Supreme Court Blocks Key Part of Campaign Law

[TheProfessor]

Firms and Unions May Spend Freely to Influence Elections (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?hp)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

''The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

''It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions,'' said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.

The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained ''the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.''

Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.

''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,'' Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.

But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.

The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

[coyotes_geek]

Campaign finance? I thought that quit being important once democrats started raising more money than republicans.

[Winehole23]

This decision should help to level the playing field.

[SouthernFried]

Very good decision.

Private people, which include private organizations, have the right to spend their own money as they see fit. Whether for or against a political candidate is part of that right. Limiting that right has always been unconstitutional, imho.

Corrupting influence?

There is no more corrupting influence in govt politics than what we have just seen. Govt actually buying votes of select congress persons to get bills passed. Supporting, or not supporting a candidate with private funds comes nowhere close to what has just happened in Congress. The BILLIONS spent on just a select few to buy a single vote, on a single bill, from public monies...was, and is a disgrace.

"but..but...BUSH did it too."

Then support candidates that wont justify their own corruption by trying to point to others.

If Walmart wants to support a candidate, and run ads with their own money...more power to them. They are a private company and people. Instead of limiting what people can spend, it should be wide open...spend as much or as little as you like, it's your money. The candidates who appeal the most to the most people, will get the most money...and that is how it should be.

It's still somewhat a free country...now.

"but..but..those evil corporations will support candidates who support them!!"

...and that's how it should be.

"but we hate corporations!!"

Stupidity probably won't get much support or money...and that's how it should be also.

[Winehole23]

The merger of politics and the what A. Lincoln called "the money interest" continues apace.

[DarkReign]

Horrible ruling. Coporations should have new limitations on influence, not expanded.

As for the whole "whoever appeals to the most people get the most money" idea from SouthernFried, I say you are wrong in every sense.

Politicians are already elected by corporatists, but at least they lie to the people by showing up in public talking about their concerns.

With this ruling, its thinkable that a politician need only show for the debates and kiss a baby. The people's money wont mean shit to them because they wont need it. Corporations will just cut blank checks en masse to whomever suits their prerogative.

That same politician will have ads after and during every local news program, every local sporting team's event, his/her face will be on every bus, billboard and advertisement.

He/she will be elected because dumbshit voter will say "hey, I recognize that name" and they will win handily without ever having to campaign "on the ground". Its pathetic.

[boutons_deux]

Corporations are not people or citizens, have no morals or ethical considerations that trump profits, and have $Bs to influence and corrupt campaigns, feeding lies and misinformation to citizens.

The corps will crowd out from the media candidates who are less well financed.

Truly, The Business of America Is Business

(and Business fucks over citizens and the environment)

This ruling will disenfranchise citizens, since the it will be the corps who win the campaigns with their dollars.

If anybody thinks politics and democracy are already corrupted by money, you ain't seen nothing, yet.

[Winehole23]

Citizens United round-up: morning edition
Coverage of the decision from the media (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/citizens-united-round-up-morning-edition/)

Erin Miller | Thursday, January 21st, 2010 11:23 am | Tags: Citizens United (http://www.scotusblog.com/tag/citizens-united/), round-up (http://www.scotusblog.com/tag/round-up/) This morning’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is breaking headlines. Below, we cull stories from some of the major news outlets and blogs. We will add more round-up coverage of the decision throughout the day, initially in this post and then in an afternoon edition. Please check back for updates–and send any suggestions for new links to [email protected].
Also, the Washington Post online already has a great page aggregating reactions (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/reactions-to-the-supreme-court.html) to the decision.
News


AP (via the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html)): Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6YsdbrSDKIA): Corporate Campaign Spending Backed By U.S. High Court
Reuters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101748.html): Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html): Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns
ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-limits-corporations/story?id=9269776): Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Limits on Corporations, Unions
ABA Journal (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_to_issue_campaign_finance_ruling/): 5-4 Citizens United Ruling “a Revolution in Campaign Finance Law”
L.A. Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story): Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html): Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html): Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns

Blogs and Commentary


Steve Hoersting at NRO’s Bench Memos (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODAwYTg1MmQ4NjA4NDY3MWJkY2JkMGZiYTVjMTAxYzU=): Freedom in Citizens United
Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/01/will-citizens-united-ruling-impact-crime-and-justice-campaign-advertising.html): Will Citizens United ruling impact crime and justice campaign advertising?
Kenneth Vogel at Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html): Court decision opens floodgates for corporate political spending
Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/supreme_court_strikes_down_key_campaign-finance_pr.php): Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Campaign-Finance Provision
Former Senator Bob Kerrey on Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-kerrey/the-senator-from-exxon-mo_b_431245.html): The Senator from Exxon-Mobil? As Supreme Court Throws Open the Floodgates to Unlimited Corporate Money in Campaigns, the Time for Real Reform is Now!
Ashby Jones at WSJ Law Blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/21/free-speech-v-democracy-rounding-up-the-citizens-united-reactions/): Free Speech v. Democracy: Rounding Up The Citizens United Reactions
E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=Forum&plckForumId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a1d815998-efbb-465a-8a40-74441676780f&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0), briefly: Corporate takeover: The Supreme Court’s reckless conservative activism
The Oval blog at USAToday (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/01/supreme-court-corporations-can-spend-what-they-want-in-political-races/1): Supreme Court: Corporations can spend what they want in political races
Ilya Shapiro at Cato@Liberty (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-ruling-on-hillary-movie-heralds-freer-speech-for-all-of-us/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29&utm_content=Google+Reader): Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us
Heather Gerken at Balkinization (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/initial-take-on-citizens-united.html): An initial take on Citizens United


http://www.scotusblog.com/

[Winehole23]

The opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[SouthernFried]

Corporations are really evil. They ain't people...they're really demons in disguise as people.

...and they'll run ads! Lotsa ads!!

Obama didn't need to run one ad when he gave Ben Nelson Billions for his vote. Oh yeah, Much, much better than ads.

Business couldn't run an ad showing what happened? Well, it's for sure they can now.

More freedom is always better than less.

...and so it goes.

[Winehole23]

Corporations are really evil. They ain't people...they're really demons in disguise as people.This needn't be stipulated to see a danger. "Special interests" have already captured much of the political process and most of the politicians. Not because they are evil, just because they are reasonable-minded, forward-thinking and self-interested.

This decision just opens the floodgates to their "influence".

What a surprise. Soi disant conservative SouthernFried cheers on judicial activism when it benefits special interests and unions.

ROFL!

[spursncowboys]

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.'' I would rather they focus on why it is not constitutional in their dissent.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
With the media pushing issues, candidates and particular parties like they are, doing this will be good and make it a less unfair.
McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional and it's good that scotus is acknowledging it.

[SouthernFried]

What a surprise. Soi disant conservative SouthernFried cheers on judicial activism when it benefits special interests and unions.

The judicial "activism" was when the COURTS decided people can't spend their money or run an ad when the courts say they can't. This OVERTURNS that judicial activism.


Not because they are evil, just because they are reasonable-minded, forward-thinking and self-interested.

This decision just opens the floodgates to their "influence".

And I gather you think this is bad? I think that is what this country is all about...being able to influence the people you elect. The alternative is...you don't have any influence on the people you elect.

I want them to hear me. Constantly. I don't fear any other people wanting the same thing...and that includes "corporations." Who, regardless of the morons who think otherwise...are people.

[spursncowboys]

If people cannot influence people with money then what is there? Then we it becomes class warfare of who you know and what your stature is in the party. I much rather someone have to go out and earn money than go around and win the approval of the heads of the groups.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The judicial "activism" was when the COURTS decided people can't spend their money or run an ad when the courts say they can't. This OVERTURNS that judicial activism.



And I gather you think this is bad? I think that is what this country is all about...being able to influence the people you elect. The alternative is...you don't have any influence on the people you elect.

I want them to hear me. Constantly. I don't fear any other people wanting the same thing...and that includes "corporations." Who, regardless of the morons who think otherwise...are people.

what if the ad is shown the night before an election and it is a blatant falsehood? would you be ok with that?

[Winehole23]

The notion that corporations are individuals possessed of Constitutional standing equipollent to US citizens is itself a piece of judicial hanky-panky ripe for the overturning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[ElNono]

I think this ruling is good. The 1st amendment should always apply equally, IMHO, and this is one of those cases. I'll probably despise seeing slimy and crappy political ads on every channel near election time, but I can always grab the remote and turn the TV off...

[SouthernFried]

Corporations cannot exist without people.

Try to submit a corporate charter without one.

Those people being able to run ads, and spend money as they see fit...is what Freedom and Liberty is all about.

That goes for Unions, Environmental nutjobs...and everyone else. You want to spend money on a campaign...be my guest.

More Freedom is always better than less Freedom.

[SouthernFried]

what if the ad is shown the night before an election and it is a blatant falsehood? would you be ok with that?

You lie, you face consequences.

The silly notion that we must stop all ads because someone might lie in one, on the night of an election...is moronic.

Freedom is not something we should deny because someone might lie to you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You lie, you face consequences.

The silly notion that we must stop all ads because someone might lie in one, on the night of an election...is moronic.

Freedom is not something we should deny because someone might lie to you.

So you are ok with liberal organizations lying about republican candidates with blatantly false ads on the night before the election. The republican loses because of it. What consequences will that group face? I'd like to be wrong here so educate me.

[ElNono]

You lie, you face consequences.

The problem is that corporations per se are a concoction created to avoid personally facing the consequences. Most of the companies that willrun these ads will be created for that specific purpose and intentionally to limit/deny any liability.

I still don't think trumping First Amendment rights is the solution to that, but I see where that is a problem.

[Winehole23]

Corporations aren't US citizens. Why should fictive and notionally eternal "individuals" have the same constitutional standing as us?

[Winehole23]

Are corporations mentioned in the Constitution? Why all the question begging about their having rights under the US Consituttion?

[DarkReign]

Corporations aren't US citizens. Why should fictive and notionally eternal "individuals" have the same constitutional standing as us?

Good question.

Corporations having personhood in the eyes of the law is first and foremost a complete tragedy.

Having said that, should business be subject to the protections of personhood based on this premise?

I say no. Seems I am in the minority.

[ElNono]

Are corporations mentioned in the Constitution? Why all the question begging about their having rights under the US Consituttion?

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.

[Winehole23]

Corporations are creatures of the states, not the US Constitution, and in principle are limitable at will by the soveriegn. That was the 19th century view, at least.

[Winehole23]

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.That's a bit strained IMO, but it makes sense semantically. I tend to doubt this language was crafted with chartered corporations in mind, but retroactively it makes sense to point to this.

[ElNono]

I don't have a problem with having a regulatory framework, I persoanlly don't think outright prohibition is the answer. For example, I'm fairly sure that nobody would complain about a corporation ad extolling a candidate's good points. It's normally the negative stuff that's the problem.

[SouthernFried]

So you are ok with liberal organizations lying about republican candidates with blatantly false ads on the night before the election. The republican loses because of it. What consequences will that group face? I'd like to be wrong here so educate me.

lol. I'm not ok with anyone lying. But, I'm not going to limit people's freedom of speech because someone might lie to me.

Are you?

Or, are you thinking that freedom of speech is ok, but elections are too imporant to totally allow that freedom during one?

[ElNono]

That's a bit strained IMO, but it makes sense semantically. I tend to doubt this language was crafted with chartered corporations in mind, but retroactively it makes sense to point to this.

I think that definition gives them enough wiggle room to overturn an outright ban. I'm not sure they could use it to prevent stricter regulation though.

[SouthernFried]

The problem is that corporations per se are a concoction created to avoid personally facing the consequences. Most of the companies that willrun these ads will be created for that specific purpose and intentionally to limit/deny any liability.

I still don't think trumping First Amendment rights is the solution to that, but I see where that is a problem.


There are many cases where the people behind the corporation (remember, there are people there ;) ) are held responsible for actions...individually. People go to jail, not the corporation. What's the name of that corporation that spent the employees retirement funds (no, not Congress, lol)...it was in Houston? Oh, yeah...Enron. People did jail time, not the corporation.

