This issue came up in another thread. I thought it would be interesting to see where most tdubbers stand.

10/15/2010 6:03:43 PM

allow me to be the first, lol.


The provision regarding private establishments is unConstitutional. The parts that directly affect the federal government, probably Constitutional

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2010 6:04:05 PM

What he said, though you can strike the "probably" part. ^

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM. Reason : probably]

10/15/2010 7:10:46 PM

It is 100% Constitutional (note that it deals with places of public accommodation and not private entities wholly closed off to the public)

10/15/2010 8:12:51 PM

It hasn't been successfully challenged in court so far. So, so far it's still constitutional.

Even if it isn't, it's the right thing to do.

10/15/2010 8:53:10 PM

You are correct; expansive interpretations of its provisions have been held up though, with the exception of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which restricted the interpretation of Title VII (and the Ledbetter Act in 2009 rectified that): http://www.reclaimcivilrights.org/background/faqs.html

[Edited on October 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ie the Court has ruled on validity of interpretations rather than Constitutionality of the law

10/15/2010 9:19:21 PM

I mean, I'll go through and say what I think based on each part of it (based on a cursory Wikipedia search, lol). I'll even go so far as to say whether I support the part of or not, as well.

Title I: Constitutional, Absolutely Support
Title II: UnConstitutional, Oppose
Title III: Constitutional, Support
Title IV: Constitutional, kinda Support
Title V: Dependent upon Constitutionality of CRC, so I punt
Title VI: Constitutional, Absolutely Support
Title VII: Possibly UnConstitutional, Generally oppose. If it were contingent upon receipt of federal or state funds, then absolutely Constitutional and Absolutely Support. I understand it, but I think that employers should have the right to be a bigoted asshole as long as they don't directly receive gov't money of any sort
Title VIII: Constitutional, don't really care at this point.
Title IX: Constitutional, Support
Title X: Probably Constitutional, Generally Support

10/15/2010 9:44:43 PM

Quote :

"Even if it isn't, it's the right thing to do."

I fucking hate that line of reasoning. If it's unconstitutional but the right thing to do, change the fucking Constitution. Ignoring the Constitution is never the right thing to do--that's a stupid, dangerous road to go down.

10/15/2010 10:54:20 PM

and this is why we need an amendment making clear that corporations have few of the human rights of natural persons

10/15/2010 11:25:13 PM

the fuck?

10/15/2010 11:45:17 PM

you know, so real campaign-finance reform can work

right now the extension of First Amendment rights to Korporate Amerika is letting the moneyed interests launder their money through the Chamber of Commerce and a variety of other front groups to air malicious lies about candidates without being able to be traced to the propaganda they paid for

10/16/2010 12:03:44 AM

Not just corporate America. Foreign corporations can contribute, too.

10/16/2010 12:08:55 AM

so as long as it can be traced, it's OK? It was absolutely OK for George Soros to try to affect elections through MoveOn.org, because he at least said "hey, I'm George Soros, a giant greek douchebag, and I approved this douchebag message"? What if we just reduced the power of government to the point where corporate purchasing of elections wouldn't fucking matter in the first place, and then we wouldn't have to worry about a new amendment with unforeseen consequences? You know, kind of like what the Constitution proscribes?

and "the fuck?" was asked because what the fuck is the relevance of that to this thread?

10/16/2010 12:14:17 AM

*prescribes

also yes the public should know who's paying for the barrage of right-wing lies

^^it has been illegal for more than 100 years, and organizations receiving public money must have some system of accounting in place to show that foreign monies were not used to influence American elections
I had a sad when I saw the left-wing media and blogosphere take that tack, because the truth is damning enough

10/16/2010 1:43:01 AM

II and VII are flat out wrong.

Restaurants with smoking, women's-only gyms, bars with big-titted waitresses, family-operated businesses...

These are America. (The land of the free.)





[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 7:47 AM. Reason : I know not all of those are affected the same or at all by the CRA....]

