page 4 of people who think "people" should have rights to free speech

1/23/2010 9:55:30 PM

So is there any evidence that the law that was struck down actually stopped any sort of corporate influence within the government? I mean, this was passed in 2002, does anyone think that the amount of corporate influence in the government decreased between 2002 and now?

1/23/2010 10:22:04 PM

http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2797

Quote :

"Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners. Because after all, foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections. "

Quote :

"In the oral (re-)argument of this case before the Supreme Court on September 9, 2009 (PDF), the question of foreign ownership was brought up immediately by Justice Ginsburg (beginning on page 3 of the transcript). Ted Olson, representing Citizens United, conceded that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign-owned corporations (however defined) from engaging in this kind of unlimited electoral spending."

I hadn't thought of it like this.

1/23/2010 10:24:24 PM

Quote :

"foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections."

But foreign terrorists have a right to a civilian trial?

1/23/2010 10:27:43 PM

Quote :

" The usual rationale for “free speech,” which seems persuasive, is that in the long run we as a society learn more via an open competition for the best ideas, where anyone can try to persuade us as best they can, and listeners are free to choose what to hear. Yet that concept would best be called “free hearing” – a freedom to hear and evaluate any case presented, based on any criteria you like (including cost). “Free hearing” would apply not just to hearing from adult citizens in good standing, but also to hearing from children, convicts, corporations, robots, foreigners, or demons. We wouldn’t argue if corporations have a right to speak, but rather if we have a right to hear what corporations have to say. But in fact we have “free speech,” a right only enjoyed by adult citizens in good standing, a right we jealously guard, wondering if corporations etc. “deserve” it. This right seems more a status marker, like the right to vote, than a way to promote idea competition — that whole competition story seems more an ex post rationalization than the real cause for our concern. Which is why support for “free speech” is often paper thin, fluctuating with the status of proposed speakers."

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/free-hearing-not-speech.html

Great idea. I am in favor of the Supreme Court ruling because I want to hear what these corporations have to say, even if it is just to learn what not to believe, and I believe I should have that right.

1/23/2010 11:03:50 PM

^ you did have that right.

Corporations weren't outright banned from stating their views.

They were just capped in certain circumstances.

1/23/2010 11:06:13 PM

And you agreed with that? I should be free to listen to what others would like to say, but not during election season? It would seem to me that during political elections would be the most important time to exercise the marketplace of ideas.

1/23/2010 11:19:49 PM

Quote :

"I am in favor of the Supreme Court ruling because I want to hear what these corporations have to say, "

Plus...if these evil corporations are spending all their ill-gotten money on political ads...then that's money they can't spend on making those horrible ipods and cell-phones and double cheese-burgers that so many of us want. Damn them!

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 1:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2010 1:19:18 AM

And again, try to remember what you are justifying here, moron. While GE was free to speak, you were frying the small fish:

Quote :

"Russ Howard and Steve Cicero, who launched an unsuccessful grassroots recall campaign against a politician they considered corrupt, then were given a fine for campaign finance violations eight times the amount of money they had raised for it? Or how about (of all things!) the Supreme Court case in question, where documentary filmmakers faced jail if they broadcast a movie that made a politician look bad during election season? Or how about this description in yesterday's decision of what regulated political speech looks like in practice? Campaign finance regulations now impose "unique and complex rules" on "71 distinct entities." These entities are subject to separate rules for 33 different types of political speech. The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations, 1,278 pages of explanations and justifications for those regulations, and 1,771 advisory opinions since 1975. In fact, after this Court in WRTL [the 2007 Wisconsin Right to Life case] adopted an objective "appeal to vote" test for determining whether a communication was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, the FEC adopted a two-part, 11-factor balancing test to implement WRTL's ruling. When a law requires any group of two or more people who raise $5,000 for the purposes of making a political statement to adhere to a blizzard of federal regulations subject to fines, that law by definition chokes off the "voices of everyday Americans" that President Barack Obama, in his ridiculous reaction to the decision yesterday, expressed outrage on behalf of. Free-speech campaign-finance enthusiasts are willing to censor or chill those small voices for the greater purpose of attempting (and largely failing) to blunt the political activity of hated Corporations (or "Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests," in the words of a president who has been bailing out Wall Street banks and crafting legislative deals with health insurance companies and other powerful interests for a year now). What campaign-finance supporters are not willing to do, at least most of the time, is admit that they're making any tradeoff on political expression at all."

