The United States of the Corporation

[mookiemookie]

The Supreme Court has given big business (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/business), unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/supreme.court.analysis/index.html

Regardless of your political affiliation, this is bad. Say hello to the Senator from WalMart, the Congressman from Humana, the Representative from Halliburton.

We are right and truly screwed.

[AVGWarhawk]

I just love how the country is going....

http://www.toiletology.com/images/Crapper-1.jpg

[SteamWake]

Its a victory for free speech.

Corperations are made up of what?? People...

The McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional

[mookiemookie]

Its a victory for free speech.

Corperations are made up of what?? People...

The McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional

Really? What corporation has your best interests at heart? What corporation places anything BUT the pursuit of profits above all else? Hint: not any successful one.

And free speech? Puh-leeze. To go with your premise, corporations have free speech rights like people. Except they're better than people, because you can't jail a corporation for not obeying the law in the search for profits. You can fine them, sure, but that's no big deal as corporations are flush with money and lawyers. So what they've done is turn YOU into a second class citizen.

Your free speech rights don't mean diddly when major corporations can buy and sell politicians at will. You think they're going to listen to what YOU have to say, when they're getting 99.9% of their campaign funding from a corporation?

Free speech? You think this is good for free speech? Let's take one of your heroes, Glenn Beck. Beck likes to inflame people against the government. When the government is a corporate-tocracy, how much dissent do you think they'll allow?

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

[SteamWake]

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


Now what part of 'shall make no laws' is misunderstood here?

[mookiemookie]

Now what part of 'shall make no laws' is misunderstood here?

When they wrote that, did it apply to corporations? In fact, the founding fathers specifically LIMITED corporations and their powers - they could be dissolved for breaking the law.

It wasn't until 1886 that corporate personhood was established. You think giving a corporation (which have all the characteristics of a sociopath) unfettered access to the halls of power is a good thing? Enjoy your chains of slavery.

I invite you to actually THINK THROUGH the repurcussions of what has happened, instead of parroting back whatever feces John Boehner spouted out about this. Truly think this through and come up with a reason why this is a good idea.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm on the fence on this one. It's going to be interesting to see what changes come from this.

[August]

When they wrote that, did it apply to corporations? In fact, the founding fathers specifically LIMITED corporations and their powers - they could be dissolved for breaking the law.

It wasn't until 1886 that corporate personhood was established. You think giving a corporation (which have all the characteristics of a sociopath) unfettered access to the halls of power is a good thing? Enjoy your chains of slavery.

I invite you to actually THINK THROUGH the repurcussions of what has happened, instead of parroting back whatever feces John Boehner spouted out about this. Truly think this through and come up with a reason why this is a good idea.

First off it's not "unfettered access". Many spending restrictions remain in place. Your cries of wolf are not helping anything here.

Second the law as written was unconstitutional. Shame on Congress for passing something that doesn't stand constitutional muster.

If you Democrats really object to the SJC's ruling then convene a constitutional convention and change the 1st amendment.

[August]

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

[mookiemookie]

First off it's not "unfettered access". Many spending restrictions remain in place. Your cries of wolf are not helping anything here.

Second the law as written was unconstitutional. Shame on Congress for passing something that doesn't stand constitutional muster.

If you Democrats really object to the SJC's ruling then convene a constitutional convention and change the 1st amendment.

First off, it is in effect unfettered access. It doesn't matter that direct contributions are still illegal. The point is they now have the ability to control the debate by controlling the flow of information. With no cap on political ad campaigns, corporations can now run total media blitzes supporting their position, no mater how right or wrong it is over and over until people just accept it at face value.

And while I appreciate your cute little "HURR HURR If you Democrats hate it so bad, change the 1st Amendment Why do you hate freedom" comment, its not about the 1st Amendment. It's about the SCOTUS' interpretation of the 14th, back in 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that established the idea of "corporate personhood."

And actually if you want to go down the rabbit hole even further, I'll let Wikipedia take it from here:


The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports). Preceding every case entry is a headnote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headnote), a short summary in which a court reporter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_Reporter_of_Dec isions) summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad#ci te_note-4)
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._Bancroft_Davis), wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) to the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States), which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad#ci te_note-5)
In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad#ci te_note-6) However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

[mookiemookie]

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

Wrong natural conclusion. Since companies can now use the media to run ads supporting the positions of the politicians they've contributed to, they can basically pay to get whomever they want elected.