10/16/2010 7:36:34 AM

Quote :

"it has been illegal for more than 100 years, and organizations receiving public money must have some system of accounting in place to show that foreign monies were not used to influence American elections"

I think the problem you have is that it is impossible to show what electioneering of any sort influenced American elections, regardless of where the money came from.

That said, foreigners deserve just as much of a right to freedom of speech as you do. So do human beings than just happen to work at a corporation. The U.S. Constitution makes no distinction between such groups. The wording is "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech", at no point is an exception given for dirty foreigners unlucky enough to be born elsewhere.

I know no reason to believe foreigners are prone to spread lies any more often than Americans do. As such, the remedy should be the same for both: if someone, anyone, be they Canadian, the CEO of Starbucks, or George Bush, runs an ad campaign spreading lies, then it is our duty to speak the truth, nothing more.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/16/2010 11:18:49 AM

I'd just like to point out how obnoxious capitalizing the C in "unConstitutional" is.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2010 11:26:10 AM

Quote :

"So do human beings than just happen to work at a corporation."

The issue people have in the whole 'corporations are not people' argument is not with giving power to corporate employees as individuals... they take issue with giving corporations political power as separate entities from their employees, or making them more powerful than the sum of the actions of their employees.

[Edited on October 16, 2010 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2010 4:45:27 PM

And I take issue with their understanding of the facts. I don't recall ever seeing a corporation exercise a right before. To you, what does a corporation look like that makes such make since? When GE holds a press conference, what you see are human beings giving speeches, nothing more.

It is my position that corporations do not exist outside their employees and shareholders, all of which have more than enough rights to justify whatever power you want to object to.

10/17/2010 11:26:05 AM

Are nearly all the posts in this thread about corporate personhood for a reason?
Did someone make a point about the Civil Rights Act and corporate personhood?
Just asking. (I missed it.)

10/17/2010 3:31:43 PM

Look at lewisje's response to theduke. Duke said if you want something to be a certain way, change the Constitution, and then lewisje mentioned one thing he wanted changed, basically in response to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision saying corporations are people.

10/17/2010 3:55:32 PM

The constitutionality of the CRA is considered settled, so we changed the subject.

10/17/2010 7:24:04 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: And I take issue with their understanding of the facts. I don't recall ever seeing a corporation exercise a right before. To you, what does a corporation look like that makes such make since? When GE holds a press conference, what you see are human beings giving speeches, nothing more. It is my position that corporations do not exist outside their employees and shareholders, all of which have more than enough rights to justify whatever power you want to object to."

I used to go over this with you in the past, and then I backed off because I thought you were intelligent (you are) with pertinent economic info to pass on (you have none), but, yeah, I'm back...SPELL YOUR FUCKING WORDS PROPERLY. AND TRY TO WRITE IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.

Rewrite your post. Your opinion is already tenuous in terms of reality...so you need to work hard to express it--"it" and all the other academic ideas you have about the way our world works.

Seriously though, I'm too uneducated and too distracted by your inability to communicate in English to understand your points.

10/17/2010 9:24:40 PM

^ ...I can't find a wrongly spelled word in my post.

Rewrite:
A corporation is a group of people. It does not make sense for an individual to have more rights than a group of individuals. Such would mean an individual looses some of their rights once they decide to associate with others, which would invalidate the freedom of association implied in the first amendment ("right of the people peaceably to assemble") and codified by the 1958 United States Supreme Court decision NAACP v. Alabama and ultimately in 2010's Citizens United decision.

10/18/2010 5:47:42 AM

Quote :

"A corporation is a group of people. It does not make sense for an individual to have more rights than a group of individuals. Such would mean an individual looses some of their rights once they decide to associate with others,"

I think you forgot to explain how an individual loses rights by joining a corporation

10/18/2010 9:35:48 AM

before Citizens United they didn't have the same rights to free speech other groups enjoyed.

10/18/2010 9:36:55 AM

I know, and I agree with that position. I just want to help LoneSnark communicate.

