Special interests have NO limits in elections.

Nebula815

That's what the guy is drafting an amendment to do. Limit free speech.

TheStatutoryApe

Why should fictitious persons be allowed free speech?

Ivan Seeking

Wasn't there a recent movie that played with a similar idea? I seem to remember some ads.

Nebula815

Corporations are groups of people. If you say corporations should not be allowed free speech, then the government can justify legislation to control the media companies.

Ivan Seeking

Not everything is entitiled to free speech. That right resides with the people, not the imaginary people. Nor is free speech protected for non-citizens.

Why in the world would you defend this? This is not a free speech issue. Can't you see this opens the door for outrageous levels of foreign interference and manipulation in US elections?

Are you a US citizen?

TheStatutoryApe

And all of those people that belong to the corporation all have always had their individual free speech. So again, why does the fictitious person of the corporation need unlimited free speech? For commercial advertisement? Sure. For the content of their products? Sure. Those things fit neatly into the special case made for the fictitious personality of a corporation. Why free political speech? What does that have to do with running a business?

There are already laws and court decisions regarding the media and what they are and are not allowed to do.
Edit: I am fairly certain that the media is not allowed to run private political campaigns.

TheStatutoryApe

Yeah. I have no idea what that movie was though or what exactly the premise was. I think it may have been about a reality tv star that got a write in nomination for president or something along those lines. I'll have to look it up and watch it before I get writing.

Ivan Seeking

And each citizen already has a voice. Why should they get two? Why are members of a corporation entitled to more free speech than I am? Also, lets get real, the corporation really represents the voices of an elite few, not the entire company.

I think you are correct about the media. Political propoganda now passes as news. There comes a point where the political media should be limited by campaign laws. Whether it be Fox, or MSNBC, [I watch neither], or hate radio, they should be required to identify themselves as a political organization and state their affiliations. For example, this show is funded by Kensi motors which supports the following candidates...

The point is, if they are really a political organization, then they are required to represent themselves as such. Democracy cannot exist in a world of uncontrolled disinformation. At some point EVERYONE is liable for their claims. That is an unavoidable consequence of the right to free speech.

For example, I have the right to say that you committed a crime; say, you broke into my house, and put it on TV. Consequentially, you have the right to sue me. Would you deny my right to free speech and sue me?

drankin

Two? That's funny. The right of free speech is not a quantity of speech. LOL!

Nebula815

Corporations are made up of people.

It is absolutely a free speech issue. The First Amendment states: 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.

One might say the First Amendment says specifically that government cannot censor the press. Well what constitutes the "press?" Are people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or whatnot members of the "press?" They are not journalists. Limbaugh most certainly isn't press. But he is part of a corporation that one could argue, through him, is using its money to make political speech. Which means the government could at some point find a way to shut people like that up.

I don't think so. All it does is opens the way for spending on commercials by corporations and other organizations. And as said, foreign interference already occurs in governance immensely at the lobbying level. If we are concerned about foreign ownership of American corporations, then we need to perhaps do something about that, although specifically I am not sure what.

Yes.

WHA!? Free speech isn't like a vote. So if say there was as yet no Fox News, and I was the one who started it, but then I also became an author of many books, and I also operate a blog, do I have three "voices" by your definition? What happens if I also use my newfound wealth to found a policy think-tank?

There is nothing to stop yourself and other like-minded people from pooling your resources to create organizations to create political commercials as well.

It isn't all political propaganda though. Sure some of it can be, many other times it is legitimate discussion about important issues. IMO, any government control over such discussion is dangerous.

Also, this SCOTUS ruling did not strike down the provision of campaign-finance that requires all political commercials to state/show who is funding them.

Who decides exactly what constitutes disinformation?

TheStatutoryApe

And as pointed out already none of those individuals ever had their freedom of speech restricted, it was only the fictitious personality of the corporation. Why do you keep dodging this? Fact: Nothing about this court decision has any bearing what so ever on the freedom of speech of Real People.

Nebula815

Yes it does. With the law in place, unions and corporations could not publish certain books, Amazon Kindle could not distribute books, Barnes & Noble could not sell books, etc...advocating positions for or against candidates.

Also, because regular people band together to pool their resources via non-profit corporations. This law restricted all corporations, non-profit to profit, and unions, and other groups from political speech. Corporations are entitled to the same right as individuals to spend money on political speech for or against a candidate.

TheStatutoryApe

I think that the companies you mentioned published/distributed plenty of books that advocated certain political positions and ideologies. Books authored by individuals. They have been doing it. The court decision changes what can and can not be done. A decision the other way would not have changed anything. And any people can easily band together and use their money to endorse or oppose candidates. Corporations and unions are not necessary for that purpose. Why would they need to create a corporation or union for such a purpose?

Nebula815

Yes, I worded it wrong: it was that the government had the ability to prevent the distribution and publication and selling of certain books and so forth:

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

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010...-no-law/print/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...cain-feingold/

People might form a non-profit corporation if they want to finance political speeches, varying from political movies advocating positions and candidates, or to pay for commercials. There are different organizations formed to advocate specific policies as well, ranging from healthcare to climate change to arms (NRA).

Unions and for-profit corporations may publish works or want to finance commercials as well.

Al68

How is it relevant why they felt such need? The issue is whether government should be able to suppress speech using those means, not whether or not people have a "right" to engage in speech using those means.I also don't think government should restrict what a newspaper can print. Does that mean I must think a newspaper is a person with rights? Of course not.

Despite the representation made by some, this SCOTUS decision was not based on whether or not a corporation is a person, or whether or not a corporation has any rights.

From some posts in this thread, you would think that SCOTUS ruled that government was perfectly free to suppress political speech as long as the speaker wasn't a "person with rights", then ruled that a corporation was a "person with rights" and therefore exempted. That's not what happened. SCOTUS ruled that the suppression was unconstitutional regardless of whether or not the "speaker" has any rights.

Al68

This is just plain false. SCOTUS specifically said that the "status" of the speaker was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not government could suppress political speech. It wasn't just the rights of the "speaker" that were violated by this law. It was the rights of the "listeners" that were violated, as well as the constitutional limits on government use of force.

The first amendment isn't just about the personal liberty of those who engage in political speech, it's about the right of the public to hear it.

Do you really think freedom of the press is only about the personal "rights" of newspaper owners? (corporations in many cases, BTW). Believe it or not, our founding fathers didn't put that in because of their intense love and concern for the "rights" of companies that owned printing presses.

TheStatutoryApe

The corporation is a special case. It, as a corporation, is given the rights that it has as a special legal fiction to resolve certain legal issues of the manner in which such an organization operates. The corporation has no rights under the constitution, only so far as laws regarding corporations give them rights. They are not assumed to have all rights afforded any person, you must rationalize and argue the reason why the law should allow it in the case of this class of fictitious persons.

The issue is that a corporation is in fact considered a "legal person". That is what creates this issue. If it were not for that there would be no issue. Regardless of how the court made its decision the fact remains that they have given the right of free political speech to fictitious persons in their decision.



Edit: The scary thing is I looked more into this and found that corporations apparently never were denied political speech completely. In fact the only restriction was on distributing politically sensitive material regarding candidates currently running for office "within the final days of the election". So they apparently already had the power to campaign for or against particular candidates and this case was specific to maintaining/removing the restriction that appears designed to prevent them from last minute actions made in an attempt to swing elections.

Sad.