Hate the price of prescription medication? Sorry, the Senator from Merck, in a bill co-sponsored by the Senator from Pfizer, has established that drug company patents don't expire, thus effectively ending the generic drug market.

Hate the bailouts? Well, hate to break it to you, but the House of Representatives brought to you by Goldman Sachs will vote 434-1 in favor of the next one.

Want to start a business? Well, the City Council, sponsored by WalMart along with the Mayor, brought to you by Target has changed the zoning laws, and your store must close.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

Good luck with that when the President, brought to you in part by Boston Globe and Rupert Murdoch signs a bill preventing "unlicensed news reporting."

[SteamWake]

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should? :doh:

[Snestorm]

Regardless of your political affiliation, this is bad. Say hello to the Senator from WalMart, the Congressman from Humana, the Representative from Halliburton.

We are right and truly screwed.

Agreed.
This is why USA is generaly forced to choose between "the lesser of 2 evils" in most elections.

The "2 party system", also makes things easier than neccesary for big business interests that generaly support "both" sides.

[mookiemookie]

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should? :doh:

Which one of those is a non-profit?

[AVGWarhawk]

Mookie and I disagree a lot. It's all good though. However, on this issue I agree with Mookie 100%. We see what the power of money and lots of it can do to an election. The companies with unions who just got a closed door deal with Obummer on healthcare....gee how much will be filtered to the campaign account on the next go around? You scratch my back and I will scratch yours...using $100 bills of course. :03:

[Skybird]

I just love how the country is going....

http://www.toiletology.com/images/Crapper-1.jpg

Not just your country. We all have booked a table for the insanity ball. There is no escape from the madness poisoning all of our world. Especially the West has lost it's marbles quite some time ago.

[Snestorm]

Not just your country. We all have booked a table for the insanity ball. There is no escape from the madness poisoning all of our world. Especially the West has lost it's marbles quite some time ago.

Very true. It ain't just USA.

[FIREWALL]

What corporation has your best interests at heart ?

To hear it around here.... UBISOFT. imho :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

Not just your country. We all have booked a table for the insanity ball. There is no escape from the madness poisoning all of our world. Especially the West has lost it's marbles quite some time ago.

Agreed.

[FIREWALL]

It's called Greed. Very infectious.

[Aramike]

I disagree with mookie 100%.

First of all, limiting the exercise of free speech from ANY entity in the US in unconstitutional, period. Secondly, allowing corporations to openly donate anything (while STILL having so-called soft money bans in place) will help the public's awareness of who's donating to what.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but right now corporations can donate money just the same - while keeping fairly anonymous, through donating to 501s which were exempt from federal limits. Furthermore, those donations did not need to be made public record, ergo allowing for the money to flow even more freely.

Finally, who's to say that money is the end-all be all of the electoral process? The people who are pissed about this should be pushing more for an informed electorate, rather than assuming that everyone's just a dolt and will do what the next ad will tell them to.

If that's the case, we have far greater problems than who's donating what.

[mookiemookie]

I disagree with mookie 100%.

First of all, limiting the exercise of free speech from ANY entity in the US in unconstitutional, period.

Theres the rub. Corporations should not be considered entities. If they want so bad to have the same rights as people, let them have the same obligations. Personal income tax rates apply, as well as jail time for CEOs if the company breaks the law.

Finally, who's to say that money is the end-all be all of the electoral process?

Oh come on, now. I know you're smarter than that.

[FIREWALL]

And then another congressional watchdog commitie will be formed.

Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop

[AVGWarhawk]

First of all, limiting the exercise of free speech from ANY entity in the US in unconstitutional, period.


Since when does donating money have anything to do with free speech? It is money, not words. What if this union donates a crap load to contender A but some union employees like contender B?