10/18/2010 9:59:38 AM

Something a fellow libertarian brought up to me recently, which I really should have recognized before, is that corporations are already afforded rights not given to regular people. The entire concept of an LLC (limited liability) is complete bullshit. If your corporation causes fifty billion worth of damages, and you're only required to pay twenty five billion, how is that fair? Certainly, people should be able to associate and do what they please, but the government shouldn't cap liabilities like that.

10/18/2010 10:32:16 AM

yea. liability caps sorta make sense for small buisinesses just starting out, but caps on liabilities for big corps are just stupid. ex: the caps on liability for gulf oil platform owners.

or bank execs.

[Edited on October 18, 2010 at 10:54 AM. Reason : a]

10/18/2010 10:52:56 AM

^^ Absolutely. Limited liability violates our right to contract, although this right is not explicit in the Constitution anywhere.

That said, there would be nothing to stop a corporation (or an individual) from imposing limited liability upon itself in all its contracts. That would just leave tort liability. Similarly, I'm sure arrangements could be made to isolate shareholders from being jointly and severally liable, the proverbial Bill Gates owning one share of stock getting sued for all the companies debts. After-all, individuals are allowed to declare bankruptcy, so all we would need to be able to do is get one or a group of the individuals running the company to assume the liability.

10/18/2010 11:09:30 AM

require partial ownership to be eligible for any related tax breaks and/or increase the tax rate for non-owners with large income from the company.

10/18/2010 11:30:55 AM

Quote :

"It does not make sense for an individual to have more rights than a group of individuals."

Let's say you have a group of individuals, all of whom agree. It can be a corporation, or a political organization, or whatever. Let's say there's 100 members...

To me, it would be entirely unfair to give these 100 grouped individuals any more power than any 100 randomly chosen individuals who aren't grouped at all. To declare a group of people as a separate entity and give that entity rights/political power, to me at least, devalues the rights of unassociated individuals. Joining a group does not make you more of a person, and you and your friends ought not to get special treatment just because you made an organization to say how much you agree with each other.

In a more concrete sense, if a group should have political power (in terms of voting power and monetary spending/donation limits), it should be power no greater than [number of members]*[political power of any given individual] ...And that's not to say that you have the power of the group PLUS the power of each person acting as an individual... rather, my little fake-math statement refers to the power wielded by each individual member of the group choosing to vote and spend in line with what the group wants.

That said, I might not be typical in this argument in that not only do I disagree with corporations having any political power of their own (beyond the individual actions of every single member), but I disagree with giving any special power or recognition to PACs regardless of their cause. To give an organization government-recognized political power as separate entities from the individuals that comprise them is essentially creating a fake person out of thin air (with the exception of adding a vote) and thereby disrespecting and devaluing the rights of individuals.

So, in conclusion, LoneSnark, your beliefs on this issue take a shit in the mouth of individual rights. ...In my opinion.

[Edited on October 18, 2010 at 10:58 PM. Reason : At best, PACs are a once-useful concept made obsolete by the connectivity of the internet.]

10/18/2010 10:54:27 PM

And here we have the point of argument. You care about power, and only power. The Democratic Party has far more power than it has members. The libertarian party has lots of members, and no power. You are upset that a world of associations unequally distributes power. I am upset that a handful of people were fined for protesting because their signs were provided by an organization whose paperwork wasn't in order. You are outraged that the outcome was unequal while I am outraged that the rules were unjust.

Whatever it is, it is not a bad thing that 100 people deciding to associate are more powerful than 100 people that did not. To be upset at this is naive. Political power has never been equitably shared, George Bush always had more power than I.

Retarding freedom of speech will not fix inequitable distribution of political power. What it will do is prevent Citizens United from distributing a movie critical of a politician, cause the police to show up for a meeting of the college democrats and fine the organizers, and get people fined based on where their protest sign supplies came from. How did any of these actions by the police more equitably distribute political power? If anything, they serve to suppress small organizations in favor of big organizations that can afford attorneys to make sure their paperwork is in order.