Corporations are people. As such, they have the same right as...well, people.

Try to form a corporation in Texas without a Director?

A real life people person must form a corporation, not some non-entity. Corporations are people too.

[Winehole23]

In essence, Southernfried, SnC and (retracted), seem to be arguing that Goldman Sachs, AIG, the car companies, the crappy banks and brokers, and all manner of special interests, deserve the same consideration as ordinary US citizens.

Hah!


If only ordinary US citizens had it so good.

[ElNono]

There are many cases where the people behind the corporation (remember, there are people there ;) ) are held responsible for actions...individually. People go to jail, not the corporation. What's the name of that corporation that spent the employees retirement funds (no, not Congress, lol)...it was in Houston? Oh, yeah...Enron. People did jail time, not the corporation.

Corporations are people. As such, they have the same right as...well, people.

Try to form a corporation in Texas without a Director?

A real life people person must form a corporation, not some non-entity. Corporations are people too.

Corporations are not people. I can create a LLC tomorrow, and I can declare it bankrupt one hour later, even though myself personally are not bankrupt. They're a great instruments to take a gamble with without putting yourself personally on the line.

And if Corps would be the same as people, there would be no reason for them to exist as an entity, they would be redundant. That's simply not the case.

[SouthernFried]

Contrary to Winehole's popular belief...corporations are made up of people. Ordinary, everyday, flesh and blood people.

So, yes...they deserve the same consideration as "ordinary US citizens."

Unless, of course, they aren't US citizens...then they deserve a swift kick in the butt. Unless it's one of those swedish underwear models. Then they probably deserve a little more.

[George Gervin's Afro]

lol. I'm not ok with anyone lying. But, I'm not going to limit people's freedom of speech because someone might lie to me.

Are you?

Or, are you thinking that freedom of speech is ok, but elections are too imporant to totally allow that freedom during one?

I do think elections are important enough to protect.

[SouthernFried]

Corporations are not people. I can create a LLC tomorrow, and I can declare it bankrupt one hour later, even though myself personally are not bankrupt. They're a great instruments to take a gamble with without putting yourself personally on the line.

And if Corps would be the same as people, there would be no reason for them to exist as an entity, they would be redundant. That's simply not the case.

You can't create a corporation tomorrow...without you.

You are a people, right?

[ElNono]

In essence, Southernfried, SnC and, much to my dismay, ElNono, seem to be arguing that Goldman Sachs, AIG, the car companies, the crappy banks and brokers, and all manner of special interests, deserve the same consideration as ordinary US citizens.

Hah!

If only ordinary US citizens had it so good.

No. I don't equate corporations to people. That's a separate argument. I just think that under the freedom of association definition on the 1st amendment they have a case to overturn a complete ban.

[Winehole23]

Contrary to Winehole's popular belief...corporations are made up of people. Ordinary, everyday, flesh and blood people.

So, yes...they deserve the same consideration as "ordinary US citizens."

Unless, of course, they aren't US citizens...then they deserve a swift kick in the butt. Unless it's one of those swedish underwear models. Then they probably deserve a little more.Are trade unions made up of ordinary US citizens?

[Marcus Bryant]

So basically corporations are synthetic individuals with (some) Bill of Rights protections, no?

We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

*and GE, Microsoft, IBM,....

[SouthernFried]

I do think elections are important enough to protect.

Then we're agreed. No limits on Free speech, before, during, or after an election.

Welcome aboard.

[ElNono]

You can't create a corporation tomorrow...without you.

You are a people, right?

Doesn't matter. The liability is on the company, not the individual. That is the entire purpose of the corporation construct. Plus, there's plenty of 'parent company of' or 'subsidiary of' companies out there. A mere name and signature doesn't imply personal liability.

[SouthernFried]

sigh...

Go look up a corporate charter. Any corporate charter.

Guess what you'll find.

People.

People's names.

...and so it goes.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or perhaps 'modified' BoR protections?

[Marcus Bryant]

Corps are chartered to do business, not politics.

At least in theory.

[Marcus Bryant]

I can see not limiting or prohibiting the expenditures of political advocacy groups.

Of course, some for-profit corps have traditionally enjoyed 1st amendment protection (ie media).

[Winehole23]

I was pointing out the silver lining for trade unions too in the relevant SC decision

[ElNono]

Go look up a corporate charter. Any corporate charter.

Guess what you'll find.

People.

People's names.

...and so it goes.

And your point is? If you have any claims against said company, good luck finding a judge that let you file a suit against the names on the charter instead of the actual Company...

[SouthernFried]

Doesn't matter. The liability is on the company, not the individual. That is the entire purpose of the corporation construct. Plus, there's plenty of 'parent company of' or 'subsidiary of' companies out there. A mere name and signature doesn't imply personal liability.

I've already cited you a case of "Non liability" being a misnomer. Enron's execs were held liable.

And we're agreed. People are behind every corporation.

You are just citing the limited liability of the individuals in that corporation. Not only did I cite where individuals are held accountable in a corporation...but you just cited that "individuals" in that corportion (and they all have individuals) are not held liable.

It's an admission, tho back door...that yes, there are individuals there.

...they just are tryin to kinda/sorta hide from lawyers.

ok...

Welcome aboard ;)

[TeyshaBlue]

I do think elections are important enough to protect.

Public Election Funding fwiw.

[coyotes_geek]

Does anyone here honestly believe that corporate/union money wasn't already involved in politics? There isn't going to be some massive influx of corporate/union money into politics because that money was already there and would have continued to be there regardless of how the court ruled. In that sense, today's ruling isn't anything other than symbolic.

[ElNono]

Enron was a criminal case.
Libel, while there's a criminal figure for it on certain states, is rarely prosecuted because it directly clashes with first amendment rights.

Lying on an ad is mostly a civil case, period.

[ElNono]

Does anyone here honestly believe that corporate/union money wasn't already involved in politics? There isn't going to be some massive influx of corporate/union money into politics because that money was already there and would have continued to be there regardless of how the court ruled. In that sense, today's ruling isn't anything other than symbolic.

Absolutely. This is more about avoiding having to go trough workarounds than anything else.

[Winehole23]

Are trade unions made up of ordinary US citizens?Well? Are they or aren't they, SouthernFried?

[Marcus Bryant]

For profit corps are organized for business.
Labor unions are organized for workers.
I don't see a need for either to be engaged in political advocacy.

Allow political advocacy groups with only contributions from individual citizens.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think that commie Rehnquist had something to say on this subject once upon a time.

[Winehole23]

Nice to see the argument settle on the meaning of US citizenship, instead of abstract individualism for a change. :tu

[Marcus Bryant]

No surprise that we have a government responsive to "stakeholders" (ie big bidness & big labor) instead of individuals.

Of course, that's the theory these days. Your self-worth is determined by group membership and not your own intrinsic individuality.

[SouthernFried]

"your chartered to do business...not politics"

lol

"People chartered to do biz, are supposed to be disallowed from being involved in politics?"

I blame public education on this. Business is almost off limits to the public education system...promoting ignorance, breeding distrust, resulting in hatred.

Ignorance is the enemy, and our "education" system wallows in it. The results are endemic throughout the country.

From "elections are special and need free speech curtailed during them" to "Corporations are synthetic people," to "business chartered to do business, are not charted to be involved in politics" to the totally obscure "are trade unions US citizens? Are they, huh...huh...huh?"

lol

It's gotta be 5 o'clock somewhere...

sig

[Winehole23]

"They are composed of ordinary US citizens" was your argument for the Constitutional rights of corporations, dummy.

BTW, I notice you just dodged my direct question at the top of the page. Others will notice, too.

[Winehole23]

Nothing obscure about it, SouthernFried. I guess calling it that consoles you for your pitiful obfuscation and dodging.

[Marcus Bryant]

'You're a dummy because you disagree with me.' Compelling argument.

Further, since SF obviously went to the special school, in which part of the Constitution are rights explicitly given to business organizations?

[Winehole23]

...(misconstrued)

[Marcus Bryant]

"They are composed of ordinary US citizens" was your argument for the Constitutional rights of corporations, dummy.


Further evidence of his exceptional education.

[Marcus Bryant]

I blame American public education for people gullible enough to swallow that a Fortune 500 company should enjoy constitutional protections originally intended for private citizens.

[Bartleby]

So does this ruling also make it easier for foreign corporations to make political donations?

[Winehole23]

@MB: Ironic, since SF blames "public education" for you and me believing any different. :lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

A wager on which century he would place the SCOTUS recognition of a corporation as a person under the Constitution? Not to mention if he could figure out which amendment was involved?

[SouthernFried]

"They are composed of ordinary US citizens" was your argument for the Constitutional rights of corporations, dummy.

BTW, I notice you just dodged my direct question at the top of the page. Others will notice, too.

lol...we having fun yet?

Actually, you brought the "US citizen" into this discussion. I was using "ordinary people" until that point. I'm sure you had some diabolical reason for trying to switch it...mebbe because some Non-US-citizens can create a corporation? I dunno, paranoid mebbe...but, don't care really. Fit in US citizen all u want.

What is your question? Something about Trade union people being normal US citizens?? If they are US trade unions, and are normal US citizens...I would think they would be...uh, normal US citizens.

Is that somehow connected to Corporations being made of people as well?

[Winehole23]

Yeah. It has to do with your abject apology for the big business/ big labor stranglehold on electoral politics, and the recent SC decision so amenable to both.

[Marcus Bryant]

@MB: Ironic, since SF blames "public education" for you and me believing any different. :lmao

Especially when you consider the purpose of that system.

Standard knee-jerk Dittohead responses:

Pro-Bidness no matter what. Any deviation from the worship of American bidness is a sign of latent communism. The Founding Fathers had no such skepticism about the power business interests could attain and its potential impact upon the Republic, specifically, the rights and liberties of individual citizens.

Criticize the government reflexively. Blame the first government entity which comes to mind, excepting the military, of course. Oh, and the police.

Then gulp your Bud, head to the bathroom, and jack off.

[SouthernFried]

I blame American public education for people gullible enough to swallow that a Fortune 500 company should enjoy constitutional protections originally intended for private citizens.

lol

The people behind and in the fortune 500 company probably should enjoy the same constitutional protections as...uh...y'know..."private citizens."

We have agreed that corporations don't exist without people right? And that every corporation has...uh...people. That people create and run corporations...and every corporation has to have people listed on the corporate charter? And that a corporation is not just some creation of a ...er, non-person? And that those people have just as much right to do what, people do...as much as, well..."normal" people not involved in a "corporation" do?

We do have this much straight, right?

[Marcus Bryant]

WOuldn't duh guvmint be better if bidness ran it? Tink about it, man!

[SouthernFried]

Especially when you consider the purpose of that system.

Standard knee-jerk Dittohead responses:

Pro-Bidness no matter what. Any deviation from the worship of American bidness is a sign of latent communism. The Founding Fathers had no such skepticism about the power business interests could attain and its potential impact upon the Republic, specifically, the rights and liberties of individual citizens.

Criticize the government reflexively. Blame the first government entity which comes to mind, excepting the military, of course. Oh, and the police.

Then gulp your Bud, head to the bathroom, and jack off.

I drink MGD. lol

And if you look, real hard...the founders biggest skepticism...was about the increase power of govt. Specifically, the rights and liberties of individual citizens...

....even those citizens involved in "Corporations."

lol

[Winehole23]

The people behind and in the trade unions probably should enjoy the same constitutional protections as...uh...y'know..."private citizens."

We have agreed that trade unions don't exist without people right? And that every trade union has...uh...people. That people create and run trade unions ...and every trade union has to have people listed on the union charter? And that a trade union is not just some creation of a ...er, non-person? And that those people have just as much right to do what, people do...as much as, well..."normal" people not involved in a "trade union " do?

We do have this much straight, right?Fify.

[SouthernFried]

WOuldn't duh guvmint be better if bidness ran it? Tink about it, man!