[Catfish]

Hello,
i suppose all those Obama haters will now rejoice and hope things will get back like they were during McCarthy, Nixon, and the Bushs :haha:

Well, not really "funny" :nope:

Right here we have a Mister Roland Koch, being a condemned criminal for corruption and whatnot, certainly bribed by industry, just threw out the intendant of one of Germany's biggest TV stations, because he tolerated party-critic TV spots - certainly about THE party that is closely "related" (money-wise) to the industry.
There are so much scandals here with big business bribing the politicians and parties (right-wing, that is) that the people don't even want to hear about it anymore. I guess Koch's shining example is Mr. Berlusconi from Italy "lol".
Not really funny either :nope::nope:

Greetings,
Catfish

[FIREWALL]

I just love how the country is going....

http://www.toiletology.com/images/Crapper-1.jpg

Hope that's not the pot in your U-Boat. :haha:

[Schroeder]

Right here we have a Mister Roland Koch, being a condemned criminal for corruption and whatnot, certainly bribed by industry, just threw out the intendant of one of Germany's biggest TV stations, because he tolerated party-critic TV spots - certainly about THE party that is closely "related" (money-wise) to the industry.
There are so much scandals here with big business bribing the politicians and parties (right-wing, that is) that the people don't even want to hear about it anymore. I guess Koch's shining example is Mr. Berlusconi from Italy "lol".
Not really funny either :nope::nope:

Greetings,
Catfish
Don't get me started on the latest FDP crap with their hotel stay taxation cap (after receiving a 1.1 million € donation of a big hotelier). I'm really exited to see their new man for checking the products of pharmaceutical companies too (The current one who always resisted the lobby and made sure that the people only got stuff that worked for the smallest price has been sacked by them today. The official reason is that he used a car illegally on the expense of the taxpayer but he denied that. He made some enemies with the big pharmaceutical companies though.... Why do I have the feeling that the new guy will be so much more pro expensive stuff.:damn:). Well, we voted predator capitalists and we got predator capitalists. Sometimes I think this country is full of idiots.

[SteamWake]

Dont you find it the least bit curious that this gets turned over when the democrats are fighting for their political life?

It would seem to me that this would make them happy.

[August]

Wrong natural conclusion. Since companies can now use the media to run ads supporting the positions of the politicians they've contributed to, they can basically pay to get whomever they want elected.

Hate the price of prescription medication? Sorry, the Senator from Merck, in a bill co-sponsored by the Senator from Pfizer, has established that drug company patents don't expire, thus effectively ending the generic drug market.

Hate the bailouts? Well, hate to break it to you, but the House of Representatives brought to you by Goldman Sachs will vote 434-1 in favor of the next one.

Want to start a business? Well, the City Council, sponsored by WalMart along with the Mayor, brought to you by Target has changed the zoning laws, and your store must close.

Companies still cannot directly contribute money to a candidate so your use of "sponsor" is misleading at best and if a mayor changes zoning laws to favor one company over another he's just setting himself up for a lawsuit.

Good luck with that when the President, brought to you in part by Boston Globe and Rupert Murdoch signs a bill preventing "unlicensed news reporting."

So you totally ignore the fact that your corporate owned Boston globe can publish partisan propaganda as "news" and get away with it but you object to Joe Liquor store owner being able to send out a flyer asking it's patrons to support the candidate that opposes higher liquor taxes? This type of thing is why the law was thrown out.

[August]

So corporations should not run political ads but Acorn should? :doh:

Not just ACORN but the New York Times, the Boston Globe and a million other liberal rags. Those media CORPORATIONS get to run political ads under the guise of "news".

[Catfish]

Hello,
only that in Germany, those newspapers are mostly owned and influenced (like the right-wing politicians) by industries and big business. And this does NOT change when a "leftist" party is being elected - as soon as this happens those "news" get really disgusting, and are like B$ as their intentions are obvious.
In Australia, they call the newspapers "truth makers" :yep:

Strange that every day happens exactly as much, as fits into a newspaper...

@Schroeder
" ... Sometimes I think this country [Germany] is full of idiots. ..."

Sometimes ? You are an idiot.
no not really :rotfl2:;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[Ducimus]

Its a victory for free speech.

Corperations are made up of what?? People...



Lead by the upper 1% who will F*ck over everyone else.

[mookiemookie]

Not just ACORN but the New York Times, the Boston Globe and a million other liberal rags. Those media CORPORATIONS get to run political ads under the guise of "news".

If you're so against corporations pushing a political agenda, I am failing to see where the disconnect is. They've been given a green light to do so even more.

[Ships-R-Us]

I've read the the whole thread carefully, and in the end I believe Mookiemookie has hit it on the head, and Skybirds view is accurate, and Aramikes "informed electorate", will be the next crook when he gets to Washington and stuffs his pockets also.

The United States is not a Democracy at all, but a full blown Anarchy, and most always has been. Who will introduce the first bill to change the name of the "United States of America" to a truthful and proper name.....

[mookiemookie]

Its a victory for free speech.