You did not bother to defend the law on its results. I doubt even you believe the usage of the law I mention was just. All you have is the hope that if we have enough of these unjust laws, we can achieve democratic utopia. Well, the law was not challenged because it took money out of politics, it was challenged for harassing dissenters. How can a democracy function is its dissenters are being dragged before the FEC and fined?

[Edited on October 19, 2010 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/19/2010 1:51:28 AM

I'm hardly in support of suppressing the speech and free protest of collaborating individuals, and I don't know why you seem to assume that I am. That attorneys are needed in order to work out the paperwork of a protest is an entirely separate injustice that also needs to be fixed. It's nothing to do with outcomes, the rules as they stand are unjust in both of our arguments.

I'm not even saying that people shouldn't associate, or agree, or form organizations. Some people can still make a group and hire lawyers and whatever else... but for the government to formalize those associations into something that gives them additional political power recognized by law seems, to me, completely absurd. You're making arguments about small groups standing up to protest, but to me, PACs seem to be little more than a way for the rich to ally with elected officials. It serves to keep the control in the hands of those that already have it, not to uplift the 'little guy' or give a voice to those who normally aren't heard.

Quote :

"Whatever it is, it is not a bad thing that 100 people deciding to associate are more powerful than 100 people that did not."

The 100 people that ally are always going to be more powerful in... relatively intangible ways. They'll have a name, something for people to recognize, a united voice, and pooled resources. I don't see this as wrong. What is wrong, to me, is for this organization to be legally recognized and given greater rights beyond the advantages naturally afforded to them by grouping up in the first place. They already become more influential simply by virtue of being an organized group, and that should be enough. And on a more unrelated note, I think that the law ought to do its best to avoid being arbitrary, and PAC distinctions strike me as being just that.

Quote :

"Political power has never been equitably shared, George Bush always had more power than I. "

If I'm being naive, then you're being utterly defeatist. There will always be inequality, does that mean we should stop trying to provide people with an equal means to the best of our abilities? There will always be people who are corrupt, does that mean we should not try to fight against corruption? There will always be some people that choose to hate others, does that mean that we shouldn't bother denouncing irrational hatred? Life isn't fair, but is that an excuse to treat people badly? The fact that an injustice is inherent to our existence is no reason not to endeavor against it. Even if we can't solve a problem completely, we can still make things better. At the very least, we can avoid making injustices worse by not writing those injustices into law. You sound like you're just resigning yourself to the status quo.

Quote :

"Retarding freedom of speech will not fix inequitable distribution of political power. What it will do is prevent Citizens United from distributing a movie critical of a politician, cause the police to show up for a meeting of the college democrats and fine the organizers, and get people fined based on where their protest sign supplies came from. How did any of these actions by the police more equitably distribute political power? If anything, they serve to suppress small organizations in favor of big organizations that can afford attorneys to make sure their paperwork is in order. "

Fuck the police, and fuck the red-tape bullshit. I'm not in support of these things and never have been. Restrictive measures being in place to suppress free speech in those instances does not imply that PAC distinctions are just. Both are problems that need solving. (Also, are you referencing specific incidents, or simply hypothetical scenarios? It seems to me that PAC distinctions being in place or removed would have little to no bearing on the situations you described, unless you're just saying that the power to give more money to politicians is the only thing keeping them from being broken up by the cops... and I hope you don't honestly believe America is that much of a dystopian police state.)

I'd address your last paragraph, too, but frankly it's badly worded and makes a lot of assumptions, and I can't really tell the point that you're going for with it. Also, I am tired and it's nearly 4 AM.

[Edited on October 19, 2010 at 3:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2010 3:41:23 AM

Quote :

"Also, are you referencing specific incidents, or simply hypothetical scenarios?"

I was referencing the specific incidents discussed in the Citizens United decision where small associations of people were harassed for spending money to make a political point (to make a movie, buy protest signs, hold a public meeting) without first forming a PAC.

Quote :

"but for the government to formalize those associations into something that gives them additional political power recognized by law seems, to me, completely absurd."