Dude!!!

I been saying that for years! Take the CEO's of the most "successful" business and corporations, put them in charge of the mess in DC.

...and we talking balanced budgets, cutting waste, decreased beaurocracies.

"successful" US business is the key here.

GM CEO's not allowed.

Great Idea man!! Great minds and all that....

[Marcus Bryant]

lol

The people behind and in the fortune 500 company probably should enjoy the same constitutional protections as...uh...y'know..."private citizens."

We have agreed that corporations don't exist without people right? And that every corporation has...uh...people. That people create and run corporations...and every corporation has to have people listed on the corporate charter? And that a corporation is not just some creation of a ...er, non-person? And that those people have just as much right to do what, people do...as much as, well..."normal" people not involved in a "corporation" do?

We do have this much straight, right?

Such a lazy and weak argument:


People have rights.

Corporations are formed, owned, and ran by people.

Thus, corporations in and of themselves have rights.


Any guess as to where the weakness of your argument is?

[SouthernFried]

Fify.


Yes...trade unions have just as much right as...well, corporations and all the rest of us. They're people too.

You thinking I wouldn't agree with this? Is this what got you all excited?

lol

Yes, we are having fun...:toast

[Marcus Bryant]

Dude!!!

I been saying that for years! Take the CEO's of the most "successful" business and corporations, put them in charge of the mess in DC.

...and we talking balanced budgets, cutting waste, decreased beaurocracies.

"successful" US business is the key here.

GM CEO's not allowed.

Great Idea man!! Great minds and all that....


:king

[Winehole23]

Yes...trade unions have just as much right as...well, corporations and all the rest of us. They're people too.

You thinking I wouldn't agree with this? Is this what got you all excited?You're consistent in your block-headedness, I'll give you that.

[SouthernFried]

Such a lazy and weak argument:


People have rights.

Corporations are formed, owned, and ran by people.

Thus, corporations in and of themselves have rights.


Any guess as to where the weakness of your argument is?


LOL...any guess to where your logic is flawed?

Corporations are not some non-peopled-entity.

They don't exist without people.

Since corporations don't exist without people, they can't have any rights without people. Because, y'know...they don't exist.

So...ragging on corporations, is ragging on the people who chartered them, and/or work in them. Since corporations are people, those people have all the same rights as well....you.

You are simply trying to seperate a Corporation from the people who create and work for it. Easier to make an "it" rather than a "them"... into baddies I guess.

It's what they teach in public school anyway...lol

[SouthernFried]

You're consistent in your block-headedness, I'll give you that.


I dunno...I agreed that Union members are people with the same rights as...well, other people.

What more do you want?

[Marcus Bryant]

LOL...any guess to where your logic is flawed?

Corporations are not some non-peopled-entity.

They don't exist without people.

Quite a few things would not exist without people. Do all of those have rights?





Since corporations don't exist without people, they can't have any rights without people. Because, y'know...they don't exist.


The significance you attach to the involvement of people as an argument for the transference of constitutional rights is truly stunning.



So...ragging on corporations, is ragging on the people who chartered them, and/or work in them. Since corporations are people, those people have all the same rights as well....you.


"Ragging"? The hallmark of a well-educated mind.




You are simply trying to seperate a Corporation from the people who create and work for it. Easier to make an "it" rather than a "them"... into baddies I guess.

It's what they teach in public school anyway...lol


Clearly you are a top graduate.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then again, I didn't attend the Limbaugh School of Constitutional Studies.

[Winehole23]

@SF:Incoherent.

You're blurring the difference between the class and the member of the class. Since the class in this case is a chartered creature of the state, and not, say, of the US Constitution (unlike the US citizens who are members of that class), the government may limit it as it so chooses, without impinging the individual rights of the member of the class.

Regulating corporations re: elections does not significantly hinder the ability of individuals to combine to lobby or to seek a redress of grievances outside the confines of the corporation itself.

E.g., what is a trade association?

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, governments are made up of people. Thus, governments have Bill of Rights protections.

[SouthernFried]

@SF:Incoherent.

You're blurring the difference between the class and the member of the class. Since the class in this case is a chartered creature of the state, and not, say, of the US Constitution (unlike the US citizens who are members of that class), the government may limit it as it so chooses, without impinging the individual rights of the member of the class.

Regulating corporations re: elections does not significantly hinder the ability of individuals to combine to lobby or to seek a redress of grievances outside the confines of the corporation itself.


You don't think limiting what a "corporation" can and cannot do, is not limiting the people in it?

Regulating corporations is regulating people.

"This corp cannot do x."

The people cannot do x...unless they leave the corporation to do it.

Your not regulating some invisible entity...your regulating the people behind the "corporation." Corporations do not do anything without people...so you HAVE to regulate people when regulating a corporation.

Why regulate something that does nothing without people. Your regulating people.

"corporations can't vote"

Corporations don't vote...people do.

"corporations can't run ads"

Corporations don't run ads...the people inside the corporations do.

Of course your regulating people when you regulate corporations.

Are we still having fun??

[Winehole23]

What is a trade association?

[SouthernFried]

Or, governments are made up of people. Thus, governments have Bill of Rights protections.

Govts have bill of rights protections...for the PEOPLE living in that govt.

what is so hard to understand here?

[SouthernFried]

What is a trade association?

As association of traders? lol

What do you want it to be? An association of tradesman?

[Winehole23]

(SF substitutes sheer repitition for argumentation, hoping to outlast his critics.)

[Marcus Bryant]

But bidness is good and bidnesses are made up of people who have rights and since rights are a good thing...then bidnesses have rights. And if you disagree with me you are a commie who went to a public school, which, oddly enough were spread across this nation in no small part to create good little big bidness worshiping lackeys like 'SouthernFried'.

Not to mention that moniker is amusing as the southern tradition of Jeffersonian agrarian conservatism was quite hostile to big bidness.

[Winehole23]

As association of traders? lol

What do you want it to be? An association of tradesman?It's a business lobby. Proof and practice that corporations are not hamstrung by limitations on electoral giving.

[Marcus Bryant]

Govts have bill of rights protections...for the PEOPLE living in that govt.

what is so hard to understand here?

Way to backpedal there. The government itself is an individual, for as you have told us all it takes is having people involved to make an organization an individual with rights.

Don't back down, pussy.

[Winehole23]

It's a good way to kick up more dust.

[SouthernFried]

It's a business lobby. Proof and practice that corporations are not hamstrung by limitations on electoral giving.

Ok...that's nice. Good even. No reason to have stupid limitations then, right?

[Winehole23]

Yeah. Just let them have the whole store. Good idea.

[SouthernFried]

Way to backpedal there. The government itself is an individual, for as you have told us all it takes is having people involved to make an organization an individual with rights.

Don't back down, pussy.

lol...I love you too man.

Our Government is made of people...not one individual. And your point?

[spursncowboys]

LOL...any guess to where your logic is flawed?

Corporations are not some non-peopled-entity.

They don't exist without people.

Since corporations don't exist without people, they can't have any rights without people. Because, y'know...they don't exist.

So...ragging on corporations, is ragging on the people who chartered them, and/or work in them. Since corporations are people, those people have all the same rights as well....you.

You are simply trying to seperate a Corporation from the people who create and work for it. Easier to make an "it" rather than a "them"... into baddies I guess.

It's what they teach in public school anyway...lol
Also corporations are considered a citizen in the laws eyes, and SCOTUS has held that precedent, like how spending money is considered a 1st Amendment protected right.

[baseline bum]

More proof of who really runs the fucking country.

[SouthernFried]

Yeah. Just let them have the whole store. Good idea.

Oh, your scared of business and the people within it?

Why didn't you just come out and say it.

It's stupid...but, that's ok. Now I understand where your coming from.

I'm a businessman.

boo

[Winehole23]

Also corporations are considered a citizen in the laws eyes, and SCOTUS has held that precedent, like how spending money is considered a 1st Amendment protected right.True. It's a perversity, even former Chief justice Wm. Rehnquist said the case law supporting corporate personhood is weak, but you're right.

Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, I think.

Corporations having First Amendment rights (and money equalling speech) is a legal novelty not derived from American tradition or history, and least of all from the US constitution itself, but there it is.

[Marcus Bryant]

Our Government is made of people...not one individual. And your point?

Corporations are made of people...not one individual.

You logic is flawed. Figure it out.

[Winehole23]

Legislation from the bench, I think they used to call it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Legislation from the bench, I think they used to call it.

Dem damn wiberal judges.

[SouthernFried]

Corporations are made of people...not one individual.

You logic is flawed. Figure it out.

Actually, it can only take 1 person to form a corporation (state of texas requires 1 director I believe)...but, most have more in it usually. President, treasurer, etc...

It's still people (singular or plural I guess...lol).

and since corporations are made of people (notice the concession here...lol) ...then...what?

[Winehole23]

Oh, your scared of business and the people within it?

Why didn't you just come out and say it.

It's stupid...but, that's ok. Now I understand where your coming from.
You don't get it. Propping up yet another silly strawman doesn't get you to the finish line. That's just where your argument fell down again.

I think concerns about special interests capturing the political process are reasonable and empirically well founded. To anyone who hasn't got their eyes shut to it, at least.

[mogrovejo]

Horrible ruling. Coporations should have new limitations on influence, not expanded.

As for the whole "whoever appeals to the most people get the most money" idea from SouthernFried, I say you are wrong in every sense.

Politicians are already elected by corporatists, but at least they lie to the people by showing up in public talking about their concerns.

With this ruling, its thinkable that a politician need only show for the debates and kiss a baby. The people's money wont mean shit to them because they wont need it. Corporations will just cut blank checks en masse to whomever suits their prerogative.

That same politician will have ads after and during every local news program, every local sporting team's event, his/her face will be on every bus, billboard and advertisement.

He/she will be elected because dumbshit voter will say "hey, I recognize that name" and they will win handily without ever having to campaign "on the ground". Its pathetic.

This rule isn't about campaign contributions. We'll have to wait a few years for that one.


The notion that corporations are individuals possessed of Constitutional standing equipollent to US citizens is itself a piece of judicial hanky-panky ripe for the overturning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

It wasn't about the person-hood of corporations either.

[Winehole23]

....

[Winehole23]

Or are there other relevant cases you would add?

[ElNono]

Interesting also how Sonia Sotomayor was going to turn the Supreme Court into a extreme left, pro-choice, anti corporation court. Guess that didn't quite pan out...

[Winehole23]

@ mogrovejo:

Oh, I agree. But the obiter dicta (saying corporations were individuals deserving of protection under the 14th Amendment) made the banner, so the case was cited as precedent for a raft of improprieties.

You disagree?

[mogrovejo]

Oh, I agree. But the obiter dicta made the banner, so the case was cited as precedent for a raft of improprieties.

You disagree?

Yes. One doesnt' need to recognize corporations as "people" to respect their speech as "speech" which the First Amendment forbids Congress from banning without a compelling state interest.

[mogrovejo]

But to return to, and summarize, my principal point, which is the conformity of today’s opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation.

[SouthernFried]

You don't get it. Propping up yet another silly strawman doesn't get you to the finish line. That's just where your argument fell down again.

I think concerns about special interests capturing the political process are reasonable and empirically well founded. To anyone who hasn't got their eyes shut to it, at least.

Oh, I get it.

Your worried about Business getting too involved in the political process and like the restraints put on them. You think they'll have too much "influence" without adequate "restrictions."

I'm not worried about business being involved, and want them more involved. In fact...I want EVERYONE more involved. Money'd labor, money'd business...non money'd masses....

You like restrictions...I don't. You think someone knows how to "restrict" influence. I know nobody does.

So I want everyone to have influence.

Let's call it "freedom to influence"...lol

Business, in particular, needs much more influence than they've had. Our economy is going to shit because of it.

"But..but...business already has too much influence...and THAT's why our economy is going to shit."

I am not going to assume your the kind of idiot who thinks this way. But, there's enough idiots who do.

