right answer. Ignoring the law is fundamentally the wrong answer.

herein lies the problem. The constitution does not grant corporations person-hood nor does it protect them accordingly. These were decisions made via interpretations as argued before the court.

So do you think that the same rights granted to individuals apply to corporations as enumerated in the constitution?

 

[Tim]

Yep yep

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Here is another quote from his article that hits the nail on the head...

I'm also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don't see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: "banks own" the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions -- their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold -- and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can't imagine how it could worsen fundamentally. All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical. There's not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday's issuance of this ruling?

Isn't it pathetic when we actually begin to think like this?

I have always been disenchanted with our political system and it's times like this that remind me why.

 

[Alien Allen]

if there is adequate disclosure required it will limit to a degree what happens. Because business is going to be cautious about what they do in the open. Lest there be a public back lash that can harm a business. Right now with some of the PAC's there is much to be desired in the way of disclosure.

Banks own congress because people elect idiots like Durbin. If there were more Ron Pauls and Dennis Kuciniches out there it would not be the case.

 

[nova]

herein lies the problem. The constitution does not grant corporations person-hood nor does it protect them accordingly. These were decisions made via interpretations as argued before the court.

So do you think that the same rights granted to individuals apply to corporations as enumerated in the constitution?

The Constituion doesn't do a lot of things directly that have only come into being via interpretations. None of us has a right to privacy other than as SCOTUS has interpreted.

The simple answer is that no, not all the rights granted to an individual are granted to corporations. The rights protected and privileges granted to citizens are most definitely not granted to corporations.

However, the rights protected for all persons, regardless of whether they're legal persons or natural persons are. You point back to legal precedent, but to overturn that idea would require far more reversal going back further than overturning campaign finance restrictions has.

Lets take the line of reasoning that corporations as legal persons do not in fact have the same rights as natural persons.

That means the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments simply do not apply to corps for the most part.

Corporate press could be shuttered.
Churches organized as non-profits could have religious services prohibited.
Police and prosecutors would have free reign to search and seize any and all corporate property without warrants.
Corporate property could be seized at will without any due process.
Juries in all civil suits involving corporations could be abolished.

And thats just a short simple list. The possible permutations is exceedingly large. Do you really want to live in a country where the Gov't has that sort of power without check? Do you want the fear and economic uncertainty that would entail?

I know I don't. Crony capitalism is a serious problem, but shredding the Constitution is not the way to combat it.

Use the amendment process as intended or trim gov't power down to the point that corporations simply have no reason to spend millions influencing elections.

 

[Tim]

if there is adequate disclosure required it will limit to a degree what happens. Because business is going to be cautious about what they do in the open. Lest there be a public back lash that can harm a business. Right now with some of the PAC's there is much to be desired in the way of disclosure.

Banks own congress because people elect idiots like Durbin. If there were more Ron Pauls and Dennis Kuciniches out there it would not be the case.

This will make electing a Kucinich, or Paul, or Sanders near impossible. Those who would dare fight for the people will find themselves outgunned by the corporations that oppose them.

 

[nova]

Here is another quote from his article that hits the nail on the head...

Isn't it pathetic when we actually begin to think like this?

I have always been disenchanted with our political system and it's times like this that remind me why.

Its pathetic but its the absolute truth. Crony capitalism has run amok in this country to the detriment of the people. Its the natural result of the expansion of gov't power into just about everything under the sun. When that happens just about everybody under the sun is going to line up to gain influence so they're not on the losing end of that power.

Thats one of the beautiful things about a gov't of limited power, there are limited opportunites for undue influence.

Ultimately the above is why there are times I'm afraid we may have dug ourselves a hole from which we can't escape. We've bastardized the system such that just about every group has undue influence. Thats why we continually pay ag subsidies to multi-million dollar ag corps and a laundry list of other BS....

 

[Accountable]

I keep listening to both sides on this issue, and they both make sense on the surface. Digging deeper, both blanket views are simultaneously helpful & harmful, and both can be abused to silence voices that neither side want silenced.

I think the common ground lies in considering the purpose of the corporation.

When I invest in MO, Philip Morris, I know my dollars are going to the eeeeeeeeevil Big Tobacco. I know, understand, and tacitly acknowledge that a portion of my investment is going toward marketing that can be construed as targeting kids. I do not believe I have the right, as an American citizen, to direct my tobacco investment toward marketing efforts to support specific politicians or parties. If I want to do that, I should either sell some shares and use that money to buy a politician, or use other money.

A labor union should have to focus it's funds on workplace issues alone. My NEA contribution is abused when it goes to elect particular politicians or support particular parties, even if I agree with the politician or party.

However, a PAC or community organization whose express purpose of being is to influence government operations should be able to advertise as it chooses, because that is its charter.

News organizations likewise should run unfettered.

There is a difference between the individual and a group.

Shouldn't people pitch a fit if a popular televised evangelist uses his air time to tell his followers to vote for a particular politician or party?

 

[Tim]

I truly believe in freedom of speech, even when it's hate filled speech.

But I would also like to believe in our democracy. Isn't there a way to keep them separate?
Why can't laws be established to keep the government in our hands, we the people?
Our government was never designed to be run by the rich or the corporations and if corporations are given free reign to contribute as much as they want via free speech, doesn't that drown out my free speech?

 

[nova]

I truly believe in freedom of speech, even when it's hate filled speech.

But I would also like to believe in our democracy. Isn't there a way to keep them separate?
Why can't laws be established to keep the government in our hands, we the people?
Our government was never designed to be run by the rich or the corporations and if corporations are given free reign to contribute as much as they want via free speech, doesn't that drown out my free speech?

Well, thats the core of my argument. We can make those changes, we just can't make them by passing laws, it has to be an amendment. If it was clearly and concisely put together, I could get behind an amendment restricting the political activities of corporations. All it has to do is remove corporate personhood for the purpose of political activity.

Everybody seem hell bent and determined to make restrictions stand, so lets get on the ball with the amendment process...

 

[dt3]

Like I said earlier, I strongly disagree with this decision, but I thought of a perspective that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

If a corporation is taxed by the government, shouldn't the corporation have a voice in the government? No taxation without representation, right?

 

[Tim]

Like I said earlier, I strongly disagree with this decision, but I thought of a perspective that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

If a corporation is taxed by the government, shouldn't the corporation have a voice in the government? No taxation without representation, right?

Representation will still be given to the corporations just as we have representation. We may not like who was chosen to represent us but we have the option of replacing him come the next election. But if we are effectively cut out of the process by allowing the corporations pick and chose who wins, then who is representing us?
There is a huge difference in having a voice in who gets to represent you and buying your representative.

The government works for the people. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Once you give multinational corporations the power to buy and sell our government, they will be working for them. And think about that for a moment... Most of the corporations are multinational with members of the board from all over the world. Do you really want them to have a say in our politics?

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is once again coming to Citigroup's rescue. Canada's Toronto-Dominion Bank is buying an $8.5 billion share of Commerce Bancorp. Singapore's state-run Temasek Holdings purchased a stake in Merrill Lynch valued between $4.4 billion and $5 billion. And the sovereign wealth fund that invests the Chinese government's hard currency is injecting $5 billion into Morgan Stanley, while Citic Securities, a private Chinese firm, is investing $1 billion in Bear Stearns.

You can find numerous instances where foreign interests buying into our corporations and financial institutions. And you want them to have a voice in our politics?

I don't, I want that voice to lie solely in the hands of the people.