Michigan case limiting election funding may fall

[DarkReign]

Well, elections do matter for some.

Me.

We're screwed regardless.

You and everyone else.

Sincerely,

Corporate Business

[Winehole23]

I'll buy that.

[Wild Cobra]

no, i said the premise is that corporations are persons

i'm not wrong

it's the whole ing system that's wrong

I agree too. The cons ution should not apply as far as it has towards corporations.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135829.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

[Winehole23]

As for Cohen's argument that corporations don't have a "right to speak," bear in mind that most newspapers and other news organizations also happen to be corporations. Surely the First Amendment applies to them? Yet following Cohen's logic to its conclusion, there's nothing to prevent the government from interfering with the content of an op-ed (or a cable news show) in the run-up to a federal election. They may call themselves "the press," but why should News Corporation or the New York Times Company get to spend their evil corporate money with impunity?

Because "the press" is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment. A rather weak link in Mr. Root's argument, it seems to me.

Mr. Root takes for granted the equivalence of money and speech as well as that of corporations and citizens. But these are both relative novelties and not foundational at all. In essence, his First Amendment absolutism promotes the continued corporate rapine of elections and the legislative process.

Mr. Olson engages in similar mystifications. He calls the unlimited tolerance of media opinions in elections a "loophole." Perhaps. Most of us call this loophole the First Amendment, which again, specifically protects the freedom of the press.

He then poses a phony equivalence of the press to special interest groups:

Time after time the Supreme Court has recognized that corporations enjoy full First Amendment protections. One of the most revered First Amendment precedents is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which afforded publishers important cons utional safeguards in libel cases. Any decision that determines that corporations have less protection than individuals under the First Amendment would threaten the very ins utions we depend upon to keep us informed. This may be why Citizens United is supported by such diverse allies as the ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Mr. Olson then goes on to characterize the limitation of corporate participation in elections as the "rationing" of speech.

Persons of modest means often band together to speak through ideological corporations. That speech may not be silenced because of speculation that a few large en ies might speak too loudly, or because some corporations may earn large profits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to handicap speakers based on their wealth, or ration speech in order somehow to equalize participation in public debate.

This is a canard. In fact limitations on corporate speech are intended protect elections from being captured by them to the detriment of the people. This, not rationing -- or, more absurdly, "equalizing" -- speech, is the putative aim of electoral reform.

[boutons_deux]

The radical right SCOTUS assholes who elected dubya in 2000 and are radically "activist", legislating from the bench, dissing stare decisis, are now going to put the final nail in the coffin of US democracy, while assuring the eternal life (at least until the Chinese run the world) of an autocratic, oligarchic corporatocracy that will decide, with its money, who gets nominated and therefore who gets elected.

Citizens voting will be (even more of) a charade.
Total disenfranchisement.

101a is typical businessman, eternally pro-business/destroy-government, while its his class of businessmen who are raping democracy and controlling govt at every level.

Predatory, parasitic, gangster business will have no limitations on buying the govt it wants, the govt that will pore $Ts of tax dollars into business treasuries.

Environmental protections, consumer protections, employee protections, citizen protections will all be gutted.

[Marcus Bryant]

The radical right SCOTUS assholes who elected dubya in 2000 and are radically "activist",

Oh yeah, like this "radical right" member:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corp...t_bellotti.php

Put the barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger already.

[Marcus Bryant]

Though if we are concerned about the influence of wealthy non-persons on our government and in our society in general, then I'm not sure how tax-exempt foundations and charitable trusts escape scrutiny.

[DarkReign]

Though if we are concerned about the influence of wealthy non-persons on our government and in our society in general, then I'm not sure how tax-exempt foundations and charitable trusts escape scrutiny.

Wouldnt most NPOs fall under the humanitarian blanket, though?

Surely there is a difference between a GE political contribution and the same from (idk) Red Cross.

Of course, Blue Cross is a NPO and I would never mistaken their devices to be anything but self-interested.

Its hard to have a dilineation between what cons utes an acceptable corporate political donation, it seems.