Corperations are made up of what?? People...



People already have their say as individuals. Now they get to have their say as individuals AND as part of a corporation. Their voice counts DOUBLE what yours and mine do?

[August]

People already have their say as individuals. Now they get to have their say as individuals AND as part of a corporation. Their voice counts DOUBLE what yours and mine do?

Then you might as well disband the Democratic party, the ACLU, the NAACP, the AARP, Teamsters Union and any other organization that gives their members both an individual and a group say.

And you ignored it before but what's your take on Corporate owned news organizations like MSNBC? What makes them worthy of exemption from your corporate politicking ban?

[Platapus]

People already have their say as individuals. Now they get to have their say as individuals AND as part of a corporation. Their voice counts DOUBLE what yours and mine do?

What precisely is this "counts double" that you mentioned.

The only count that .. well.. counts is the election and there is still one vote per person. No one is saying that corporations will be getting a vote.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

BTW let's take the lefts objection to this ruling to it's natural conclusion.

Who owns the New York Times? That's right, a corporation. If corporations shouldn't have free speech then the corporate owned NYT shouldn't either.

"Freedom of the press" you say? Well as we see these days you don't have to belong to a corporation to report the news. Just ask any blogger.

So mookie, I expect that you and Keith Olberman to immediately start advocating that the New York Times, the Boston Globe and any other corporation owned "news" network be banned from providing politically related news reporting during elections.

Can you identify the logical fallacy in the above? Because I'm sure August can't!!!

[Aramike]

Theres the rub. Corporations should not be considered entities. If they want so bad to have the same rights as people, let them have the same obligations. Personal income tax rates apply, as well as jail time for CEOs if the company breaks the law.Corporations are nothing more than a group of individuals who collectively conduct business together. Ergo, personal income tax rates DO apply. As do capital gains taxes.

Furthermore, you're missing a very important point - neither I, nor anyone else, is actually supporting corporations having the same rights as a private citizen. That, my friend, would mean something else entirely - the right to actually vote.

Moving on, let me ask you this: would you support the same restrictions being applied to unions? Do you support restricting the publication of books during election seasons? How about censoring the corporate-owned editorial boards of newspapers from endorsing candidates?

Frankly, I think the idea that allowing the exercise of free speech to be EXTENDED to corporations during electoral season is anti-Constitution. The Constitution exists solely to restrict government, and it is quite clear regarding free speech. Hence, corporations needn't have rights extended to them - they should already have those rights.

As an aside, I find this constant demonization of corporations from the left to be ironic and trite - ironic considering that, during this season of the healthcare debate corporations are the primary providers of insurance to workers; and trite considering the hypocrisy involved with ignoring the unions who are somehow allowed a pass on the restrictions so sought after for corporations (although one of them, I believe the SEIU, donated $60 MILLION to Obama).

Finally, need I remind you that our electoral process was chugging along just fine PRIOR to McCain/Feingold? Sure, soft money WAS a problem, but as it affected both parties equally, it really just cancelled itself out. Besides, soft money is still banned (which I agree with). Oh come on, now. I know you're smarter than that. Wait, you're going to take ONE sentence out of a paragraph supporting it, and claim that somehow it defaults itself?

There was a point there, and I clarified it in the following sentences. Either you just missed it or you're intentionally attempting to discredit the idea out of context.

Shame. ;)

[Schroeder]

What precisely is this "counts double" that you mentioned.

The only count that .. well.. counts is the election and there is still one vote per person. No one is saying that corporations will be getting a vote.
If I understood it correctly then he fears that the companies will simply buy the elected guys and get their will this way, regardless who was voted.

[UnderseaLcpl]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/supreme.court.analysis/index.html

Regardless of your political affiliation, this is bad. Say hello to the Senator from WalMart, the Congressman from Humana, the Representative from Halliburton.

We are right and truly screwed.

And here I was thinking we already had that to some extent. In truth, I'd prefer to hear a senator addressed as "the gentleman from Wal-Mart". At least it would be honest.:shifty:

Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done about this kind of thing in the present system, or any existing large-scale system for that matter. As long as the government has the power to legislate and regulate freely, there will always be people with the means to co-opt or obtain that power, and they won't be any of us.

We already have the solution to these kinds of problems and it's been under our noses for over 230 years - simply eliminate the incentive for business or any cooperative to try to gain control over the power of the state. As long as any significant group is intent on getting power from the government it will eventually succeed.