Now, I'm going home. But I'll leave you with an EXCELLENT piece, that I...realizing the excellence of it...have already posted.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144840

Night.

[mogrovejo]

From the hearings (Mr. Stewart was the government representative):


JUSTICE ALITO: You think that if -- if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?

MR. STEWART: I'm not saying it could be banned. I'm saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its PAC.


JUSTICE ALITO: Well, most publishers are corporations. And a -- a publisher that is a corporation could be prohibited from selling a book?


MR. STEWART: Well, of course, the statute contains its own media exemption or media --


JUSTICE ALITO: I'm not asking what the statute says. The government's position is that the First Amendment allows the banning of a book if it's published by a corporation?


MR. STEWART: Because the First Amendment refers both to freedom of speech and of the press, there would be a potential argument that media corporations, the institutional press, would have a greater First Amendment right. That question is obviously not presented here. The -- the other two things --


JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book. Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60/90-day period -- the 60/30-day period?


MR. STEWART: If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy. That is, if it was subject to no reasonable interpretation --


JUSTICE KENNEDY: And I suppose it could even -- is it the Kindle where you can read a book? I take it that's from a satellite. So the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view?


MR. STEWART: Well, the statute applies to cable, satellite, and broadcast communications. And the Court in McConnell has addressed the --


JUSTICE KENNEDY: Just to make it clear, it's the government's position that under the statute, if this Kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy, within the 60/30-day period, if it comes from a satellite, it's under -- it can be prohibited under the Constitution and perhaps under this statute?


MR. STEWART: It -- it can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required to use -- to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC.


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?


MR. STEWART: That's correct.


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that?


MR. STEWART: Well, if it says vote for X, it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provisions.






Congratulations to Citizens United, ACLU, National Coalition Against Censorship and all the others individuals and assemblies who fought and won this fight for the cause of liberty.

[ElNono]

Do you hear that sound? Is the collective of Chinese people laughing at your Economic Freedom article...

[TeyshaBlue]

Actually, it can only take 1 person to form a corporation (state of texas requires 1 director I believe)...but, most have more in it usually. President, treasurer, etc...

It's still people (singular or plural I guess...lol).

and since corporations are made of people (notice the concession here...lol) ...then...what?
Thanks for this little gem of deduction! I think I'll make the following proclamation:

Churches are tax exempt. People make up churches, hence, people are tax exempt.

[baseline bum]

Thanks for this little gem of deduction! I think I'll make the following proclamation:

Churches are tax exempt. People make up churches, hence, people are tax exempt.

:lol

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u290/goalsetterpk/clapping.gif

[mogrovejo]

Interesting also how Sonia Sotomayor was going to turn the Supreme Court into a extreme left, pro-choice, anti corporation court. Guess that didn't quite pan out...

I'm not sure why are people trying to frame this issue as a left/right one. Most(all?) pro free-speech/civil rights organization from both sites support this rule.

[elbamba]

Interesting also how Sonia Sotomayor was going to turn the Supreme Court into a extreme left, pro-choice, anti corporation court. Guess that didn't quite pan out...

To be fair, she replaced a liberal judge, though he was one appointed by Bush Sr. The swing will take place if Scalia, thomas, Roberts, Alito or Kennedy die or step down. Personally, If I had to guess, I would say that Stevens is probably going to step down before 2012 because if President Obama does not win, I do not think he will make it to 2016.

Having said that, I did not think he would make it to 2010.

[spursncowboys]

Interesting also how Sonia Sotomayor was going to turn the Supreme Court into a extreme left, pro-choice, anti corporation court. Guess that didn't quite pan out...

I never read that. She is replacing an exteme left anyways, so I didn't think anyone thought the dynamic would change. It definitely shows more about BHO.

[Capt Bringdown]

What we have here is the complete capture of government by business. A very sad day for America.

Oh, and I thought conservatives were against judicial activism and legislating from the bench...

[boutons_deux]

yep, all that talk about (100 years) of "stare decisis" and "judicial humility" was nothing but cheap talk.

The Repugs' radical right judges were radically activist.

Corporate capture of America is nearing impregnable totality.

[MannyIsGod]

The fact of the matter is that the ruling was years in the making and anyone familiar with the case expected it. The law's intent is understood but its not legal. Censorship shouldn't fly.

I'm worried about the results, but really the corps already run shit. They already get what they want. Politics in this country is far too convoluted for the average person to understand. The average person just doesn't give a shit and because of this corps will be able to sway votes with the same type of marketing campaigns that they use to sell their products with no limitations.

Its not good, but its not illegal. Whatever.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and I'm sure all the pro corporations people in here would be ok with those people behind corporations being charged for crimes when their products end up killing someone. I mean if they get the rights because they don't exist without people then do they also get the same liabilities?

Oh, of course not, right?

[DarkReign]

Congratulations to Citizens United, ACLU, National Coalition Against Censorship and all the others individuals and assemblies who fought and won this fight for the cause of liberty.

So, does the ruling allow corporations to self-finance political agendas through all sources?

Example: I am Microsoft. Microsoft prefers that Mr. Brown wins the Senate seat in Washington state as opposed to Mrs. Blue because Mrs. Blue is clearly on thw "wrong" side of legislation that could affect Microsoft (anti-trust suits, anyone?).

Given that Microsoft has a self-interest to see Mr. Brown win because of his standing on the very same issue, Microsoft now has a right to self finance campaign media on Mr. Brown's behalf.

Microsoft. A billionaire's wet-dream come true, spending millions upon millions if it so chooses influencing the outcome of national standing and policy above and beyond their legal contribution to Mr. Brown's campaign.

This is ok with you?

[DarkReign]

Honestly, I hope you are all happy in your slavery.

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually, it can only take 1 person to form a corporation (state of texas requires 1 director I believe)...but, most have more in it usually. President, treasurer, etc...

It's still people (singular or plural I guess...lol).

and since corporations are made of people (notice the concession here...lol) ...then...what?

So are governments.

[mogrovejo]

So, does the ruling allow corporations to self-finance political agendas through all sources?

Example: I am Microsoft. Microsoft prefers that Mr. Brown wins the Senate seat in Washington state as opposed to Mrs. Blue because Mrs. Blue is clearly on thw "wrong" side of legislation that could affect Microsoft (anti-trust suits, anyone?).

Given that Microsoft has a self-interest to see Mr. Brown win because of his standing on the very same issue, Microsoft now has a right to self finance campaign media on Mr. Brown's behalf.

Microsoft. A billionaire's wet-dream come true, spending millions upon millions if it so chooses influencing the outcome of national standing and policy above and beyond their legal contribution to Mr. Brown's campaign.

This is ok with you?

Absolutely. Free speech is free speech is free speech.

The First Amendment is not a privilege granted to "citizens" or even to "people." It's a limit on the power of Congress: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." What the Court held is that this principle applies regardless of the nature of the speaker, be it an individual, a group with a spokesperson or formal association.


What worries me very much is the fact that in your scenario Microsoft has the incentive to spend millions of dollars influencing the election of a Senator. Why is that so? That's the problem - and a very serious one. Establishing censorship to solve that problem is bad solution that doesn't even work.


Unfortunately, people seem unable to identify that problem and the only single solution for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Here's what that socialist pinko commie liberal al Qaeda atheist Moslem Birkenstock wearing collectivist Stalinist Rehnquist had to say. (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/rehnquist_dissent_bellotti.php)

[DarkReign]

Absolutely. Free speech is free speech is free speech.

The First Amendment is not a privilege granted to "citizens" or even to "people." It's a limit on the power of Congress: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." What the Court held is that this principle applies regardless of the nature of the speaker, be it an individual, a group with a spokesperson or formal association.


What worries me very much is the fact that in your scenario Microsoft has the incentive to spend millions of dollars influencing the election of a Senator. Why is that so? That's the problem - and a very serious one. Establishing censorship to solve that problem is bad solution that doesn't even work.

Yet, even you admit in another thread that legislation cannot bend reality to its will.

Reality says money wins elections. This new ruling allows even more money into the system, thereby weighting it even more in corporate America's favor.

My queston then is,


Unfortunately, people seem unable to identify that problem and the only single solution for it.

What is the identity of the problem? If you say something along the lines of "People need to be educated.." I am going to puke.

[DarkReign]

I, for one, am not willing to exchange my country's sovereignty for the upholding of business rights per the Constitution.

Does this make me a communist? Serious question.

[mogrovejo]

Yet, even you admit in another thread that legislation cannot bend reality to its will.

Reality says money wins elections. This new ruling allows even more money into the system, thereby weighting it even more in corporate America's favor.

Do you really think that ACLU is in the pocket of big business?

The idea that this is a pro big business ruling is very misguided. Heck, even AFL-CIO supported Citizens United in this litigation.


What is the identity of the problem? If you say something along the lines of "People need to be educated.." I am going to puke.

Isn't it clear? That Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue have so much power that Microsoft is willing to spend millions to be in their favour.

[mogrovejo]

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, populism is the first one.

[Marcus Bryant]

Anyways, if public education prepares us for anything, it is the corporate warfare-welfare state. We go through thirteen years of preparation to be willing to die on a foreign battlefield for bullshit wars, spend years working in a cubicle like a rat, or accept that we have no individuality and are owned by the state. Public education trains us to accept bullshit like this, not to question it. The intended product of American public education is a SouthernFried, someone who thinks the sole purpose of American liberty as expressed in the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence is that McDonald's and Wal-Mart can own our government. It's not a surprise that if you bother to look at the history of American public education you see the fingerprints of Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie all over it. Good little robots trained from birth to pledge allegiance to the flag and the corporations who own it is what they bought. Not to mention that the pledge itself was dreamed up by, yes, a national socialist here in the late 19th century. It's rather obvious when you examine the Constitution and the Declaration that the last thing those documents were about was putting business interests on par with the people. Not to mention that if you dig a little further you will discover that the revolutionaries had an explicit distrust of corporations due to the fact that, surprise, surprise, it was the British colonial corporations they were rebelling against in part. It's a testament to the efforts of the "elite" over the last century or so in this country that we've turned into this class rigid society in which corporations are held on a pedestal, legally, politically, and socially.

Now, if your education is based on what you heard a Rush Limbaugh spout over the airwaves for three hours a day, this may come as a shock. But relax, you're exactly the ignorant little tool you were intended to be.

[Wild Cobra]

Horrible ruling. Coporations should have new limitations on influence, not expanded.

As for the whole "whoever appeals to the most people get the most money" idea from SouthernFried, I say you are wrong in every sense.

Politicians are already elected by corporatists, but at least they lie to the people by showing up in public talking about their concerns.

With this ruling, its thinkable that a politician need only show for the debates and kiss a baby. The people's money wont mean shit to them because they wont need it. Corporations will just cut blank checks en masse to whomever suits their prerogative.

That same politician will have ads after and during every local news program, every local sporting team's event, his/her face will be on every bus, billboard and advertisement.

He/she will be elected because dumbshit voter will say "hey, I recognize that name" and they will win handily without ever having to campaign "on the ground". Its pathetic.


So, does the ruling allow corporations to self-finance political agendas through all sources?

Example: I am Microsoft. Microsoft prefers that Mr. Brown wins the Senate seat in Washington state as opposed to Mrs. Blue because Mrs. Blue is clearly on thw "wrong" side of legislation that could affect Microsoft (anti-trust suits, anyone?).

Given that Microsoft has a self-interest to see Mr. Brown win because of his standing on the very same issue, Microsoft now has a right to self finance campaign media on Mr. Brown's behalf.

Microsoft. A billionaire's wet-dream come true, spending millions upon millions if it so chooses influencing the outcome of national standing and policy above and beyond their legal contribution to Mr. Brown's campaign.

This is ok with you?

Well, from a practical side, it's balance. What about PACS from ACORN and others? Do you want to stop such things from tghem too?

[Wild Cobra]

I, for one, am not willing to exchange my country's sovereignty for the upholding of business rights per the Constitution.