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/22/whats-worse-disingenuously-wav

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 1:29 AM. Reason : ^]

1/24/2010 1:25:10 AM

Quote :

"If you want me to get all tea-bagger on you, the Founding Fathers™ never intended for things to be this way, and this is not how the constitution is written."

Justice Antonin Scalia responding to moron et al.:

Quote :

" I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored.... The [First] 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."

1/24/2010 2:55:18 AM

^ that's an enumerated vs implied debate.

Ironically, the dissenting opinion is saying that stuffing corporations under the first amendment is too broad of an interpretation of what the first amendment applies to. When you consider who we already limit free speech to, and on the basis of what, it's bizarre to say that corporations are absolutely exempt from similar reasonable limits, that don't remotely ban their ability to exercise free speech.

Quote :

"If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by"Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could "‘enhance the relative voice'" of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49).51 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. In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critique of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw. "

This part is relevant too i think:

Quote :

"This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it, see Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1, 22 (1971), but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society. Those few corporations that existed at the founding were authorized by grant of a special legislative charter.53 Corporate sponsors would petition the legislature, and the legislature, if amenable, would issue a charter that specified the corporation's powers and purposes and "authoritatively fixed the scope and content of corporate organization," including "the internal structure of the corporation." J. Hurst, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States 1780–1970,pp. 15–16 (1970) (reprint 2004). Corporations were created, supervised, and conceptualized as quasi-public entities, "designed to serve a social function for the state."Handlin & Handlin, Origin of the American BusinessCorporation, 5 J. Econ. Hist. 1, 22 (1945). It was "assumed that [they] were legally privileged organizations that had to be closely scrutinized by the legislature because their purposes had to be made consistent with public welfare." R. Seavoy, Origins of the American Business Corporation, 1784–1855, p. 5 (1982)."

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 3:29 AM. Reason : ]

1/24/2010 3:25:45 AM

1/24/2010 5:44:32 AM

Quote :

"The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers."

1/24/2010 10:15:44 AM

Quote :

"Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by"Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans"

I find all of this worry about foreign nationals taking advantage of the rules sort of disingenuous when we already make distinction between citizens and non citizens. Non citizens are already barred from voting, so it's not like we don't have precedent for restricting constitutional rights only to US citizens.

Further, voting is distinctly different from speech in that a group of citizens individually voting for a candidate has the same effect as a group of citizens pooling their votes to vote for a candidate. By comparison a collection of citizens each spending $500 on a political ad is considerably different from a collection of citizens pooling their money together to spend $5000 on a political ad.

1/24/2010 10:56:10 AM

Quote :

"When you consider who we already limit free speech to, and on the basis of what"

And who would that be and on the basis of what? Last I checked any human being has the right to say or print whatever they want here in the United States of America. The owner of the microphone has the right to point it somewhere else, but the government has no right to arrest them for it. Am I wrong?

Now, moron, why should I not have the right to hear what these foreigners have to say? What would you have us do? Would you bar the daily telegraph from distributing its paper in America? Solely on the grounds that they are foreigners? What the fuck kind of jingoist shit is this? Only Americans have rights now? That's great, so the next British citizen that gets off the plane can just be executed since he has no right to due process? The 1st Amendment does not say the word "citizens" or "American" anywhere, neither does most of the Bill of Rights, just "Congress shall make no law...", so to suggest that only Americans have the right to speak under the 1st Amendment is absolutely appalling. Yes, if American corporations have the right to speech then so do foreign corporations, this is not evidence against restoring American corporations the right to speak.