Lobbyists are a universal pain because their job -their very means of support - is to convince people involved in government legislative, judicial, and executive processes to see things their way, and they will use any methods necessary to do so.

Officials of state, on the other hand, have a lot more to worry about than one agenda. They have a lot of issues to review, evaluate, and vote on, and they must also be concerned with how they are doing in the polls. There are few examples of any representative or senator putting as much thought into a position they hold as the people who lobbied for it, and this is true regardless of platform.

The solution I mentioned is that the Federal government is simply not supposed to have that much power to fight over. That's why its powers were enumerated in the Constitution, and it is why we have the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments. It is also why we have a Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and a difficult Amendment process. It is supposed to be difficult for the Federal government to gain power.

The Supreme Court has often ruled laws and acts that were not strictly constitutional as being so because some kind of workaround that wasn't covered was used. The most infamous of these is the interstate commerce clause. The Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce and it was always supposed to, but since the term interstate commerce itself wasn't strictly defined in the constitution it was left open to interpretation and all manner of things have been passed under the dubious premise of being concerned with "interstate commerce".

Another favorite workaround is the block or categorical grant. The Federal government doesn't actually have the power to give money to states because that isn't an enumerated power, but states have the power to petition the government for available grants, and grants also get squeezed through interstate commerce, amongst other things.

Obviously, this is not how this is supposed to work. If the Constitution were drafted with the intent of making the Federal government powerful it would have included a "whatever-power-you-may-need-here" clause or a "consult-founding-related-papers and provide-your-own-interpretation" clause, but it didn't. It goes out of its way to do the exact opposite in the 10th Amendment, which basically states; "If we forgot anything, you can't do that, either."

Even so, it didn't take long for people to figure out how to get around it. Special interests will always beat the government if they try, no matter where they come from. Our only saving grace is that they are also competing with each other.

I'd prefer that they just be absent from the process entirely. Why should one comparitively small and wealthy group of people get to make laws for the whole nation? Take away the government's freedom to invent power for itself and you won't have that anymore. A well-written, limiting, and ironclad constitution that can only be changed through a difficult amendment process is our best defense against the plutocracy that has been building for the past two centuries. We just didn't get it quite right the first time:DL

Those of you who have grander visions for government need not have any fear. There are still powers reserved to the states and to the people, so if you have some enlightened theory on governance you are free to practice it at all lower levels of government. I'm sure it will succeed marvelously and we'll all be flocking to your golden streets in short order. In the meantime I think we should at least be free to choose what kind society we live in to the maximum extent possible and I see 50 perfectly good states and over 3000 counties as a decent start.

Why even worry about campaign financing and all this other Washington nonsense? If there's no puppet then we don't have to worry about who's pulling the strings.

[Snestorm]

@UnderseaLcpl
Outstanding post!

[LobsterBoy]

I find this decision troubling and a little confusing.

I'm confused that it still "limits" free speech. If corporations are entities that are entitled to free speech, and that speech cannot be infringed upon, why not allow direct donations to candidates. Giving money is a form of speech, right?

The way I'm reading the decision (and I'm reading it directly, not having it interpreted to me by FOX or MSNBC or any other "news" outlet) the argument was about broadcasts that can reach 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. This is an avenue of expression that large corporations and unions have that the vast percentage of US citizens have no access to. I cannot create an advertisement because I don't have the means. The court seems to equate corporate and union free speech with citizen free speech. Corporations and unions are not equal to citizens--they cannot vote.

The court could have simply ruled that an on-demand program was separate from a broadcast because you choose if, when, and where to watch it. I would have been comfortable with that ruling.

This does not even touch on the questions about how corporations will make these decisions. Do they need shareholder approval to use general funds in such a way? If you are a shareholder and disagree are you going to sell your stake in protest. If you don't are you giving tacit approval to such expressions? What about the interests of multi-national corporations? Will there be restrictions on foreign money used? What if you are in a union and disagree? Do you stop paying your dues? Do you risk leaving the union?

Many corporations and unions in this country won't do more advertising than they did through PAC's. They just don't have the profit margin to do it. I imagine shareholders would frown on the expenditure without a specific political goal in mind. This just leaves the wealthiest corporations and unions to run ads until we all stop watching TV in disgust. It also opens the door to bulk ads in the last 30 days that make a false claim without time for rebuttal. Sure you can sue if it's slanderous, but you've already lost the election.