Does this make me a communist? Serious question.
Communist. No.

Authoritarian....

Think about it...

[Marcus Bryant]

I, for one, am not willing to exchange my country's sovereignty for the upholding of business rights per the Constitution.

Does this make me a communist? Serious question.

That would make you someone with a functioning brain.

[mogrovejo]

The faith that some people have in politicians is mind-boggling.

Ditto for the ignorance and misunderstanding about what was at stake in this litigation.

Several organizations filled amicus briefs (http://www.ced.org/about/about-ced) in support of the appellant (Citizens United) and the appellee (FEC/Government).

Among the firsts, well-known pro corporatist organizations like ACLU and AFL-CIO.

Amongst the laters, the well-known anti-corporatist think-tank Committee for Economic Development - "CED's Trustees are chairmen, presidents, and senior executives of major American corporations(...)CED offers senior executives a nonpolitical forum for exploring critical long-term issues and making an impact on U.S. policy decisions (http://www.ced.org/about/about-ced)."

Huh? Wait, I thought that this was great for the big business and terrible for civil rights advocacy groups and the little guy.

At least that's what many people in this thread are convinced of. And absolutely unable to depart from their instinctive and primitive world-view.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not so much faith in politicians as it is believing they are the lesser of 2 evils. Big business is terrible and your argument that people are against the influence big business uses is like saying people get vaccinated because they love shots.

[jack sommerset]

It will be real interesting when Wong Dong runs for President in 2012 backed by Nokia.

[EmptyMan]

Horrible ruling.

[mogrovejo]

Its not so much faith in politicians as it is believing they are the lesser of 2 evils. Big business is terrible

Is it? Why? I don't know and I don't care. Communist and nazis are terrible and I don't want their freedom of speech limited.

Once again, the CED was against this ruling, the ACLU and AFL-CIO were in favour. I'm not sure why is this a pro/anti big-business decision. If that's the case, it seems those organizations are extremely clueless about their interests.

It's the speech, not the speakers.


and your argument that people are against the influence big business uses is like saying people get vaccinated because they love shots.

What?

[Marcus Bryant]

Of the Microsoft, by the General Electric, and for the Boeing.

[mogrovejo]

The First Amendment only limits itself to "the people" in referring to the right to assemble peaceably and the right to petition the government.

For example, a law prohibiting non-citizens from peaceable assembly would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

But the First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge "the freedom of speech" -- it doesn't say who possesses that right to speak freely, or what constitutes speech.

How hard is this to understand?

Should the government be allowed to forbid the publishing, distribution and selling of Axelrod's Audacity of Hope?

Could the Congress ban Adidas from running advertisements for their sneakers? I'm not asking if the would, I'm asking if they could. Adidas is not a person.

Could the congress forbid newspapers from endorsing candidates? The NYT isn't a person either.

People should try to see this from the perspective of why protecting free-speech is so important. There are many ways to regulate electioneering without banishing speech. This is why so many organizations without any sympathy for big companies supported this ruling.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

[jack sommerset]

You think one day a company will advertise on politicians. Kind of like what Golden Palace does on boxers.

[doobs]

Media companies are corporations, too.

[doobs]

Some perspective. (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/lessened-corporate-first-amendment-rights-and-media-corporations/)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Alex Jones is looking more and more like he is right

that's how crazy this country is becoming.

It really is an endgame, and they are making huge moves right in front of the people's faces...and there is nothing we can do about it!



We are coming closer and closer to a violent revolution in this country.

[Marcus Bryant]

We are coming closer and closer to a violent revolution in this country.

Hmmm...the revolution has already come and gone. Perhaps the most insidious revolutions against the people are those that nobody notices. Or those which a majority tacitly accepts. I mean, is it some great secret that the wealthy and powerful call the shots in this country? We see the donations that all of our representatives receive. We see them land in cushy jobs when they're out of public service. We see all kinds of government contracts doled out. And we see supposedly left wing and right wing politicians do this.

Generally, nobody cares so long as they have their Sportscenter or American Idol to watch.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-the-personhood-of-corporations/#more-15376

Analysis: The personhood of corporations
Rehabilitating an image

Lyle Denniston | Thursday, January 21st, 2010 6:45 pm
SCOTUSblog

Analysis

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may have had his tongue in his cheek, or perhaps wanted merely to taunt the majority, when he wrote in Thursday’s opinion on the role of corporations in national politics: “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” It is a tantalizing notion.

Suppose that General Motors Corp., troubled that a candidate for Congress from Michigan was too favorable to the United Auto Workers, decided to do everything in its corporate power to defeat that candidate. So, aside from spending huge sums of its own money (none of it federal bailout money) to influence the outcome, it went to the office of the voting registrar in downtown Detroit. It sought to sign up, affirming that it was a citizen and resident of Michigan. Denied registration, it sued, claiming that, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it was a “person,” and, as a “citizen,” it was entitled to equal protection under the election laws. Would the Supreme Court buy that?

General Motors might already be halfway to winning its lawsuit. It has been understood, for decades, that corporations are “persons” under the Constitution. And nothing the Supreme Court said Thursday undermined that notion. If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.

At least in politics, the Court majority indicated, corporations have a voice, and they have worthy political ideas. Here is the way Justice Anthony M. Kennedy put it (partially quoting from an earlier ruling): “Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”

It does not matter that the right-to-vote scenario is quite implausible. The fact is that the decades-old image of American corporations as a destabilizing and perhaps even corrupting influence in politics has now been thoroughly re-examined by the Supreme Court, and the corporate “person” emerges from the process with — in the eyes of the majority — a burnished image of good citizen. There is a deep chasm of perception, between Thursday’s majority and the dissenters, about the nature of the corporate personality.

Justice Stevens, writing for the dissenters, turned Chief Justice John Marshall’s celebrated comment in the Dartmouth College case — in a ruling that actually favored the corporate form — into a belittling comment: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”

In vivid contrast, the majority overruled a 19-year-old precedent (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) that had lambasted the corporation, when it entered the political arena, because of ”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.” That, the Court had said in 1990, was a form of corruption that legislators could use as the basis for singling out corporations for restrictions on their political activity. The overruling may have been intended, in part, to scuttle that image.

The rehabilitation of the corporate “person” almost certainly was a project that five of the Justices were prepared to embrace. It could be argued, indeed, that the Court put the case over to the current Term for a second argument, focused on corporation’s rights under the Constitution, as part of that project. There was not a hint that those five, in the end, were in any way moved by the suggestion at that second argument by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that the Court may have been wrong for a century about awarding “personhood” to corporations.

The majority put aside the dissenting opinion’s repeated mentions of the special favors that the corporate form gets, treating those as a completely inadequate foundation for treating corporations differently as political citizens. And Justice Antonin Scalia, in a separate opinion buttressing the majority ruling, went to considerable lengths to enhance the constitutional pedigree of corporations’ rights and to denounce the dissenters’ suggestion that the Founders did not think highly of corporations.

The question now arises whether the enhanced legal stature of corporations will make a difference in other fields of constitutional law. One might suggest that corporations have already benefitted from greater sympathy from the current Court — for example, in constitutional limitations on the size of punitive damages that juries may assess for corporate wrongdoing. And, this Term, there seems to be quite a realistic prospect that the Court, applying the Due Process Clause, may limit the scope of the federal criminal fraud laws when an executive of a corporation is accused of depriving the shareholders of “honest services.”

Going further, one might speculate whether it would be worth starting a lawsuit to test some of the restraints that states impose on corporations as conditions in their charters, in an effort to further liberate the corporate form. Or, perhaps, one might anticipate a lawsuit if, as is already being suggested in some quarters, that Congress might respond to the Citizens United ruling by passing a law to require corporations operating in interstate commerce to be federally chartered, and decreeing that, as such, they are not “persons” with constitutional rights.

It is not too much to expect that lawyers for corporate America may well be looking to explore the outer possibilities of their clients’ “personhood” and new-found constitutional equality.

[angrydude]

businesses already do what they want in politics through the use of small organizations. all you end of the world doomsayers are going to be disappointed when this has little effect except to make things more transparent.

[Capt Bringdown]

Generally, nobody cares so long as they have their Sportscenter or American Idol to watch.

Weapons of Mass Distraction.

We have to be the most "entertained" culture in the history of human existence.

That's no accident.

[DarkReign]

Isn't it clear? That Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue have so much power that Microsoft is willing to spend millions to be in their favour.

No, I didnt think it was clear because I am not entirely sure about the solution to this problem.

Senators and Representatives have the power they have. Honest question..consider for a moment that I do not mean offense as it seems hard to ascertain your exact position on just about everything...

Are you proposing weakening the Legislative branch? Empowering another branch in counter-balance or proposing an all new body of government?

Or, none of the above?

[DarkReign]

The Supreme Court supplied corporations a right they never had and most don't want. Politicians are going to put the LEAN on their constituent corporations.

"Hey I saw that your company is having a nice year. $37 million profit this quarter! Nice!"

"Gee thanks Sen. Bob"

"You know there's this vote coming up on a bill that, if passed, would cost your company $10 million a quarter. I'm kinda on the fence about it, but if you gave my campaign a measly $1 million I'll think about voting in favor of it. After all, your opinion matters!"

Nice analogy, but again, this ruling isnt about campaign contributions.

Though, your analogy still fits perfectly if you just change the language of the last point a bit...


"You know there's this vote coming up on a bill that, if passed, would cost your company $10 million a quarter. I'm kinda on the fence about it, but if you advertise for my campaign [for] a measly $1 million I'll think about voting in favor of it. After all, your opinion matters [the most -Ed]."

[coyotes_geek]

businesses already do what they want in politics through the use of small organizations. all you end of the world doomsayers are going to be disappointed when this has little effect except to make things more transparent.

My thoughts exactly. If I'm some business or union (whether or not I'm still technically a person at that point), I can already spend any amount of money I want to buy myself an army of lobbyists. I can donate whatever I want to a particular candidate's favorite charity. I can spend an unlimited amount of money to host a lavish celebration to "honor" a particular candidate. I can donate to as many different PACs or 527s as I want. I can even "hire" a bunch of people and then give them paid time off to go "volunteer" for someone's campaign. I can let those volunteers use my phones, my copiers, my office space. But OMG, if I want to buy a 30 second commercial on American Idol, well now I've tarnished the sanctity of the whole campaign process. Oh noes!

The outrage and paranoia over the predicted fallout from this is ruling is comical.

[Winehole23]

Yes. One doesnt' need to recognize corporations as "people" to respect their speech as "speech" which the First Amendment forbids Congress from banning without a compelling state interest.That compelling state interest was identified in Austin (overturned yesterday) and highlighted in Rehnquist's Bellotti dissent. You seem to be ignoring it. What a surprise.

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure why are people trying to frame this issue as a left/right one. Most(all?) pro free-speech/civil rights organization from both sites support this rule.Odd that you of all people should make such a weak appeal to authority.

[Winehole23]

Congratulations to Citizens United, ACLU, National Coalition Against Censorship and all the others individuals and assemblies who fought and won this fight for the cause of liberty.
Oops, you did it again.

[Marcus Bryant]

Is socialism for corporate interests that different than for Uncle Sam? Serbia-Montenegro seems to think so. In reality, the only difference is the master. I know, Friedman, von Hayek, and Bastiat. Fluff me now.

[Winehole23]

:lol

[Winehole23]

In dissent, Justice Stevens wrote "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

[baseline bum]

:rollin

[PublicOption]

teabaggers are so fucking stupid.

[Winehole23]

^^^Without any doubt, the stupidest post so far in this thread. And there have been a few really dense ones.

[boutons_deux]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)

January 22, 2010

Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Finance Ruling

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/david_d_kirkpatrick/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.

“We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_election_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

The decision seeks to let voters choose for themselves among a multitude of voices and ideas when they go to the polls, but it will also increase the power of organized interest groups at the expense of candidates and political parties.