And since when is constitutional law made solely on the grounds that it would result in unfavorable conclusions? Should the police no longer need warrants on the grounds that doing so sets murderers free to kill again? Should American citizens be prevented from speaking on the grounds that it might hurt the war effort? Then why should foreigners? If Tokyo Rose was doing her speaking from a radio station in New York City, would you shut her up? The text of the 1st Amendment does not allow for that, neither does my preference for how the world should work. Does yours?

Especially considering the more unfavorable conclusions are on your side of the argument: grassroots organizers being fined for working to recall a corrupt incumbent, and all the other Americans that gave up working in the political system because of the restrictions, documentary filmmakers being prevented from airing their movie because it was unfavorable to an incumbent. Siemens being silenced so GE can speak. This is harm that is documented and real. That Tokyo Rose would have lost us WW2 is unclear and probably a little absurd, since at the time we did not silence Tokyo Rose, she broadcast through most of the war and yet our soldiers still manage to win the war. That is because they were smart enough to know lies when they heard them.

1/24/2010 12:29:13 PM

Quote :

"And who would that be and on the basis of what? Last I checked any human being has the right to say or print whatever they want here in the United States of America. The owner of the microphone has the right to point it somewhere else, but the government has no right to arrest them for it. Am I wrong? "

It’s in the quoted section, as well as the Slate article i posted.

I’ll boil it down though, it’s along the lines of not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Quote :

"Now, moron, why should I not have the right to hear what these foreigners have to say? What would you have us do? Would you bar the daily telegraph from distributing its paper in America? Solely on the grounds that they are foreigners? What the fuck kind of jingoist shit is this? Only Americans have rights now? That's great, so the next British citizen that gets off the plane can just be executed since he has no right to due process? The 1st Amendment does not say the word "citizens" or "American" anywhere, neither does most of the Bill of Rights, just "Congress shall make no law...", so to suggest that only Americans have the right to speak under the 1st Amendment is absolutely appalling. Yes, if American corporations have the right to speech then so do foreign corporations, this is not evidence against restoring American corporations the right to speak. "

I don’t see where i said foreigners don’t have rights. I don’t see where we’re stopping foreign newspapers (or anyone for that matter) from publishing in America.

This is about 1 issue primarily: controlling corruption

The argument is that corporations shouldn’t be able to direct funds in an unlimited matter towards swaying public policy opinion.

The basis for the conservative activist judges striking this down a century of precedence is “well, it doesn’t SEEM to be prohibited by the first amendment, so why not?”

The reality is that there are plenty of things that seemingly should be allowed under the first amendment, just like separate but equal was seemingly allowed by the constitution, but we make illegal anyway, because the court and society has ruled that if the result of a speech is unduly disruptive, it can be illegal. This was the rationale when yelling fire in a theater was ruled on.

Quote :

"The leafleting drew no money-is-speech analysis. To the contrary, the conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that by asking for money for leafleting—their form of speech—the Hare Krishnas were being "disruptive" and posing an "inconvenience" to others. In other words, in the court's view, some people's money is speech; others' money is annoying"

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2010 12:35:46 PM

Which is seriously the stupidest reasoning in the world.

1/24/2010 12:47:21 PM

It’s seems pretty dumb reasoning that corporations should be treated as persons when it comes to free speech.

I do like one side effect though from this whole thing, it shows where the Libertarians are: nowhere.

1/24/2010 12:50:32 PM

Quote :

"I’ll boil it down though, it’s along the lines of not being able to yell “fire” in a crowded theater."