I would suggest that if corporations are entities entitled to free speech they be subject to the same limits that people are. I am a private citizen. I can donate $2400 (last I checked) to a candidate, $5000 to a PAC, and something like $30000 to a party committee (all of these limits at a per election basis). I believe a corporation as an entity should be held to the same limits. Then they have the same amount of free speech potential as I do.

Finally, does this open the door for corporations as entities to bear arms? Will Exxon build its own navy?

I don't know how this will play out in practice yet, but I may find myself watching little TV this summer and fall.

[mookiemookie]

Then you might as well disband the Democratic party, the ACLU, the NAACP, the AARP, Teamsters Union and any other organization that gives their members both an individual and a group say.

And you ignored it before but what's your take on Corporate owned news organizations like MSNBC? What makes them worthy of exemption from your corporate politicking ban?

I don't believe news organizations should be exempt. I guess you forgot when I went off about the Tea Party Protests™ brought to you by Fox News™

[August]

I don't believe news organizations should be exempt. I guess you forgot when I went off about the Tea Party Protests™ brought to you by Fox News™

I thought you didn't like the tea party folks because they oppose the Democrats evil plans for national domination...

[Aramike]

I don't believe news organizations should be exempt. I guess you forgot when I went off about the Tea Party Protests™ brought to you by Fox News™Fine, but what about the New York Times and their endorsements? MSNBC?

The Constitution's 1st Amendment is very clear on this. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say "EXCEPT in the case of elections".

But the fact that you believe that news corporations should also be banned from speech also violates that same amendment.

That 5 justices voted to overturn this law is not disturbing. What scares me is that 4 justices voted against them.

[Aramike]

Giving money is a form of speech, right?Umm, no. I mean, how is giving money any form of speech?

[mookiemookie]

The Constitution's 1st Amendment is very clear on this. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't say "EXCEPT in the case of elections"..

The 1st Amendment applies to people. Corporations are not people and should not be thought of as such.

[mookiemookie]

Umm, no. I mean, how is giving money any form of speech?

Buckley v. Valeo 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)

[August]

The 1st Amendment applies to people. Corporations are not people and should not be thought of as such.

Nothing you just said implies that corporations do not have 1st Amendment rights.

[LobsterBoy]

Umm, no. I mean, how is giving money any form of speech?

Buckley vs. Valeo 1976 Limitations on the amount a campaign can spend (spending limits or caps) are an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the first amendment.

Spending money is protected speech.

The same decision holds that donations can be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

For an opinion that overruled precedents from at least six different decisions, forgive me when I seem surprised that it stopped there.

For those who wish to delve into Citizens United vs. FEC:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[Aramike]

The 1st Amendment applies to people. Corporations are not people and should not be thought of as such.Corporations are merely groups of people.

Like unions. Like media outlets. Like the Daily Kos.

And they are not considered people - corporations have no vote.

Oh, and by the way, where does the Constitution say that the first amendment is restricted in ANY way whatsoever?

In any case, however, you're intent is to restrict the speech of a group of people, ultimately. How is that Constitutional?

[Aramike]

Buckley vs. Valeo 1976 Limitations on the amount a campaign can spend (spending limits or caps) are an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the first amendment.

Spending money is protected speech.

The same decision holds that donations can be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

For an opinion that overruled precedents from at least six different decisions, forgive me when I seem surprised that it stopped there.

For those who wish to delve into Citizens United vs. FEC:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdfGood response. :up:

As such, corporations should be allowed to give directly to candidates, following currently accepted contribution limits.

In any case, the fact that they are NOT currently allowed to do so kinda lends the fail to mookie's argument that they shouldn't be treated equally as citizens. They can't vote. They can't give to campaigns. Citizens can do both.

However, after this ruling they CAN exercise their right to speech, just not in the sense of giving directly to a campaign...

...which means they are now on the same footing as, say, a labor union.

Mookie, please answer this: why do you think it's okay for a union to be able to exercise these rights and not a corporation? Both are merely groups of people...

Please tell me its not just that one side overwhelmingly agrees with your perspective, while the other does not...

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, please answer this: why do you think it's okay for a union to be able to exercise these rights and not a corporation? Both are merely groups of people...

When did I say unions should be treated differently?

I don't care if a corporation is a group of people. It matters not. The individual people each have their right to free speech. They don't get to participate again as a member of a collective group. A corporation IS NOT A PERSON. It is an article on paper, a legal fiction. It is not subject to the obligations of an individual in this country, and thus should not enjoy the benefits.