It is expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements from outside groups aiming to sway voters, without any candidate having to take the criticism for dirty campaigning. The biggest beneficiaries might be well-placed incumbents whose favor companies and interests groups are eager to court. It could also have a big impact on state and local governments, where a few million dollars can have more influence on elections.

The ruling comes at a time when influence-seekers of all kinds have special incentives to open their wallets. Amid the economic crisis, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are trying to rewrite the rules for broad swaths of the economy, from Detroit to Wall Street. Republicans, meanwhile, see a chance for major gains in November.

Democrats predicted that Republicans would benefit most from the decision, because they are the traditional allies of big corporations, who have more money to spend than unions.

In a statement shortly after the decision, President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) called it “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.”

As Democrats vowed to push legislation to install new spending limits in time for the fall campaign, Republicans disputed the partisan impact of the decision. They argued that Democrats had proven effective at cultivating their own business allies — drug companies are spending millions of dollars to promote the administration’s health care proposals, for example — while friendly interest groups tap sympathetic billionaires and Hollywood money.

After new restrictions on party fund-raising took effect in 2003, many predicted that the Democrats would suffer. But they took Congress in 2006 and the White House two years later.

While Democrats pledged new limits, some Republicans argued for bolstering parties and candidates by getting rid of the limits on their fund-raising as well. Several cases before lower courts, including a suit filed by the Republican National Committee (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_national_committee/index.html?inline=nyt-org) against the Federal Election Commission, seek to challenge those limits.

Thursday’s decision, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf), “is going to flip the existing campaign order on its head,” said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican campaign lawyer at the law-and-lobbying firm Patton Boggs who has represented both candidates and outside groups, including Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth/index.html?inline=nyt-org), a group formed to oppose Senator John Kerry (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/john_kerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s 2004 presidential campaign.

“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said. “Candidates lose control of their message. Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities.”

“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things,” he added, “and outside groups will take over more of the functions — advertising support, get out the vote — that parties do now.”

In practice, major publicly held corporations like Microsoft or General Electric are unlikely to spend large sums money on campaign commercials, for fear of alienating investors, customers and other public officials.

( but from playing games with the IRS, the corps know how to "anonymize" the money, so this comment is bullshit)

Instead, wealthy individuals and companies might contribute to trade associations, groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the National Riffle Association, or other third parties that could run commercials.

Previously, Mr. Noble of Skadden Arps said, his firm had advised companies to be wary about giving money to groups that might run so-called advocacy commercials, because such activity could trigger disclosure requirements that would identify the corporate financers.

“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”

Some disclosure rules remain intact. An outside group paying for a campaign commercial would still have to include a statement and file forms taking responsibility. If an organization solicits money specifically to pay for such political activities, it could fall under regulations that require disclosure of its donors.

And the disclosure requirements would moderate the harshness of the third-party advertisements, because established trade associations or other groups are too concerned with their reputations to wage the contentious campaigns that ad hoc groups like MoveOn.org (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/moveon.org/index.html?inline=nyt-org) or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might do.

("disclosure requirements would moderate"? G M A F B This is politics,the filthiest, lying-ist activity operated by humans)

Two leading Democrats, Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said that they had been working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision.

One possibility would be to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.

Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants.

A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for.

The two sponsors of the 2002 law tightening the party-fundraising rules each criticized the ruling.

Senator Russ Feingold (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/russell_d_feingold/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of Wisconsin, called it “a terrible mistake.” Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, said in a television interview on CNN that he was “disappointed.”

Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of campaign finance laws, said the decision “wipes out a hundred years of history” during which American laws have sought to tamp down corporate power to influence elections.

But David Bossie, the conservative activist who brought the case to defend his campaign-season promotion of the documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” said he was looking forward to rolling out his next film in time for the midterm elections.

Titled “Generation Zero,” the movie features the television host Lou Dobbs (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/lou_dobbs/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and lays much of the blame for the recent financial collapse on the Democrats.

“Now we have a free hand to let people know it exists,” Mr. Bossie said.

========

aka "Now we have a free hand" ... to tell more vicious lies that will be believed by the dumbed-down rabble and sheeple.

[boutons_deux]

copied from Alternet comments section:

"A corporation is a privileged artificial entity with no soul, no conscience, and unlimited life span. It is artificial because it exists only by virtue of adjusted ink on paper and an enabling government franchise. It is privileged since its officers and owners (shareholders) are immune to legal action stemming from business mistakes, bad management, financial losses, and other reasons.

Corporate personhood is a legal absurdity because the government, constituted by the people to serve the people's interests, cannot logically create or empower an artificial entity with the same rights and powers as a natural person. To do so would be to establish something as great as or greater than the people who constituted the government itself. That would be like people creating a robot with godly powers. It can't be done.

The corporation has no conscience and which unregulated represents a mortal danger to society since its prime directive, indeed its only directive, is to generate profits (a corporation's real product) in any manner possible. The safety and wellbeing of workers, consumers and the environment represent adverse impact to the bottom line and are thus vigorously resisted.

Corporate influence of legislation is done through lobbying government under the constitutional clause guaranteeing people the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The ludicrous notion of corporate personhood allows for this exercise of constitutional rights properly belonging only to natural persons.

Corporations properly have no rights at all other than possible statutory rights such as the right to due process of law, but not natural rights such as the right to free speech. Corporations are properly and correctly the object of regulation and subject to taxation. The more wealthy and powerful they become, the more they should be taxed.

Government has every right to break up corporations "too big to fail" for the good of the society and the protection of the people and the environment, and every right to censure corporations through huge fines and other disciplinary actions for anti-social and environmentally destructive behavior.

Corporate officers and shareholders are also properly taxed on their corporate earnings and investment income. The exercise of privilege is the proper target of taxation. The exercise of rights is not. Corporations cannot logically have rights, especially natural rights."

=========

As a corporate-d person, I plan to deduct all my personal operating/structural costs and overheads (electricityy, gas, car purchase/insurance, phone, internet, cable TV, mortage/interest/propertytaxes, etc) from my revenue and pay income taxes only my net income, just like a corporate person.

[spurster]

I don't get why the SCOTUS is for corporate rights and against individual rights.

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't get why the SCOTUS is for corporate rights and against individual rights.

This article (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/lessened-corporate-first-amendment-rights-and-media-corporations/) provides a decent argument.

Still, it would seem that you could limit the political "speech" of corporations while making an exception for the press and also for political advocacy groups comprised of individuals and funded by individuals. That would seem to be in line with the original spirit and intent of the Constitution. Nowadays we seem to regard the Founding Fathers as a bunch of corporate lawyers, instead of the revolutionaries who sought independence, individual liberty, and self-government for the people.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you can't regulate the political activities of corporate "persons," what limits can be placed? Could GE, Microsoft, and Boeing register to vote? I know I've come across the term "natural persons" occasionally in laws and regulations. It's clear why that language is used. But does that impede on some form of "speech"?

[Marcus Bryant]

As always, the government and society is arrayed against actual living individual persons. We can't let individual commoners have too much liberty and political power, nevermind that the governing document which created this nation was designed to do precisely just that. You aren't an individual, you're a cog in a wheel. Just be glad you exist to further glorify the state and the Fortune 500.

[baseline bum]

I don't get why the SCOTUS is for corporate rights and against individual rights.

It's unreal to see there is actually a branch of government that makes Congress look competent in comparison.

[Winehole23]

eh, eff it.

[spursncowboys]

I like this ruling. When the govt. lawyer said that they would withhold a political book from being printed around election because it has the mention of a politician's name, it was clear that the intended consequences were unconstitutional. The FEC should never have authority on allowing or blocking political speech, because of the timing. No more PACs is a great consequence of this ruling. I would think this would mean more transparancy as to where money is coming from.

Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' Constitutionally mandated rule in preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in Bush v. Gore, Boy Scouts v. Dale, and D.C. v. Heller.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Judicial_Activism
I do not see how this is judicial activism. If anyone could explain further. I know I used a Conservative site, but the charge is normally "you only like judicial activism when it goes with your views" so this is how a conservative wiki has defined it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, if 'Conservapedia' says it...

That reminds me of the outfit that was publishing a "conservative" interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. We can't have the Son of God sounding like a commie sometimes, I guess.

[spursncowboys]

Well, if 'Conservapedia' says it...

That reminds me of the outfit that was publishing a "conservative" interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. We can't have the Son of God sounding like a commie sometimes, I guess.

Is that an inaccurate definition?

[Marcus Bryant]

Is defining a corporation as a "person" under the 14th amendment a 'reasonable interpretation'?

[Spurminator]

Well I just hope they quit having all of those stupid Corporations' Rights Parades now.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/22/whats-worse-disingenuously-wav?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+ Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29&utm_content=FaceBook

[spursncowboys]

SHould the FEC be able to shut down the publishing of books because it has the name of a politician?

[Marcus Bryant]

No.

Is turning incorporation into the birth of a "person" required to allow that?

[spursncowboys]

No.

Is turning incorporation into the birth of a "person" required to allow that?

No

[Marcus Bryant]

While nonprofits were exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limited their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold rules because it accepted business contributions. Thursday's ruling swept away such distinctions, freeing both for-profit and nonprofit entities to spend freely on political ads.

Theodore Olson, who represented Citizens United, said allowing corporations to buy political ads "will invigorate political discourse…and, ultimately, strengthen the very foundations of our democracy."


source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read)

[Marcus Bryant]

"This will allow the biggest corporations in the United States to engage in the buying and selling of elections," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the party's effort to get Democrats elected in the House.

source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read)

...after he wiped away the crocodile tears.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, conventional wisdom sees this as a means for corps to extort public officials, but that's easily a two-way street.

[Winehole23]

People used to bitch about union dues being used to support politicians and causes the members don't necesarily like, but where are the crocodile tears over the same thing happening to corporate shareholders now?

[Marcus Bryant]

After all, Congress has been fucking the people for a long, long time.

[Marcus Bryant]

People used to bitch about union dues being used to support politicians and causes the members don't necesarily like, but where are the crocodile tears over the same thing happening to corporate shareholders now?

Because it is assumed in some quarters, and apparently in Portland, that whatever management wants, is good and right.

Just as it is in other quarters that whatever is good for unions, is good and right.

[Marcus Bryant]

So....will a corp have to file a 1040? Hey bitches, no NOL carryforwards.

[Winehole23]

...

[mogrovejo]

No.

Is turning incorporation into the birth of a "person" required to allow that?

Please, explain where in this decision that happens. Quotes from the decision would be appreciated. Thank you.

[mogrovejo]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/22/whats-worse-disingenuously-wav?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+ Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29&utm_content=FaceBook

This is an excellent post that should be read by those who pretend "that the free-speech objection to campaign finance reform is a smokescreen for enabling the Corporatey Corporates".

[Wild Cobra]

teabaggers are so fucking stupid.

No, however coined that term was evil and smart to use something patriotic a slander, and those who use it are un-American.

[mogrovejo]

If you can't regulate the political activities of corporate "persons," what limits can be placed?

Why can't you regulate the political activities or corporations?


Could GE, Microsoft, and Boeing register to vote?

Voting rights is mostly a states issue - the constitutional amendments only restrained the limitations that states can impose on US citizens (gender, race, taxes, etc.) - states can certainly allow non-citizens (foreigners) to vote, for example. But the COTUS requires Reps and Sens to be elected by "the people" and Microsfot and GE are certainly not "the people".


I know I've come across the term "natural persons" occasionally in laws and regulations. It's clear why that language is used. But does that impede on some form of "speech"?

Speech can be produced by natural persons or other entities. The First Amendment protects speech regardless of who produces it.

[mogrovejo]

That compelling state interest was identified in Austin (overturned yesterday) and highlighted in Rehnquist's Bellotti dissent. You seem to be ignoring it. What a surprise.

Please, read the majority opinion.

Are you sure you're aware of the arguments used in Austin and the ones used in Citizens United?

[spursncowboys]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.
anyone have the letter?

[Winehole23]

Please, read the majority opinion.