This is a horrible over simplification and I wish we would stop teaching it as an example of where you don't have freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater as much as you like. What you are not free to do, and what you would be charged with is inciting a riot and causing direct harm to other individuals as a result of knowingly spreading false information. It is an important distinction, as you have every right to scream fire in a crowded theater when there actually is a fire, further if you were an actor on stage, and you yelled your line "FIRE!" you would not be arrested. Even further, if you saw smoke billowing out of one of the hallways, you would not be arrested for yelling fire even if investigation later turned up that the smoke was the result of the popcorn machine going on the fritz and burning all the popcorn. Your freedom to speak is not what is restricted here, as you would face similar results for pulling the fire alarm even though that would never under any circumstance be described as speech.

Quote :

"This is about 1 issue primarily: controlling corruption The argument is that corporations shouldn’t be able to direct funds in an unlimited matter towards swaying public policy opinion."

So then let us examine this "1 issue". This ruling was a result of a case about a law which was passed in 2002. In your opinion was the time period from 2002 to 2010 marked with more or less government corruption and corporate influence in government? In that same time period have the influences on government become more open and obvious or less so? If you feel that the 2002 to 2010 period was marked with less government corruption, less corporate influence and more openness regarding government influences, do you attribute those things to the law at hand, or other factors such as an increase in the prevalence of the internet and the ease of communication?

Quote :

"The basis for the conservative activist judges striking this down a century of precedence is “well, it doesn’t SEEM to be prohibited by the first amendment, so why not?” "

Which is probably the best basis for a constitutional argument. If the constitution does not specifically prohibit it, nor restrict it to a function of the government, then the constitution SPECIFICALLY states that the people have that right. See amendments 9 and 10.

Quote :

"It’s seems pretty dumb reasoning that corporations should be treated as persons when it comes to free speech."

No one is arguing that corporations should be treated as people (though I imagine if we proposed eliminating corporate personhood because you should have to sue individual employees instead of the corporation as a whole, you wouldn't like that so much). What I am arguing is that the fact that a bunch of people pool their money together for the purpose of running a business should not exclude those people from using that money to promote political causes which represent their interests.

If your concern is over shareholders interests not being the same as the corporate interests, then the answer is to put such decisions to a shareholder vote, but there are more to corporations than Kraft and Microsoft, and if the owner of Carolina Custom Builders wants to take out ads encouraging people to vote for laws or politicians which make his job easier, that is between him and the other owners of the company, and no one else.

1/24/2010 2:09:01 PM

It's pretty awesome that this isn't all over the news...oh wait, large corporations. What happens when foreign companies own our presidents?

....facepalm

1/24/2010 9:20:56 PM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june98/china_5-19.html

simpsons clintons did it.

1/24/2010 9:42:05 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty awesome that this isn't all over the news...oh wait, large corporations. What happens when foreign companies own our presidents? ....facepalm"

Wat?

1/24/2010 10:27:04 PM

If the point is that this is not being covered because large corporations own media companies, and if that point is being used to illustrate why media companies large corporations should not be able to engage in free speech, then... *facepalm*

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 10:54 PM. Reason : s]

1/24/2010 10:54:07 PM

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords. We can replace the 50 stars on the flag with 50 different corporate logos.

1/24/2010 11:42:53 PM

OK, I've read through most of this thread so far but not all, so if I'm repeating things excessively please forgive me.

Here is the problem:

We all seem to agree that nobody should give money to campaigns with the expectation of special favors. That's good, but there's now way to enforce that. I suspect that many times it's not even that straightforward. A candidate gets a bunch of money from a certain camp; legislation affecting that camp comes up; the politician says, without even necessarily needing any lobbying or prompting, "Well shit, they gave me money last time, but I bet they won't give me money if I fuck them now," and so he doesn't fuck them, regardless of whether or not they need a deep political dicking.

Many of us seem to agree that donations from corporations are bad. What else could a corporation want besides special favors? But of course it's impossible to differentiate corporations from other organizations. If a corporation can't give money directly, it'll give to a PAC. If it can't give to a PAC, its major shareholders will. And if you take away all of management's ability to give to a campaign, you pretty much have to do that to unions...but how do you do that?