Don't paint this as "Mookie wants to shut people up he doesn't agree with." That is completely dishonest and lends no credit to your argument. I want to reserve the rights for WE THE PEOPLE of this country. A corporation is NOT A PERSON.

Pragmatically, what good do you think is going to come from giving big business even more say in government? Jefferson saw the problem 200 years ago: “I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

Good lord, these people spent the Bush years twisting the Bill of Rights around so that it didn't apply to people they didn't like. I find it amazing that they now are jumping through hoops to make it apply to non-persons now.

[CaptainHaplo]

As often as he and I disagree - Mookie is correct on this one.

What you have to do is look at the whole REASON for the Bill of Rights - which included the Right to Free Speech. The purpose for the Bill of Rights was to provide specific and clear protections to the rights of the CITIZENRY - the Rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

Current law and SC rulings regarding this Free Speech have ignored its purpose. By extending free speech to entities OTHER than the individual, it has allowed corporations, unions, PAC's and lobbyists to drown out the voice of the citizenry (using money), thus perverting the purpose of the enumerated right.

[LobsterBoy]

As such, corporations should be allowed to give directly to candidates, following currently accepted contribution limits.



I would be okay with that, except that this decision allows direct corporate and union spending on advertising to expressly elect or defeat a named candidate. This is separate from issue advertising. Advertising to expressly elect or defeat a named candidate is essentially a donation to the candidate because they are doing the work of that candidate. This is now unregulated, giving corporations and unions much more say than the voting citizen.

I find such a new potential influx of money into politics disgusting and find it hard to believe that it can be good for this republic.

[Snestorm]

Campaign Contributions should be maxed out at USD 100, and lobbyist "contributions" should be outlawed.

Mookie, I think the word you were searching for to describe corporations and unions is Ficticiouse Entity (en. sp?).

[Aramike]

I would be okay with that, except that this decision allows direct corporate and union spending on advertising to expressly elect or defeat a named candidate. This is separate from issue advertising. Advertising to expressly elect or defeat a named candidate is essentially a donation to the candidate because they are doing the work of that candidate. This is now unregulated, giving corporations and unions much more say than the voting citizen.

I find such a new potential influx of money into politics disgusting and find it hard to believe that it can be good for this republic.Okay, fine - except here's the problem: UNIONS had that right previously; corporations did not.

Now the playing field is leveled.

In any case, I still disagree with your premise. Advertising is just that - spreading a message. Ultimately, it's up to the voter in the booth. No one but the citizen has that right.

In the end, it comes down to a simple dichotomy - either you believe that American voters are stupid and therefore advertising is more important than the electorate itself (as advertising is the primary source of voter information), or you don't. In the case of the former, if you actually believe that, please tell me why you then believe that the electorate is even qualified to choose ANY official for major leadership posts.

My opinion is simple: especially in the era of "one-click-information", anyone or any entity should be entitled free speech as protected in the Constitution. It's worked for decades prior to McCain/Feingold, and should be only more irrelevent a question considering that anything one needs to know is merely a web-address away.

Plain and simply, free speech is not to be abridged. That's what the Constitution says. If you don't believe in that, than why not just ignore voting rights altogether?

Besides, what's to stop individuals outside of corporations from simply banding together to purchase advertising time?

Oh, wait, nothing. They've been doing it for years as 527s.

At least we can now have some accountability.

[UnderseaLcpl]

When did I say unions should be treated differently?

I don't care if a corporation is a group of people. It matters not. The individual people each have their right to free speech. They don't get to participate again as a member of a collective group. A corporation IS NOT A PERSON. It is an article on paper, a legal fiction. It is not subject to the obligations of an individual in this country, and thus should not enjoy the benefits.

Don't paint this as "Mookie wants to shut people up he doesn't agree with." That is completely dishonest and lends no credit to your argument. I want to reserve the rights for WE THE PEOPLE of this country. A corporation is NOT A PERSON.

Pragmatically, what good do you think is going to come from giving big business even more say in government? Jefferson saw the problem 200 years ago: “I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

Good lord, these people spent the Bush years twisting the Bill of Rights around so that it didn't apply to people they didn't like. I find it amazing that they now are jumping through hoops to make it apply to non-persons now.