Last I heard, PACs don't have any legal power beyond the ability to persuade others in public and donate to candidates. Thanks to Citizens United, everyone know has the ability to spend money to persuade others in public, so a PAC is no longer special in that regard. All that leaves is it the double donation limit. I agree, that is quite odd, but any limit is arbitrary, the ability of PACs to give money to candidates only matters because individuals are capped at $1k. Well, we are in agreement: the ability of PACs to donate to candidates even though its members have already hit their limit, is absurd.

As such, abolish the limit! Grant everyone that same power to give unlimited amounts of their money to a politicians campaign fund. It is the only fair thing to do. Given this restoration of liberty, PACs can give all the money they want based solely upon the rights of their individuals. But I don't think you like that answer, perhaps you would prefer if PACs were instead capped at the contribution limits remaining for their members...a minefield of paperwork the government will happily use to squash dissent it doesn't approve of. It doesn't take a dystopian police state to receive a cease and desist letter from FEC.

10/19/2010 11:49:31 AM

Quote :

"As such, abolish the limit! Grant everyone that same power to give unlimited amounts of their money to a politicians campaign fund. It is the only fair thing to do. Given this restoration of liberty, PACs can give all the money they want based solely upon the rights of their individuals. But I don't think you like that answer, perhaps you would prefer if PACs were instead capped at the contribution limits remaining for their members...a minefield of paperwork the government will happily use to squash dissent it doesn't approve of. It doesn't take a dystopian police state to receive a cease and desist letter from FEC."

lol no unintended consequences here

10/19/2010 11:56:56 AM

Quote :

"lol no unintended consequences here"

For the unintended consequences you're to which you are referring to become a problem*, you have to buy into the idea that the current limits are limiting anyone except those that can't afford to buy their way around the limits anyway.

To be honest, it seems to me a lot of these sorts of things are attempting to un-ring a bell. Politicians are so distanced from their actual campaigns and those supporting them that they have complete immunity from anything their campaign folks might screw up. In addition, most of these violations are found after the fact. At that point, the money has been spent, the votes have been cast. Does anyone really think we'd impeach a president or congressman because Pepsi, Kraft, Monsanto or George Soros funneled millions of dollars directly to a candidate in violation of a campaign finance law? The politician would say "I had no idea!", the campaign finance manager might get some light jail time for the "oversight", the company might get a small fine and they'll shut down that particular loophole. And in the mean time, the company or rich investor will drop money into finding a new loophole and their chosen candidate will be in office. If you really think this is a problem, then the only way to solve the problem is to make it so that the cost of going around the law is more than the perceived benefits for doing so. But remember that the more you put in place to block them, the more valuable it becomes to spend money on figuring out how to use those laws to block your opponents while still slipping around the law.

*That is a horrible phrased statement, but hopefully it's clear enough

10/19/2010 1:15:42 PM

So the solution is to ditch caps altogether and let people buy elections outright

10/19/2010 4:13:49 PM

No, the solution lies at the root of the problem. It's worth it, to some people, to spend 50 mil on an election. Why? What is their incentive? Are they simply power hungry, or is there something to gain?

10/19/2010 4:38:49 PM

^^ But they are buying it anyway. The difference is, instead of laundering the money through various political foundations, they get the money directly and are forced to disclose the contribution, allowing their opponent to portray them as "bought and paid for".

To put it another way, a republican which would happily publicize the money he got from some religious foundation is forced to instead launder the money along side his other financiers which he would prefer to keep secret. As such, the contributors that politicians would rather keep secret are easily obscured by other contributions. A good metaphor would be the U.S. Mexican border. If all immigration was legal, then anyone crossing the border was either a terrorist or a drug smuggler. However, because much immigration is illegal, the true criminals get to disappear into a larger flood of non-criminal immigrants.

10/19/2010 5:33:53 PM

Awww, goodness, LoneSnark has written so many, many words...it's troubling.

BTW, it was "since" and "sense." That's why I italicized the word in my post when I criticized your spelling, bro.

[Edited on October 21, 2010 at 3:15 AM. Reason : "^ ...I can't find a wrongly spelled word in my post. " Adorable!]

10/21/2010 3:15:00 AM