Are you sure you're aware of the arguments used in Austin and the ones used in Citizens United?You know very well I didn't read Citizens United. I admitted it myself. Are you absent-minded, or do you just assume everyone else is?

If you have something to say about Austin, just say it. Surely you're not arguing Austin restrained corporations without a compelling state interest adduced, are you?

[mogrovejo]

You know very well I didn't read Citizens United. I admitted it myself.

Exactly, that's why I'm advising you to read it. You seem oblivious to what this decision is about - and, quite telling, you show no inclination to cultivate yourself.


If you have something to say about Austin, just say it. Surely you're not arguing Austin restrained corporations without a compelling state interest adduced, are you?

Of course I am - I'm flat out saying that the Court was wrong in Austin. The rationale behind Austin - the idea that the government can limit speech in the name of something like equal or fair access was absolutely misguided. And even if the even if the restriction of corporation speech is compelling - and I don't hold that view re: Austin; the law most be narrowly tailored - which, IMO, it clearly wasn't. I'm not saying anything particularly controversial: even the governement, in the hearings of this case, agreed that Austin was muddled in its reasoning.

In my view, there's nothing in the text of the Constitution that permits a different level of restriction of corporate political speech than the one applicable to individuals. The government can make that case, pointing out the compelling interest and enacting a law narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. So far, they haven't done it.

[spursncowboys]

exactly, that's why i'm advising you to read it. You seem oblivious to what this decision is about - and, quite telling, you show no inclination to cultivate yourself.



Of course i am - i'm flat out saying that the court was wrong in austin. The rationale behind austin - the idea that the government can limit speech in the name of something like equal or fair access was absolutely misguided. And even if the even if the restriction of corporation speech is compelling - and i don't hold that view re: Austin; the law most be narrowly tailored - which, imo, it clearly wasn't. I'm not saying anything particularly controversial: Even the governement, in the hearings of this case, agreed that austin was muddled in its reasoning.

In my view, there's nothing in the text of the constitution that permits a different level of restriction of corporate political speech than the one applicable to individuals. The government can make that case, pointing out the compelling interest and enacting a law narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. So far, they haven't done it.

+1
from cato
while the court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.

After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of american conceptions about the freedom of speech.

[xrayzebra]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is condemning a decision by the Supreme Court to roll back restrictions on campaign donations by corporations and unions.
In a written statement, Obama says the campaign finance ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." Obama declared that his administration will work with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
Obama called it a big victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.

Damn court just screwed me and SEIU. 90 Mil was a nice haul....was what
Obama meant to say.






anyone have the letter?

[Winehole23]

In my view, there's nothing in the text of the Constitution that permits a different level of restriction of corporate political speech than the one applicable to individuals.Regulating corporations mostly falls to the various states, whose creatures they are. I wouldn't expect to find very much about powers reserved to the states in the US Constitution.

[Winehole23]

This is an excellent post that should be read by those who pretend "that the free-speech objection to campaign finance reform is a smokescreen for enabling the Corporatey Corporates".Who claimed it was?

[Winehole23]

For someone who insists so priggishly on argumentative rigor, your own resort to strawmen and lame appeals to authority is dissonantly easy and frequent in these pages. You can't get through a single discussion without exaggerating what other people say. Telling.

[SouthernFried]

Regulating corporations mostly falls to the various states, whose creatures they are. I wouldn't expect to find very much about powers reserved to the states in the US Constitution.

Free speech is not something states decide on.

[spursncowboys]

Americans have cause to rejoice in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision reaffirming our freedom of association and our freedom of speech. In Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the majority of the Court, led by Justice Kennedy, reaffirmed “ancient First Amendment principles.” It specifically overruled a prior decision in which the Court had upheld a state restriction in Michigan that banned corporations -- including nonprofits -- from engaging in independent political expenditures. The Court overturned a similar provision in federal law, striking a decisive blow against the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance restrictions, one of the worst abridgments of the First Amendment since the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

The Founders wrote the First Amendment specifically to protect free speech for the purposes of political advocacy and criticism. The Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law” abridging that right. But that is precisely what Congress did by restricting the right of Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, to release a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton while she was a candidate for president. Fortunately, the Court held that the government does not have the right to distinguish between different classes of speakers and to disfavor some of them, such as corporations. The provisions of the law acted as an outright ban on some kinds of speech, and they set up a complex regulatory framework for others, limiting them in a way the Supreme Court found equivalent to a prior restraint on communication. The law also gave the FEC the power to decide what political speech was allowed and to punish those who violated the law with severe civil and criminal penalties.

The idea that the government ought to be empowered to punish any party for engaging in political speech is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is a fundamental affront to the founding principles of our republic. As Justice Kennedy wrote, speech is an essential mechanism in a democracy, helping to hold public officials accountable to the people. For that reason, the right of free political speech must prevail against laws that suppress it or impose such a burden on it that criticism, advocacy, and debate are stifled.

It speaks volumes about the so-called campaign-finance reformers, and their attitudes toward our constitutional rights, that they are positively apoplectic over this decision. Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), the Left’s epitome of decorum and nuanced thinking, calls Citizens United v. FEC “the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.” Senator Feingold is demanding new campaign-finance legislation, while Senator Schumer wants congressional hearings on the possibility of limiting the decision’s application. Representative Grayson’s comment, and the fevered reaction among his fellow Democrats, suggests a thin commitment to the Bill of Rights and our most basic freedoms.

It is worth noting that the four liberal members of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Stevens, were so willing to give a free hand to government censors that they wrote a 90-page dissent in which they attempt to justify allowing the government to decide who has the right to engage in political speech and on what terms. A 5-4 decision: Bear that in mind when the next vacancy on the Court comes up.



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjUwMTdjMDY2NzMxZDRmZDlmMTcyOTQxN2Q0NzAzMjk=

[boutons_deux]

Saying blocking corporations from financing their corrupted candidates is respecting the 1st amendment

is exactly like saying

guns for everybody, everywhere is respecting the 2nd amendment.

Conservatives and righties promote their self-enriching strategies, by hiding their agendas behind the Constitution, like the scamming Bible-thumpers promote their self-enriching, self-empowering strategies by hiding behind the Bible.

[SouthernFried]

Somebody leave the prosac out of your cheerios this morning?

[spursncowboys]

McConnel just said on Meet the Press that GE, owner of NBC, can say whatever they want up to the last minute of the election. That is a great example of the biproduct of finance reform.

[George Gervin's Afro]

McConnel just said on Meet the Press that GE, owner of NBC, can say whatever they want up to the last minute of the election. That is a great example of the biproduct of finance reform.

You do realize NBC is news organization don't you?

[spursncowboys]

You do realize NBC is news organization don't you?
Sorry I didn't say McConnel said before the decision this is what could happen. It creates an incentive for corp to buy a media outlet. GE could push pro-green candidates and at the same time buy green energy companies. PACs could hide where the money was coming from, where as now there will be more disclosure. I douubt the amount of political money coming from corp will increase.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sorry I didn't say McConnel said before the decision this is what could happen. It creates an incentive for corp to buy a media outlet. GE could push pro-green candidates and at the same time buy green energy companies. PACs could hide where the money was coming from, where as now there will be more disclosure. I douubt the amount of political money coming from corp will increase.

I'm just waiting for the night before an election where an ad lies about a candidate which then in turn affects an election.This is not a partisan issue for me.

[SouthernFried]

It's not a partisan issue...

it's a free speech issue.

"well, we can have free speech, up until an election where we'll suspend for a bit. We can't have total free speech during such an important event as an election...someone might lie y'know."

...and so it goes.

[boutons_deux]

"free speech issue"

We smart ones knows better than you simpletons, that it's not simply, only a free speech issue.

Simplifying it to only free speech is a typical, fundamental lie that supports all conservatives positions.

[Winehole23]

It's not a partisan issue...

it's a free speech issue.

"well, we can have free speech, up until an election where we'll suspend for a bit. We can't have total free speech during such an important event as an election...someone might lie y'know."

...and so it goes.It's also about overturning the will of the states and the US Congress to limit corporate participation in elections. The notion that corporate free speech and access to political process was unduly hindered before this ruling is laughable.

This ruling is a solution in search of a problem.

[spursncowboys]

It's about overturning the will of the states and the US Congress to limit corporate participation in elections. The notion that corporate free speech and access to political process was unduly hindered before this ruling is laughable.

This ruling is a solution in search of a problem.
Should the FEC be able to stop the publishing of a book because it is near an election and has a politician's name?

[Winehole23]

No.

[Winehole23]

It's not my position that McCain-Feingold was a good law or even that this decision was wrongly taken, though it appears the court did not exercise judicial restraint and went far beyond the questions before it.

[Winehole23]

Regrettably, I concur with mogrovejo that the solution to overweaning corporate influence probably can't be restrictions of speech.

[boutons_deux]

This is pretty tight summary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/images/homepage/logos/twp_logo_300.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Court's campaign finance decision a case of shoddy scholarship


By Ruth Marcus
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A13

In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/01/21/ST2010012104871.html), the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.

Many of those commenting on the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) have focused on the power-grab part. I agree with them. It was unnecessary for the court to go so far when there were several less-radical grounds available. It was audacious to seize the opportunity to overrule precedents when the parties had not pressed this issue and the lower courts had not considered it. It was the height of activism to usurp the judgments of Congress and state legislatures about how best to prevent corruption of the political process.

"If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more," a wise judge once wrote. That was Chief Justice John G. Roberts -- back when -- and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him.

As bad as the court's activism, though, was its shoddy scholarship.

First, the majority flung about dark warnings of "censorship" and "banned" speech as if upholding the existing rules would leave corporations and labor unions with no voice in the political process. Untrue.
Under federal election law before the Supreme Court demolished it, corporations and labor unions were free to say whatever they wanted about political candidates whenever they wanted to say it. They simply were not permitted to use unlimited general treasury funds to do so. Instead, they were required to use money raised by their political action committees from employees and members. This is hardly banning speech.

Second, in the face of logic and history, the majority acted as if there could be no constitutional distinction between a corporation and a human being. Untrue. The Supreme Court has long held that corporations are considered "persons" under the Constitution and are therefore entitled to its protections. For more than a century, Congress has barred corporations from making direct contributions to political candidates, with no suggestion that it must treat corporate persons the same as real ones; that prohibition stands, at least for now. The "conceit" of corporate personhood, as Stevens called it, does not mandate absolute equivalence. That corporations enjoy free-speech protections does not mean they enjoy every protection afforded an actual person. Is a corporation entitled to vote? To run for office?

Third, misreading its precedents and cherry-picking quotations, the majority acted as if the chief case it overturned was an outlier. In that 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a six-member majority came to the unsurprising conclusion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=652) that a state law prohibiting corporations from making unlimited independent expenditures from their general funds was constitutional.

The court dismissed this ruling as "a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles." Again, untrue.
In a 1982 case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=459&invol=197), the court -- in a unanimous opinion by then-Justice William Rehnquist -- noted that Congress, in writing campaign finance law, was entitled to "considerable deference" in taking into account "the particular legal and economic attributes of corporations and labor organizations" and had made "a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process." Four years later, even as it carved out an exception for nonprofit corporations, the court reaffirmed "the need to restrict the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form."

The Citizens United majority relied heavily on a 1978 case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=435&invol=765) overturning a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporations from spending their own money to defeat certain referendums. But that decision specifically noted that "a corporation's right to speak on issues of general public interest implies no comparable right in the quite different context of participation in a political campaign for election to public office."

Fourth, the majority bizarrely invoked the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/)" defense. Under the Austin ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued, lawmakers unhappy with being lampooned in the movie "could have done more than discourage its distribution -- they could have banned the film." Beyond untrue. There is no scenario under which works of art about fictional lawmakers could be limited by campaign finance laws.

That the majority would stoop to this claim underscores the weakness of its case -- and the audacity of the result it has inflicted on the political process.