An excellent argument, mookie, and I tend to agree with you, but this line of resoning will not present a solution or even identify the real problem.
The only point on which I disagree is the idea that people do not get to voice their opinion again as a collective. We have the right to free speech, but we also have the right to assemble. If a bunch of people with the same opinion, no matter what entity they are a part of, collectively use their right to individual free speech there can be no truly constitutional, effective, or even desireable action taken against them.
Trying to prevent corporations or any other kind of common large-scale collective entity from exerting an undue influence upon politics is an excercise in futility. Even if you work around the constitutional barriers to free speech and assembly (which has been done, on more than one occassion), you will still only create an unenforceable system that doesn't fix anything.

I say unenforceable because people will coalesce into voting blocks no matter what you do, and those blocks will usually conform to some kind of pre-defined issue boundary, as I'm sure you're aware. If you cap corporate contributions or otherwise restrict the actions of members that comprise them they will simply take advantage of the aforementioned fact and use it to bypass the system. For example, let's say that EvilCorp International has an agenda that includes domestic drilling, and there is a candidate who supports it, but EvilCorp's campaign contributions have been capped or eliminated altogether. Since it can't contribute directly, it will just contribute indirectly. All manner or corporate literature will be disbursed to employees and the organization will host, fund, and otherwise assist non-corporate entities with the same agenda. Similarly, if it can't provide its own lobbyists it will simply fund lobbyists with similar objectives from non-restricted entites.

In fact, this has already been going on for quite some time now. A good example lies in the AARP, one of the most prevalent and infamous groups of citizens with a common agenda. It also regularly recieves contributions from companies in the medical field. Campaign reform or no, it is still a huge voting block, and a million 1$ contributions still equals a million dollars. And then, of course, we have political parties themselves. If companies can't get direct access to policymakers they will simply shift the party platform.

Even if the laws are made so restricitve that lobbying as we know it disappears alotogether we'd still be handing the advantage to big business because they already have a well-established structure with a vested interest in the survival of the company.

I say that this will not fix anything because to try to seek out and close down all the means by which such an organization could pressure the state is to violate personal freedoms in the process and ultimately fail, anyway. Powerful companies have legions of attorneys and accounting experts whose livleyhood depends upon achieving satisfactory results with the tasks they are assigned. There is no law or set of laws in the world that will stop them from ultimately accomplishing their objectives, unless we resort to an iron-handed state, which will only kill business along with lobbying for a short time before it resurfaces again in a different form.


Even worse, there will be multitudes of small companies crushed underfoot in the process. Small businesses often band together for political representation because they cannot compete with larger companies on their own. Restrictions placed upon large corporations are bound to affect small corporations as well, not only because small corporations are subject to the same laws but because big corporations have more money to spend on workarounds. Small business is vital to controlling the threat of monopoly, and in cases where the state is not involved it has done a remarkably good job, though such cases tend to be in secondary or specialist industries - the big ones have long since co-opted the state.
Most of all, however, the most dangerous thing about thinking that the political influence of big business can be controlled by any reasonable means is that it perverts the market. Reasonable free markets have their problems, to be sure, but they are nothing compared to the kind of damage inflicted when all kinds of state factors are introduced. Companies that can afford to do so will co-opt the state and use it as a means to defeat competitors outside normal market mechanisms. Others will simply move elsewhere. The latter is particularly prevalent in our increasingly globalized society. As transportation and communication grow more efficient the need for proximity to resources or consumners shrinks, and there are always a dozen nations with easily co-optable governments and poor, cheaply-employed populaces for every reasonably prosperous free nation.

Corporations may be legal fictions, mookie, but don't assume that just because of that they are not people; they are made of people and they will act like people. The same goes for governments. To treat either otherwise in the objective sense is to invite catastrophe.

The only way to way to ensure that the power belongs to "we, the people" is to give it to the people..... and no-one else. Each person should have the power to conduct their own affairs, neither hindered nor aided by the state, to paraphrase TJ. The state's responsibilities should be clearly defined, strictly limited, and vigilantly monitored by an armed populace so that it will not be cost-effective to try to manipulate it in any way unless there is a vast majority opinion.

Tylenol and Aspirin may help headaches, but neither kills tumors. While our nation wastes time quarelling over how much money should be spent on campagins or whether elections are fair or not we are ignoring the cause of our consternation; the fact that we have a vulnerable power structure. As long as the state has enough power to attract the ambitious we will never know peace or prosperity for long.