Campaign finance reform is one of the biggest and most important clusterfucks in politics today. I personally would be in favor of each side drawing from an equal set of public funds, although that would, of course, bring up a whole new issue regarding third parties.

1/25/2010 12:51:24 AM

I'm more concerned about local anti-business candidates getting silenced/swift-boated than main-stream state/national candidates getting their pockets filled - that's going to happen regardless of the law.

1/25/2010 1:31:54 AM

This ruling in no way alters the campaign donation restrictions. Corporations can give no more money to a politician today than they could last year. All that has changed is their ability to spend money independently of any politicians in question, such as issue ads: "on tuesday, send a message to Congress that America doesn't/does need more bailouts!"

1/25/2010 2:56:25 AM

Please let my last post be amended to include what you just said. How do you separate "issue ads" from "ads in favor of a candidate"? You can't, realistically. Meaning that this ruling does affect things, in a potentially big way.

1/25/2010 3:19:23 AM

^^You think the corporation's who care enough to throw around the big bucks are going to be on the side against bailouts? Really?

1/25/2010 3:42:35 AM

Quote :

"What else could a corporation want besides special favors?"

This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. A corporation could want equal treatment, or could want to avoid getting F-ed unfairly.

1/25/2010 5:05:31 AM

historically, corporations have wanted special treatment and to fuck others. Why should we expect them to do differently now?

1/25/2010 7:07:38 AM

Yes, historically I have also wanted special favors and at times I have wanted to F some people.

At the same time, I also wouldn't want to be unfairly targeted by legislation. I would hope that I could protest against that legislation if it were ever introduced.

1/25/2010 7:55:36 AM

Laws such as McCain/Feingold try to equalize Free Speech, that is not let one party have more speech than someone else. The Supreme Court ruling simply said that the First Amendment is there to protect Free Speech, not decide how much Free Speech competing people can have.

A key point is ..who gets to decide how much Free Speech one may have during an election? It doesn't make sense to let the people in power decide how much you can say against them during their re-election efforts.

It seems like it should be up to us, not incumbent politicians, to decide how much we want to spend on political Free Speech.

1/25/2010 10:35:06 AM

it only seems that way to you because you are not in power at the moment

1/25/2010 10:40:16 AM

Quote :

" "There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government," said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove." [...] Australia barely regulates political money. Individuals and corporations can give without limit. Parties can spend freely. And there is not much disclosure about who gives what to whom. But political corruption has not threatened a vibrant democracy there. In the United States, studies comparing states like Virginia with scant regulation against those like Wisconsin with strict rules have not found much difference in levels of corruption or public trust, several scholars said. Jeff Milyo, an economist at the University of Missouri, has compared states with strict bans on corporate contributions to political parties against those with no limits at all. "There is just no good evidence that campaign finance laws have any effect on actual corruption," he said. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html

1/25/2010 12:26:23 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON—Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger. President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for "special interests and their lobbyists." He cited "one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt," who "warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending" on elections. Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes. Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring "the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, 'I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee. On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates. Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court's decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019561248784550.html?mod=e2tw

1/25/2010 12:29:04 PM

^Not bad ideas IMO, except for the tax deduction.

1/25/2010 12:44:02 PM

Agreed, all of those seem reasonable. My only caveat would be ensuring that no one is allowed to deduct political ads from their taxes, corporation or otherwise.

[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 12:50 PM. Reason : fdasf]

1/25/2010 12:49:32 PM

I think all of those things are fine... As long as they don't mean that the shareholders have to approve every single ad... If the shareholders can just vote, "yes engage politically" I think that's a fantastic idea....


Wonder if the liberals would so happily agree to forcing the unions to allow a vote on whether or not they engage politically or not. Somehow I think not.