[email protected]

[Winehole23]

The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has “muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.” McCon-nell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). And “the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.” CIO, 335 U. S., at 144 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result). By suppressing thespeech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the Government prevents their voices and view-points from reaching the public and advising voters onwhich persons or entities are hostile to their interests.Unsubstantiated, and counterintuitive.

[Ya Vez]

should the Washington Post be banned from reporting or endorsing a candidate since it owned by a corporation?

The Washington Post Company (NYSE:WPO) is an American education and media company, best known for owning the newspaper it is named after, The Washington Post. The Company also owns Kaplan, Inc., a leading international provider of educational and career services for individuals, schools and businesses. In addition, the Company owns Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (WPNI), the online publishing subsidiary whose flagship products include washingtonpost.com, Newsweek.com, Slate.com, BudgetTravel.com and Sprig.com; Express; El Tiempo Latino; The Gazette and Southern Maryland newspapers; The Herald (Everett, WA); Newsweek magazine; Post-Newsweek Stations (Detroit, Houston, Miami, Orlando, San Antonio and Jacksonville); Cable One, a cable TV and Internet service provider with subscribers in midwestern, western and southern states; and CourseAdvisor, an online lead generation provider.

The Washington Post Company history dates back to 1877, when the Post was first published. The Washington Post Company was incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1889[1], and remained a District of Columbia corporation until it changed its state of incorporation to Delaware in 2003.[2] It is a public company, trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol WPO, and went public in 1971. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Apart from the family of the late Katharine Graham, Berkshire Hathaway is also a substantial shareholder.

[SouthernFried]

Nobody should be banned from speaking.

Period.

This is not hard folks.

[spursncowboys]

Certain types of speech should be banned: yelling fire in a crowded building, cussing around children. But no kind of political speech should be banned. This was just another form of the Alien Sedition Act, and it was a shame it has become a political party argument.

[Winehole23]

The first reason is that the question was not properlybrought before us. In declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional on the ground that corporations’ electoral expenditures may not be regulated any more stringently than those of individuals, the majority decides this case on a basis relinquished below, not included in the questions presented to us by the litigants, and argued here only inresponse to the Court’s invitation. This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court.2 Our colleagues’suggestion that “we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell,” ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that “we have asked ourselves” to reconsider those cases.

[boutons_deux]

I can't find it now but there was a reaction last Aug or so when SC put this case on their docket. Several observers thought it the SC was moving very fast in comparison with other cases.

My guess it the politicized(untrustworthy, unrespectable) radical extreme right activist conservatives wanted to have corps polluting elections and disenfranchising voters definitely well in advance of the 2010 elections, must like they said, arbitrarily, with false haste, said they couldn't wait for FL to complete its counting and overrrode the FL legislature.

[Wild Cobra]

When you have a congress and president bent of destroying corporations and good paying jobs, maybe it's time to give them a voice again.

[boutons_deux]

"a congress and president bent of destroying corporations and good paying jobs"

you're full of shit. Get a job with Fox.

[Wild Cobra]

"a congress and president bent of destroying corporations and good paying jobs"

you're full of shit. Get a job with Fox.
Well, it's better than being full of dumbshit like you are.

[baseline bum]

WC's such a dumbfuck dittohead.

[Winehole23]

Nobody should be banned from speaking.

Period.

This is not hard folks.Soldiers? Government employees? Nobody under any circumstances?

[Winehole23]

must like they said, arbitrarily, with false haste, said they couldn't wait for FL to complete its counting and overrrode the FL legislature.There is a political trend here. What's changed in the last six years is mostly the political composition of the supreme court.

Stevens's argument that some of the questions were not properly before it, that much of the reasoning relied upon in the majority was overbroad and inconsistent not only with originalism but also judicial restraint, has legs. The majority went far beyond the complaint before it, to find remedies not even asked for.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Conservatives hate activist judges.... oh wait..

[boutons_deux]

"majority went far beyond the complaint before it"

Where's the right-wing hate and noise against an "activist" judiciary when we really need it?

they only hate activism they don't agree with, for sure.

[coyotes_geek]

they only hate activism they don't agree with, for sure.

So in other words, they behave exactly like left-wingers do.

[EVAY]

So in other words, they behave exactly like left-wingers do.

I think the point CG, is that the left wing intends for the court to 'rectify' social injustices, ala 'activism'. The right has railed against that since at least the time of the Warren Court. This court has been a majority Republican-appointed court for 20 years or so, and not just Republican but decidedly right-wing for at least the last decade. It has been just as 'activist' in pursuit of of the right's agenda as prior courts were in pursuit of the left's agendas.

So the point of the posters you quote is that the right is no better than the left in its judicial acitivism. Your note that they all behave the same way is accurate as far as it goes, but does not note the irony that the right is now behaving in the same way that they bitterly complained about for about 40 years.

[Wild Cobra]

If maintaining the constitutional is activism, then I say "bring it on."

[George Gervin's Afro]

If maintaining the constitutional is activism, then I say "bring it on."

translation: if the court pursues a conservative direction then I'm for it!

[coyotes_geek]

I think the point CG, is that the left wing intends for the court to 'rectify' social injustices, ala 'activism'. The right has railed against that since at least the time of the Warren Court. This court has been a majority Republican-appointed court for 20 years or so, and not just Republican but decidedly right-wing for at least the last decade. It has been just as 'activist' in pursuit of of the right's agenda as prior courts were in pursuit of the left's agendas.

So the point of the posters you quote is that the right is no better than the left in its judicial acitivism. Your note that they all behave the same way is accurate as far as it goes, but does not note the irony that the right is now behaving in the same way that they bitterly complained about for about 40 years.

And after 40 years of supporting judicial activism now the left suddenly has a problem with it. It's just the opposite side of the exact same coin.

[SouthernFried]

This is overturning judicial activism. Reversing limits put on free speech decades earlier.

[EVAY]

And after 40 years of supporting judicial activism now the left suddenly has a problem with it. It's just the opposite side of the exact same coin.

fair enough.

[mogrovejo]

I think the point CG, is that the left wing intends for the court to 'rectify' social injustices, ala 'activism'. The right has railed against that since at least the time of the Warren Court. This court has been a majority Republican-appointed court for 20 years or so, and not just Republican but decidedly right-wing for at least the last decade. It has been just as 'activist' in pursuit of of the right's agenda as prior courts were in pursuit of the left's agendas.

So the point of the posters you quote is that the right is no better than the left in its judicial acitivism. Your note that they all behave the same way is accurate as far as it goes, but does not note the irony that the right is now behaving in the same way that they bitterly complained about for about 40 years.

That definition of judicial activism is bizarre. Can you point out a single decision of the Court that hasn't constituted "judicial activism"?

Also, can you explain how this decision fits the "right's agenda" more than the "left's agenda"? As far as I know, this decision has broad support from most activists from both sides.

[boutons_deux]

Judicial activism is fine when it's advancing and protecting the rights of citizens, NOT when it's screwing citizens while protecting and expanding the power of corps and institutions.

Judicial activism is needed because the Congress and the Exec aren't adult/serious/responsible enough to write clear laws and take on the country's REAL problems.

[mogrovejo]

Many of those commenting on the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) have focused on the power-grab part. I agree with them.

I don't. I think people expecting corporations and unions to start spending more money in the electoral process are in to a huge disappointment.


First, the majority flung about dark warnings of "censorship" and "banned" speech as if upholding the existing rules would leave corporations and labor unions with no voice in the political process. Untrue.
Under federal election law before the Supreme Court demolished it, corporations and labor unions were free to say whatever they wanted about political candidates whenever they wanted to say it. They simply were not permitted to use unlimited general treasury funds to do so. Instead, they were required to use money raised by their political action committees from employees and members. This is hardly banning speech.

Yeah, and Homer Plessy could always use the "colored" car. It was hardly banning access to public transportation.

"When Government seeks to use its full power . . . to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”





Second, in the face of logic and history, the majority acted as if there could be no constitutional distinction between a corporation and a human being. Untrue. The Supreme Court has long held that corporations are considered "persons" under the Constitution and are therefore entitled to its protections. For more than a century, Congress has barred corporations from making direct contributions to political candidates, with no suggestion that it must treat corporate persons the same as real ones; that prohibition stands, at least for now. The "conceit" of corporate personhood, as Stevens called it, does not mandate absolute equivalence. That corporations enjoy free-speech protections does not mean they enjoy every protection afforded an actual person. Is a corporation entitled to vote? To run for office?

Can someone explain this to me? Where in the majority is stated that corporations have the same constitutional rights of natural persons or something remotely close to that? Stevens mentions this issue on his dissent, but then he just goes through some platitudes and never explains why is the issue relevant to the case. I find this obsession with the "personhood of corporations" quite silly. There's a long precedent of the First Amendment applying to other speakers than individuals, as well as an even longer and consensual one of corporations being "legal persons" with constitutional rights.*

In any case, I'd like to know which part of the opinion hints there's no constitutional distinction between a person and a corporation. Heck, Scalia actually makes the distinction in his concurrence.

* Here's the precedent by Kennedy:
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protec-tion extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 26; Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512
U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Com-munications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Land-mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).

This protection has been extended by explicit holdings tothe context of political speech. See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936). Under the rationale of these precedents,political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)(“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” Id., at 776; see id., at 780, n. 16. Cf. id., at 828 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).




Third, misreading its precedents and cherry-picking quotations, the majority acted as if the chief case it overturned was an outlier. In that 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a six-member majority came to the unsurprising conclusion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=652) that a state law prohibiting corporations from making unlimited independent expenditures from their general funds was constitutional.

The court dismissed this ruling as "a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles." Again, untrue.
In a 1982 case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=459&invol=197), the court -- in a unanimous opinion by then-Justice William Rehnquist -- noted that Congress, in writing campaign finance law, was entitled to "considerable deference" in taking into account "the particular legal and economic attributes of corporations and labor organizations" and had made "a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process." Four years later, even as it carved out an exception for nonprofit corporations, the court reaffirmed "the need to restrict the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form."

The Citizens United majority relied heavily on a 1978 case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=435&invol=765) overturning a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporations from spending their own money to defeat certain referendums. But that decision specifically noted that "a corporation's right to speak on issues of general public interest implies no comparable right in the quite different context of participation in a political campaign for election to public office."

Even the government agreed that the Austin was muddled in its reasoning. If Austin wasn't an outlier, I'd like to know why not. The author doesn't mention another single case in support of Austin? Weird.



Fourth, the majority bizarrely invoked the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/)" defense. Under the Austin ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued, lawmakers unhappy with being lampooned in the movie "could have done more than discourage its distribution -- they could have banned the film." Beyond untrue. There is no scenario under which works of art about fictional lawmakers could be limited by campaign finance laws.
Uh? Why not? Even the government admitted this would be a possibility. The faith of the author in the reasonableness of the Congress is amusing. "Oh, they'll ban documentaries but that's all right, they'd never ban satirical fictional work".


The majority went far beyond the complaint before it, to find remedies not even asked for in the complaint.

Like what?

[Winehole23]

I will answer this when I have a chance.

[Wild Cobra]

translation: if the court pursues a conservative direction then I'm for it!
No, when it enforces the constitution. However, conservatives do believe in the constitution, when liberals want to destroy it, so maybe you are right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, when it enforces the constitution. However, conservatives do believe in the constitution, when liberals want to destroy it, so maybe you are right?

right. you think the founders had the internet in mind when drafting the constitution. so if the internet was never mentioned in constitution you would never be able to pass a law dealing with it. Got it.

[spursncowboys]

translation: if the court pursues a conservative direction then I'm for it!

translation: if the conservative direction is maintaining the constitution, then I'm for it.

[spursncowboys]

So non American's hell bent on destroying America should have more constitutionally protected rights than a corporation, which employs americans?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So non American's hell bent on destroying America should have more constitutionally protected rights than a corporation, which employs americans?

if we pick up a non american who happens to be innocent then what?

[spursncowboys]

if we pick up a non american who happens to be innocent then what?
Picked up for what? Do we know they are innocent? How do we know they are innocent?