1/25/2010 4:20:08 PM

Quote :

"Agreed, all of those seem reasonable. My only caveat would be ensuring that no one is allowed to deduct political ads from their taxes, corporation or otherwise"

1/25/2010 5:00:05 PM

I can agree with that, up/down shareholder votes to enable political action. Shit, such a law would be less about speech and more about disclosure, so I see no possible constitutional challenges. It would be a tolerable law, but it would not seriously help anything, seeing as it has not been demonstrated that corporate public speech has been harmful.

1/25/2010 5:16:57 PM

Attaching an actual person to the ad/contribution, like the CEO, might put this in the realm of protected speech.

[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2010 5:51:36 PM

1/26/2010 5:15:19 PM

Quote :

"Attaching an actual person to the ad/contribution, like the CEO, might put this in the realm of protected speech."

ummm... the corporation is technically a person...

1/27/2010 12:37:31 AM

Interesting theory:

Quote :

"Now that the Supreme Court has freed corporations to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates, many pundits feel that is simply beyond the power of Congress to constitutionally curtail the corrosive potential of corporate speech. But Bruce Ackerman and I just published a piece in the Washington Post arguing that Congress can constitutionally prohibit corporations that are federal contractors from paying for ads “endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.” A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that almost three-quarters of the largest 100 publicly traded firms are federal contractors. If Congress endorsed our proposal, these companies — and tens of thousands of others — would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn’t do both. When push came to shove, it’s likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their “free speech.”"

http://tinyurl.com/ybhj36o

1/29/2010 5:53:57 PM

Quote :

"ummm... the corporation is technically a person..."

Stop saying that while it's untrue. Corporations don't exist any more than the United States of America, the American Public, NCState University, or the Catholic Church. All are intangible concepts we humans choose to act as if they are sentient creatures with feelings and motives, which is absurd, as only people are people.

1/29/2010 6:18:06 PM

haha, I almost repsonded to "while it's untrue." Then I read the rest and saw you posted it. ehe

1/29/2010 6:58:43 PM

For the record, I think intelligent extraterrestrials residing in the United States would be covered by the First Amendment. I am less sure about self-aware robots. But since the corporations at issue in this case are created and run by human beings, the Court did not need to address those issues. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, "the individual person's right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons."
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/27/cover-your-ears

2/1/2010 10:04:59 AM

Quote :

"A LOT of politicians were rattled by the Supreme Court on January 21st. By a 5-4 majority the court ruled that corporations, unions and ideological groups can spend as much money as they like on political advertisements at election time. “This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” warned Barack Obama on January 23rd. It “opens the floodgates”, he said, for corporations to “interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates”, such as himself. He vowed to fight for legal ways to undermine the ruling. The case concerned a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie”, which portrays Mrs Clinton as a lying, power-hungry viper. The movie’s makers, a conservative group called Citizens United, wanted to release it via cable during the Democratic primaries in 2008, when Mrs Clinton was running for president. Under America’s campaign-finance laws, they were threatened with stiff fines and up to five years in jail if they did so. They argued that this violated their constitutional right to free speech. The Supreme Court agreed. "

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15394247&source=hptextfeature?sa_campaign=twitter


Pretty even-handed article from the Economist about the Citizens United case. Any time a politician opposes political speech of any sort, I look on them with a great deal of suspicion.

2/1/2010 4:22:09 PM

^Both sides are claiming to be on the side of free speech.

There are those that are saying easy and direct corporate spending in elections drowns out the speech of citizens, and there are those that say wait a minute, corporations are people too.

There are some legislative attempts to deal with this such as having shareholders vote on political involvement if they really want it to be the people that make up the corporation speaking, or having the CEO get on any ads they make and say "and I approved this message" and other attempts.

There is also an effort to do a constitutional amendment, a bill was filed today towards that goal:

Quote :

"Amendment language: 111TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. J. RES. ___ Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on __________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: ‘‘ARTICLE— ‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity. ‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’"

2/3/2010 3:43:52 AM